[client com] Preparation for Istanbul

[Greg Shatan]

[cc'ing Client Committee list]

Holly,

Thank you for the update.  We are looking forward to receiving the
discussion draft of responses to the 12 questions (and related
subquestions).

We think that the proposed discussion topic and approach for Istanbul makes
good sense.  It is important for you and your team to continue gaining
further insight into the issues and viewpoints driving the CWG.  At the
same time, it is important for us to have you reorganize and refine the
priorities for a successful proposal, both at the macro level and at the
level of individual processes, mechanisms and structures.

We also expect that a discussion of Sidley's responses to the 12 questions
will be a necessary and important part of the Istanbul meeting.  I'm sure
that a dialogue on certain points will be very important to understanding
the responses and using them to further our work.

In terms of logistics, do you expect that you or any of your colleagues
will be on tomorrow morning's CWG call from 7-9 am EDT?  Please let us know.

We look forward to hearing from you.

Greg



On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 10:39 AM, Gregory, Holly <holly.gregory at sidley.com>
wrote:

>
>
> Jonathan, Lise, Maarten and Greg,
>
>
>
> We have made good progress over the weekend in addressing the 12 questions
> posed in the scoping document and hope to be able to provide it to you as a
> discussion draft  prior to our Thursday call.  We also have discussed
> internally and would like to discuss with you a potential discussion
> topic/approach  for Istanbul:
>
>
>
> Based on what we have learned to date by reviewing the external and
> internal proposals, digesting related materials  and participating in
> diligence conversations with you, we are extracting and  outlining for
> ourselves the high level principles, considerations and concerns that it
> appears are priority items with the CWG  for any successful proposal to
> address.   This of course begins with the CWG requirements that have been
> concisely articulated in the scoping document,  with due consideration to
> the NTIA requirements as well.  What we are seeking to understand is
> whether in the course of CWG’s discussions of alternative proposals to date
> additional considerations and concerns have emerged that are expressed to
> some degree in the current proposals and the questions posed related to
> those proposals  – for example, the concern about “capture.”
>
>
>
> We propose that we have a discussion in Istanbul of the priority items
> that  any successful proposal should  accomplish, address and avoid.
>   This will be in the nature of a review for the CWG but we think it will
> help move the project forward for us by providing insights into the issues
> and viewpoints that underlie the current proposals.  It will afford an
> opportunity to test and strengthen our understanding of the CWG’s
> priorities and criteria and better position us to help the CWG consider
> how to amend and focus the current proposals as well as advise on potential
> alternatives.
>
>
>
> We look forward to your reaction.
>
>
>
> *HOLLY J. GREGORY*
> Partner
>
> *Sidley Austin LLP*
> +1.212.839.5853
> holly.gregory at sidley.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ****************************************************************************************************
> 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/20150318/2caf4449/attachment.html>