[client com] Instructions to Sidley

Fri Jun 5 01:09:02 UTC 2015

Hi Sharon, 
I don¹t think anything is needed for that comment. It was an old note.
An updated punch list has not been circulated since the high intensity
meetings. Marika and I have one in the works, and we¹ll try to get it out
tomorrow. Thank you for the reminder,
Grace

From:  <Flanagan>, Sharon Flanagan <sflanagan at sidley.com>
Date:  Wednesday, June 3, 2015 at 7:53 PM
To:  Client Committee <cwg-client at icann.org>
Subject:  Re: [client com] Instructions to Sidley

Hi All,

We note the comment to Sidley in the draft proposal as paragraph 177 (page
36).  Could you clarify what is needed from us on this ?

01                 The CWG-Stewardship proposal surrounds PTI with an
accountability framework that strengthens fulfillment of the NTIA
requirements (see Section V). This framework includes the CSC, the IFR, the
Special IFR, and the enhanced customer complaint and escalation mechanisms.
[GA1] <#_msocom_1> 

Also, Grace and Brenda  Could you please forward the latest version of the
punch list to us? 

Thanks
Sharon

SHARON FLANAGAN
Partner

Sidley Austin LLP
+1.415.772.1271
sflanagan at sidley.com

From: cwg-client-bounces at icann.org [mailto:cwg-client-bounces at icann.org] On
Behalf Of Greg Shatan
Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2015 1:58 PM
To: Lise Fuhr
Cc: Client
Subject: Re: [client com] Instructions to Sidley

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 CWG¹s requirements in order to finish the proposal

2.      The CWG¹s requirements to support the proposal in B.A.

3.      The CWG¹s 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 I¹ll concentrate on that here.

N.B. Our current plan is to have the final reading of the proposal in
tomorrow¹s 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 Sidley¹s
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 tomorrow¹s 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
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_l
istinfo_cwg-2Dclient&d=AwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=M3rwsTyNMTsSrNjjl2w
pjY1sQALn2rPpcxAK31O8xYk&m=MRnBeA-PxCxI4MakRPvP8tRwLkekKYEFzSqLW10mUa4&s=Ebz
MJKSKTPPrigIZDH6YWtave-fEsxtR6V9y8uSG-QU&e=>

 [GA1] <#_msoanchor_1> Section on PTI may be elaborated through Sidley memos
from 13 May 

****************************************************************************
************************
This e-mail is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is
privileged or confidential.
If you are not the intended recipient, please delete the e-mail and any
attachments and notify us
immediately.

****************************************************************************
************************

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-client/attachments/20150605/711383ff/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 5108 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-client/attachments/20150605/711383ff/smime-0001.p7s>