[client com] Fwd: [CWG-Stewardship] Sidley Austin LLP

Tue Mar 10 15:23:38 UTC 2015

Here is a response to my response.
---------- Forwarded messahttps://
www.icann.org/public-comments/ird-draft-final-2015-03-09-ge ----------
From: John Poole <jp1 at expri.com>
Date: Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 8:38 PM
Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Sidley Austin LLP
To: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
Cc: Jonathan Robinson <jonathan.robinson at ipracon.com>, "
cwg-stewardship at icann.org" <cwg-stewardship at icann.org>, Jonathan Robinson <
jrobinson at afilias.info>

Greg:
My email was addressed to Jonathan, co-chair, not you. I made no specific
comments about you and I will disregard the ad hominem attacks you just
made on me. I am well aware of your contributions and work on behalf of
CWG-Stewardship. Nonetheless, I stand by my previous email. After you calm
down, however, I would also appreciate your responses to questions raised
in my previous email and also raised by your angry diatribe--when did you
first become aware that ICANN would be the client? Why did you not disclose
that to CWG-Stewardship until now?  You say I am wrong--do you acknowledge
that Austin Sidley does NOT owe CWG-Stewardship the duties it would to a
client under the California Code of Professional Responsibility? On what
basis under California law do you maintain that CWG-Stewardship cannot be
the client? This is the first time I have heard you issue that opinion--why
did you not inform CWG-Stewardship of your opinion on this earlier? You say
"These very issues were raised and discussed" --where? when? Why wasn't
CWG-Stewardship informed before now? Did you really think it was of no
importance to disclose to CWG-Stewardship that ICANN would be the client? I
find that hard to believe. I never said Austin Sidley is not a fine
firm--on the contrary, I have already said they are eminently
well-qualified. But if Austin Sidley is rendering advice to a non-client,
instead of a client, I believe that raises issues, and ramifications, that
needed to be fully, and timely, disclosed to CWG-Stewardship. -- John Poole

On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 6:30 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com> wrote:

> John,
>
> The CWG is not a legal entity, and therefore cannot engage ICANN for legal
> services (or for that matter enter into any contract with anybody for
> anything).  You've read the letter -- it says Sidley is
>
> "to take direction exclusively from and provide advice and consultation
> exclusively to the Cross-Community Working Group on the IANA Stewardship
> Transition Proposal on Naming Related Functions (“CWG”), primarily through
> the CWG’s Client Committee (the “Client Committee”)."
>
> Furthermore, the letter states:
>
> "For the avoidance of doubt, ICANN will have no rights or input as a
> client to direct or affect the advice and consultation with the CWG."
>
> Let me make plain to everyone -- John is wrong.  I am also fully aware of
> the ethical rules that apply in this instance.  These very issues were
> raised and discussed and I am utterly confident that we will get the
> independent advice we sought.  Sidley Austin is fully aware of the emphasis
> on "independent" legal advice and I am also confident they would not have
> taken this representation if they thought that they could not deliver on
> that.
>
> Furthermore I find these accusations incorrect, baseless and bordering on
> scurrilous and troll-like behavior.
>
> Let me make another thing plain.  I am a volunteer.  Nobody is paying me
> to do any of this.  I can easily choose to devote my time to other things.
> I will devote my time to the IANA transition.  I will not devote my time to
> having my character and professional integrity impugned.
>
> I worked damned hard and in utter good faith to get this CWG first-rate
> legal advice, and so did the rest of the client committee.  It's depressing
> and infuriating to have to cope with this in response.  I guess no good
> deed goes unpunished.  But I am not a glutton for punishment.
>
> Greg
>
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 6:55 PM, John Poole <jp1 at expri.com> wrote:
>
>> Jonathan:
>> I find this very troubling. ICANN is the client. Specifically,
>> CWG-Stewardship is NOT the client, so what good is Sidley Austin's advice?
>> Sidley Austin owes CWG-Stewardship none of the duties required of attorneys
>> to clients under the California Code of Professional Responsibility. This
>> is not what I understood CWG-Stewardship was getting, and I feel
>> CWG-Stewardship has been intentionally misled. For all intents and
>> purposes, ICANN could have made the same arrangements with Jones Day as
>> they did with Sidley Austin, and saved us the time and trouble. Has anyone
>> on the Client Committee reviewed independently the California Code of
>> Professional Conduct and sought the opinion of a qualified non-interested
>> California Attorney before agreeing to this? There are serious
>> ramifications as to who is the named "client"--including the duty of
>> loyalty--of which ICANN legal staff and Sidley Austin are fully aware. When
>> did the Client Committee agree that the client for our "independent legal
>> counsel" would be ICANN? Why was that not disclosed until now to all
>> members and participants of CWG-Stewardship? Jonathan, is this what you
>> mean by "good faith?" Let me make this plain for everyone--what the Client
>> Committee has obtained is "ICANN outside Legal Counsel" for our use, but
>> NOT Independent Legal Counsel--"Independent" means "independent of ICANN."
>> Now I understand why ICANN legal staff and Jones Day have been intimately
>> involved in the Client Committee process while members and participants of
>> CWG-Stewardship were intentionally kept in the dark. This is not "good
>> faith"--this reeks of "bad faith." -- John Poole
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 4:16 PM, Jonathan Robinson <
>> jonathan.robinson at ipracon.com> wrote:
>>
>>> All,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> You may find the attached a more easily digestible summary of key terms.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Jonathan
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From:* Jonathan Robinson [mailto:jrobinson at afilias.info]
>>> *Sent:* 09 March 2015 21:06
>>> *To:* cwg-stewardship at icann.org
>>> *Subject:* RE: Sidley Austin LLP
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> All,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Please see attached for the executed engagement letter with Sidley
>>> Austin.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Jonathan
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From:* Jonathan Robinson [mailto:jrobinson at afilias.info
>>> <jrobinson at afilias.info>]
>>> *Sent:* 08 March 2015 21:46
>>> *To:* cwg-stewardship at icann.org
>>> *Subject:* Sidley Austin LLP
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Dear All,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> As of Friday 6 March, the CWG-Stewardship has engaged Sidley Austin LLP
>>> to advise and consult on the CWG’s development of a transition proposal.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> In the past two weeks, the Client Committee shortlisted three firms,
>>> interviewed each of them, and retained one. We chose to retain Sidley
>>> primarily because they envisaged the engagement as consultation rather than
>>> pure advice. In addition, Sidley presented a strong governance focus as
>>> well as specific experience with the U.S. political environment (including
>>> a former Congressman and a former Department of Commerce appointee).
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Sidley is aware of the CWG’s tight timeframe and accepts the requirement
>>> for highly transparent work methods. Also, the client relationship has been
>>> clearly defined and emphasized in the retention letter in that *ICANN
>>> has instructed Sidley to take direction exclusively from and provide advice
>>> and consultation exclusively to the CWG, primarily through the CWG’s Client
>>> Committee*.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Sidley has no previous client relationship with ICANN. No conflicts were
>>> identified, however please note that Greg Shatan and Holly Gregory from
>>> Sidley worked at the same firm over a decade ago.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The Client Committee will meet with Sidley Austin on Monday. This call
>>> will be recorded and transcribed and we will then provide an update to the
>>> CWG on Tuesday’s call, where we also plan to introduce the Sidley team to
>>> the CWG.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Best wishes,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Jonathan & Lise
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
>>> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
>> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-client/attachments/20150310/3d5d95f9/attachment-0001.html>