[Acct-Legal] Let's kick off!

Tue Feb 3 17:39:14 UTC 2015

Thanks Greg.

I should also note my cell phone is US based – 571-299-8624.

As we think about the California non-profit element of legal advice, it might be good to keep in mind one aspect of accountability that we have not much focused on yet in the group but that will be important – document review (discovery in US legal parlance).

ICANN will need to have a more reasonable document review policy to complement the IRP or other review panel mechanism. In some reconsideration requests that I have read it almost becomes circular for a claimant – ICANN almost demands identification of a document to share it but the claimant can’t identify it without getting a chance to review documents. ICANN is likely concerned about the near-ruinous US discovery practice that is used as a weapon but some reasonable discovery process should be put in place – should be worthwhile asking if a California non-profit can open itself to such review absent a court order.

David McAuley

From: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2015 11:00 AM
To: McAuley, David
Cc: León Felipe Sánchez Ambía; ccwg-accountability5 at icann.org
Subject: Re: [Acct-Legal] Let's kick off!

All:

I look forward to seeing you all in Singapore and working with you on engaging legal counsel for both the CWG and the CCWG.  Here is the latest version of the CWG "scoping document."  Fundamentally, we (the CWG "client committee") are viewing this as primarily a corporate governance project, with additional critical requirements in the non-profit and trust legal areas, and with expertise in California law in these areas also a requirement.  In our case (particularly with reference to the "Contract Co." model), it is also requires corporate structuring and corporate formation expertise (which should not be a problem with any corporate law firm); this may not be as critical for the CCWG.

I am arriving early Friday and leaving very early Friday. In addition to email, my mobile is +1-917-816-6428 and my Skype is gsshatan.

Best regards,

Greg

On Tue, Feb 3, 2015 at 8:25 AM, McAuley, David <dmcauley at verisign.com<mailto:dmcauley at verisign.com>> wrote:
Hi Leon, legal team

I hope to get a chance to meet you all in person in Singapore - plan to arrive late Saturday and leave late Friday.

Let's try to get some time together

Cheers,

David McAuley

-----Original Message-----
From: McAuley, David
Sent: Sunday, February 01, 2015 1:53 PM
To: 'León Felipe Sánchez Ambía'; ccwg-accountability5 at icann.org<mailto:ccwg-accountability5 at icann.org>
Subject: RE: [Acct-Legal] Let's kick off!

Dear CCWG Accountability legal questions subgroup,

Greetings.

I attended the Frankfurt F2F remotely and so I may have missed a bit of the discussion about our group – especially during the breaks.

I wanted to note my plan to be at ICANN52 in Singapore and have on my schedule all four of our CCWG meetings (that includes the somewhat informal Sunday late-afternoon get together).

Here are my initial thoughts on the document Leon and Grace kindly sent around.

The CWG’s “Issues for Independent Legal Advice” document raises certain questions/issues we might discuss:

1.      Should we not coordinate our efforts along the independent legal advice line with the CWG? I would say yes. The need for a unified advice string seems important. If we were to get advice that contradicts that of the CWG it could complicate/delay things.

2.      That includes the process of identifying counsel of course and we should confirm among ourselves how we work with CWG legal group.

3.      It seems to me that the need for this advice will continue through the transition process rather than be a one-time set of questions and answers – as things change in the proposal preparation process. Do others see things this way?

4.      The CWG’s document is very thoughtful:

a.      The context-setting on first page and a half seems fine. “The CWG’s Responsibilities” is also fine – we should add a section about our responsibilities along the way and here I would be happy to help but probably not begin the process given what was probably missed by not being present in Frankfurt.

b.      Where CWG explains external and internal solutions we might explain WS1 and WS2 and the critical need (under California non-profit law) for WS1 efforts to be in place or to be committed in a timely manner that is guaranteed to be enforceable. There must be no wiggle-room on timely enforceability in California courts of those measures that were committed to (if not in place in a reasonable time) and so we might check with counsel that this is achievable, what it might take for standing to press the issue, and what timeliness might mean in this context – must there be explicit schedules in the “firmly committed” area?

c.      We might also explore the concept of stress-testing with outside counsel although I suspect this is less critical inasmuch as we assume (I think) that this stress testing will be done before a transition could occur. But it might be prudent to bring up this notion of stress testing just to check that we are not overlooking something – thoughts?

d.      And we will want to confirm that a Cal. non-profit as constituted post-transition will be able to enter into an arrangement under which it will be subject to external review of questions of substance and process where enforceable binding decisions can be rendered.

I will start drawing up proposed questions for us to consider and look forward to yours.

David McAuley

-----Original Message-----
From: ccwg-accountability5-bounces at icann.org<mailto:ccwg-accountability5-bounces at icann.org> [mailto:ccwg-accountability5-bounces at icann.org<mailto:ccwg-accountability5-bounces at icann.org>] On Behalf Of León Felipe Sánchez Ambía
Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2015 10:12 AM
To: ccwg-accountability5 at icann.org<mailto:ccwg-accountability5 at icann.org>
Subject: [Acct-Legal] Let's kick off!

Hello everyone,

Yesterday I circulated the (so far) last version of the scoping document drafted by the CWG. That could be a starting point for our scoping exercise as well but I would also like to kick the brainstorming from our side too.

I liked the alternative suggested by Robin in the mailing list and I think we should definitely take a deeper look into that.

Just to help us focus on the work we will be delivering I would like to emphasize that while looking at the “what do we need?” our final document should reflect the questions on “how can we…?” from a legal perspective.

Jonathan Zuck also sent an email to the general list with interesting points. That could also help us feed our discussion.

All thoughts and ideas welcome!

Best regards,

León
_______________________________________________
Ccwg-accountability5 mailing list
Ccwg-accountability5 at icann.org<mailto:Ccwg-accountability5 at icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-accountability5
_______________________________________________
Ccwg-accountability5 mailing list
Ccwg-accountability5 at icann.org<mailto:Ccwg-accountability5 at icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-accountability5

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ccwg-accountability5/attachments/20150203/bf9402be/attachment.html>