[client com] Instructions to Sidley

[Greg Shatan]

Jonathan,

That makes sense to me as well.  I'm not sure that (A) (language of
conditionality) is truly "legal" but I think they are well placed to
provide it.  I think we will also need Sidley to provide the voice of
reason and reasoned/expert legal interpretation to help keep us from
driving into the weeds or in reverse as some folks just won't let go of
dearly-held beliefs and concerns despite the lack of a legal or factual
basis.  This will be necessary on tomorrow's call (but hopefully, not too
necessary).

As for #2, Grace has now circulated all of the ICG/CWG/CCWG meetings in one
handy email.  From our POV, I expect that we would like Holly and/or Sharon
(but preferably "and") at all the CWG meetings and at the Sunday info
session, and I expect the Public Forum will deal with "us" as well.  We
need to figure out if they should prepare anything more than just being
prepared to field questions as they come.  Will they be presenting anything
at any of our sessions?

Greg

On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 4:29 PM, Lise Fuhr <lise.fuhr at difo.dk> wrote:

> Hi All,
>
> I can confirm the understanding.
>
> Best,
>
> Lise
>
>
>
> *Fra:* cwg-client-bounces at icann.org [mailto:cwg-client-bounces at icann.org] *På
> vegne af *Jonathan Robinson
> *Sendt:* 3. juni 2015 17:22
> *Til:* Client
> *Emne:* [client com] Instructions to Sidley
> *Prioritet:* Høj
>
>
>
> All,
>
>
>
> Following discussions within the CWG last week, and again yesterday, it
> seems essential that we communicate effectively with Sidley in three areas:
>
>
>
> 1.       The CWG’s requirements in order to finish the proposal
>
> 2.       The CWG’s requirements to support the proposal in B.A.
>
> 3.       The CWG’s potential requirements post B.A. and/or with
> implementation
>
>
>
> Arguably, the current scope of work deals with 1 & 2 above and we have not
> yet properly scoped or discussed 3.
>
> Of 1 & 2 above, 1 is clearly most urgent so I’ll concentrate on that here.
>
>
>
> *N.B. Our current plan is to have the final reading of the proposal in
> tomorrow’s CWG meeting*
>
>
>
> It is my understanding that we need to secure the following from Sidley in
> advance of concluding the final proposal for send-off next week.
>
>
>
> A.      A form of language which effectively captures the conditional
> nature of the proposal i.e. that the proposal is valid if and only if
> adequate accountability mechanisms
> (as currently contemplated by the CWG in conjunction with the CCWG) are in
> place at the time of the transition (or failing that or irrevocably
> committed to being in place within a defined and agreed timeframe).
>
> B.      A confirmation around the use (or not) of the ICANN bylaws
> (golden?) as described in the CWG proposal in order to capture the
> necessary components of the CWG proposal that need to be enshrined in the
> ICANN bylaws
>
> C.      A confirmation that the final proposal is consistent with
> Sidley’s advice given to date and, to the extent that it is not, what
> changes are required.
>
>
>
> Please can you confirm this understanding as soon as possible in order
> that this position and associated instructions can be communicated to
> Sidley as soon as possible.
>
>
>
> Given that I believe tomorrow’s scheduled Client Committee meeting is
> leaving it too late, I have taken the opportunity to directly communicate
> this draft scope of final instructions (A-C above) to Holly & Sharon so
> that they are on notice that we are working it up.
>
>
>
> Thank-you for your prompt attention to this.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Jonathan
>
> _______________________________________________
> Cwg-client mailing list
> Cwg-client at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-client
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-client/attachments/20150603/35275fac/attachment-0001.html>