[CWG-Stewardship] Client Committee Update

Wed Feb 25 14:55:04 UTC 2015

Jonathan,

As I am sure you are aware, it is vitally important that every aspect of
this transition process is seen to be done as openly and as transparently
as possible.

The two chairs decided to step outside what have been the norms of this
process - open groups, mailing lists and minuted discussions - in what is
one of the most important aspects of this whole process: the selection of
an independent legal expert.

The reason given for that significant change in approach - and the reason
accepted by this group - was expediency: the ability to quickly choose a
third party.

That claimed benefit, and the reasons for the trade-off in openness and
transparency, has not happened as you yourself acknowledge.

At this point, it should have been clear to the committee that it needed to
re-engender the trust put into it by the community by being as open and
informative as possible.

As you can see from numerous posts to this thread, the update that was
provided falls far short of what we would expect to see from a closed door
process.

Now this is not to apportion blame - we are all extremely well aware of the
enormous workload this group and the chairs in particular are under.

But "trust" - which is the remaining reason you provide for continuing to
run a out-of-step process - is not something built up that can then be
spent on bypassing procedural norms or failing to provide sufficient
information. Trust in this context comes from you and the other members of
the committee recognizing people's concerns and taking concrete steps to
address them.

Now I have asked to join the committee and I am willing to bring my skills
of quick, concise and accurate communication to fill the gap between
running a closed process and keeping people informed and confident that the
committee is working in the best overall interests of the group.

I would hope you will accept this offer, also given in good faith, or else
give a very good reason why not.

As to confidentiality, that is an obvious and very simple issue to tackle.
Although I would expect to see clear communication explaining why it is
necessary to keep some details confidential and to outline in broad what
details those are. That, I would argue, is how to best create trust in this
unusual process.

Kieren

On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 1:09 AM, Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson at afilias.info>
wrote:

> Thanks Seun and others before you on this thread.
>
>
>
> We set up this client committee around a month ago comprising the two
> co-chairs plus two lawyers, one from cc community (Maarten), one from g
> community (Greg).
>
> The group is performing an unusual function and in defining the
> composition of the committee we sought to balance a number of factors
> including effectiveness of the group, expertise of the participants etc.
>
>
>
> A couple of key points emerge:
>
>
>
> 1.       This could be done faster. Noted and we share your impatience.
> There has been commitment to the work and it has simply taken some time to
> identify qualified firms, remove those with conflicts and then produce the
> short-list.
>
> 2.       This could be more transparent. Noted and I’m sure we can
> improve here.
> There is an element of confidentiality in the selection process as was
> highlighted earlier in the thread.
>
>
>
> Suggestions remain welcome at any time and both points above are clear but
> please note, and as highlighted by Olivier, a degree of trust is required
> here. We are working hard and in good faith.
>
>
>
>
>
> Jonathan
>
>
>
> *From:* Seun Ojedeji [mailto:seun.ojedeji at gmail.com]
> *Sent:* 25 February 2015 06:00
> *To:* Kurt Pritz
> *Cc:* cwg-stewardship at icann.org
>
> *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Client Committee Update
>
>
>
> The way I understand it is that the 4 team members are volunteering
> (!paid), so I guess that payment part is mute. I think at this point, there
> is no need to increase the number, unless the client committee formerly
> indicate of their need for more people. What is just required is for the
> committee to document their activities transparently so we can follow them
> as I believe those will form part of the RFP response (rfp6 I think?- the
> one about community engagement)
>
> Cheers!
> sent from Google nexus 4
> kindly excuse brevity and typos.
>
> On 25 Feb 2015 06:36, "Kurt Pritz" <kpritz at thedna.org> wrote:
>
> Why not make Kieren the rapporteur? That would add transparency, take the
> reporting load off of the other participants, and he is a professional. He
> could be paid a fee by ICANN.
>
>
>
> Kurt
>
>
>
>
>
> On Feb 24, 2015, at 7:43 AM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
>
>
>
> hi,
>
> And for balance, if we add another non lawyer, perhaps we then also need
> to add another lawyer.
>
> Personally i never understood before that it takes this long to find legal
> advice.
>
> avri
>
> On 25-Feb-15 12:22, Milton L Mueller wrote:
>
> Yes, maybe we could cool down some of the concerns if you just added
> Kieren and one other independent to it.
>
> (I am NOT volunteering!)
>
> --MM
>
>
>
> *From:* cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org [
> mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org
> <cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Kieren McCarthy
> *Sent:* Tuesday, February 24, 2015 6:56 PM
> *To:* Gomes, Chuck
> *Cc:* cwg-stewardship at icann.org Stewardship
> *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Client Committee Update
>
>
>
> > How do we balance functionality and timely efficiency with allowing full
> openness to all?
>
>
>
>
>
> I don't see many others asking to join this committee so I'm not sure this
> question is valid.
>
>
>
> What I would be more concerned about is if the first proper decision made
> by this group is done within a small group that refused to allows others
> in, even when asked.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Kieren
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 10:31 AM, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes at verisign.com>
> wrote:
>
> Kieren,
>
>
>
> How do we balance functionality and timely efficiency with allowing full
> openness to all?
>
>
>
> Chuck
>
>
>
>
>
> Sent via the Samsung GALAXY S® 5, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone
>
>
>
> -------- Original message --------
> From: Kieren McCarthy <kierenmccarthy at gmail.com>
> Date:02/24/2015 1:24 PM (GMT-05:00)
> To: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes at verisign.com>
>
> Cc: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>, "cwg-stewardship at icann.org
> Stewardship" <cwg-stewardship at icann.org>
> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Client Committee Update
>
> So far with this transition process, every group has been open to all
> those who wish to join with an expectation of participation.
>
>
>
> I would expect those same rules to apply here.
>
>
>
> It strikes me that it would set a dangerous precedent if the chairs are
> allowed to create a closed group at any time.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Kieren
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 10:19 AM, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes at verisign.com>
> wrote:
>
> In my opinion, as soon as we open this up to others it will become too
> large to be effective in what I believe will need to be an interactive
> process with the legal team selected. I personally favor keeping it as is
> and require transparency and regular interaction by the 4 members with the
> CWG.
>
>
>
> Chuck
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Sent via the Samsung GALAXY S® 5, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone
>
>
>
> -------- Original message --------
> From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
> Date:02/24/2015 1:01 PM (GMT-05:00)
> To: Kieren McCarthy <kierenmccarthy at gmail.com>
> Cc: "cwg-stewardship at icann.org Stewardship" <cwg-stewardship at icann.org>
> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Client Committee Update
>
> I will leave this to our CWG chairs, who convened the committee.  I am
> just a humble servant.
>
>
>
> Greg
>
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 12:12 PM, Kieren McCarthy <
> kierenmccarthy at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I'd be interested in joining this group, help contribute.
>
>
>
> Can you advise how I join?
>
>
>
>
>
> Kieren
>
>
> -
> [sent through phone]
>
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 8:06 AM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> The client committee is myself, Maarten Simon, Jonathan Robinson and Lise
> Fuhr.
>
>
>
> Greg Shatan
>
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 10:04 AM, CW Lists <lists at christopherwilkinson.eu>
> wrote:
>
> Who are the members of the Client Committee?
>
>
>
> CW
>
>
>
>
>
> On 24 Feb 2015, at 06:33, Kieren McCarthy <kierenmccarthy at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> Can I assume you will be posting the three remaining law firms responses
> to this list, albeit with identifying information removed?
>
>
>
> Kieren
>
>
> -
> [sent through phone]
>
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 12:00 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> All:
>
>
>
> I write to update you all on the activities of the Client Committee.
>
>
>
> The Client Committee met on Friday, February 20.  Also attending were
> representatives of ICANN legal, since they will need to play a role in the
> selection and engagement of counsel.
>
>
>
> We had initially identified a total of eight firms. Each firm has
> appropriate expertise in corporate governance, non-profit matters, trusts,
> etc.  Each firm also has a strong California presence, as well as other
> offices in the US and other countries.
>
>
>
> One firm has withdrawn due to workload issues.  Four firms have withdrawn
> due to client conflicts
>
>
>
> We are left with a short list of three firms.  Each of these firms has now
> sent us a document discussing their relevant capabilities.  At least one
> member of the client committee has had a preliminary discussion with each
> firm.  We are now in the process of setting up a series of follow-up calls
> for this week between the Client Committee and each firm.
>
>
>
> While we would like to reveal the names of the firms remaining on the
> short list, at this point, it is premature to do so.  We will need to ask
> each firm permission to identify it to this group.  We will discuss this
> with them during our calls this week.
>
>
>
> We will keep the CWG updated on our progress.
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
>
>
>
>
> Greg Shatan
>
> for the Client Committee
>
>
>
>
>
> *Gregory S. Shatan ï Abelman Frayne & Schwab*
>
> *Partner | IP | Technology | Media | Internet*
>
> *666 Third Avenue | New York, NY 10017-5621*
>
> *Direct*  212-885-9253 *| Main* 212-949-9022
>
> *Fax*  212-949-9190 *|* *Cell *917-816-6428
>
> *gsshatan at lawabel.com <gsshatan at lawabel.com>*
>
> *ICANN-related: gregshatanipc at gmail.com <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>*
>
> *www.lawabel.com <http://www.lawabel.com/>*
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> *Gregory S. Shatan ï Abelman Frayne & Schwab*
>
> *Partner | IP | Technology | Media | Internet*
>
> *666 Third Avenue | New York, NY 10017-5621*
>
> *Direct*  212-885-9253 *| Main* 212-949-9022
>
> *Fax*  212-949-9190 *|* *Cell *917-816-6428
>
> *gsshatan at lawabel.com <gsshatan at lawabel.com>*
>
> *ICANN-related: gregshatanipc at gmail.com <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>*
>
> *www.lawabel.com <http://www.lawabel.com/>*
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> *Gregory S. Shatan ï Abelman Frayne & Schwab*
>
> *Partner | IP | Technology | Media | Internet*
>
> *666 Third Avenue | New York, NY 10017-5621*
>
> *Direct*  212-885-9253 *| Main* 212-949-9022
>
> *Fax*  212-949-9190 *|* *Cell *917-816-6428
>
> *gsshatan at lawabel.com <gsshatan at lawabel.com>*
>
> *ICANN-related: gregshatanipc at gmail.com <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>*
>
> *www.lawabel.com <http://www.lawabel.com/>*
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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-stewardship/attachments/20150225/c97563a9/attachment-0001.html>