[CWG-Stewardship] Client Committee Update

Wed Feb 25 20:53:25 UTC 2015

While not versed in US procedure I would suspect that having a reporter as part of the committee might be disadvantageous during the selection process, in so far as firms willing to participate.

Once the selection is made and we have appointed a firm and have completed confidential negotiations stage, I would think that Greg and the committee will be reporting back in a high level of detail and transparency.

We need to realize that we have 4 members of the CWG, including both our co-chairs and two trusted members in Greg and Maarten. Considering that no negotiations that pertain to the actual substance of our legal requests will all take place after the selection I think this is fair.

Possibly Greg/Any members on the committee might be an idea to give us a detailed rundown, dates meetings etc, of what negotiations have occurred to date, and just anonymize it to Firm 1, Firm 2 etc. until a firm has been chosen. And as each meeting occurs update us where possible in a similar fashion. Understanding that the committee needs to be agile a bit more insight into the current status and a more regular update might be what we need to make sure that everyone is happy with the process.

From: cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Kurt Pritz
Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2015 7:48 PM
To: Avri Doria
Cc: cwg-stewardship at icann.org
Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Client Committee Update

Hi Avri:

That thought on fees was meant as an aside. I didn't mean for it to distract attention from the main idea.

I was trying to find a way for this group to easily admit Kieren, get benefit out of his participation, provide transparency, and end the distracting discussion about membership in that group.

Because the topic is on the table: a fee could be justified if we were giving only the reporting role and not a participant's role in the discussion. Kieren's role here would be exactly how he makes his living (reporting on ICANN) so I felt odd for volunteering him without making a statement like that.

I still recommend that the team admit Kieren and ask him to take the reporting role for the reasons above. Just drop the fee part. It is another distraction from the big issues at hand.

Thanks for asking,

Kurt

On Feb 24, 2015, at 8:50 AM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org<mailto:avri at acm.org>> wrote:

Hi,

Was with you until the payment of a fee.

Would not some of the arguments we have heard about the effect of ICANN money being persuasive, mean that our rapporteur could not be paid?

avri
On 25-Feb-15 13:33, Kurt Pritz 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<mailto: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> [mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:kierenmccarthy at gmail.com>>
Date:02/24/2015 1:24 PM (GMT-05:00)
To: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes at verisign.com<mailto:cgomes at verisign.com>>
Cc: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>>, "cwg-stewardship at icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship at icann.org> Stewardship" <cwg-stewardship at icann.org<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>>
Date:02/24/2015 1:01 PM (GMT-05:00)
To: Kieren McCarthy <kierenmccarthy at gmail.com<mailto:kierenmccarthy at gmail.com>>
Cc: "cwg-stewardship at icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship at icann.org> Stewardship" <cwg-stewardship at icann.org<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<tel:212-885-9253> | Main 212-949-9022<tel:212-949-9022>
Fax  212-949-9190<tel:212-949-9190> | Cell 917-816-6428<tel:917-816-6428>
gsshatan at lawabel.com<mailto:gsshatan at lawabel.com>
ICANN-related: gregshatanipc at gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
www.lawabel.com<http://www.lawabel.com/>

_______________________________________________
CWG-Stewardship mailing list
CWG-Stewardship at icann.org<mailto: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<tel:212-885-9253> | Main 212-949-9022<tel:212-949-9022>

Fax  212-949-9190<tel:212-949-9190> | Cell 917-816-6428<tel:917-816-6428>

gsshatan at lawabel.com<mailto:gsshatan at lawabel.com>

ICANN-related: gregshatanipc at gmail.com<mailto: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<tel:212-885-9253> | Main 212-949-9022<tel:212-949-9022>

Fax  212-949-9190<tel:212-949-9190> | Cell 917-816-6428<tel:917-816-6428>

gsshatan at lawabel.com<mailto:gsshatan at lawabel.com>

ICANN-related: gregshatanipc at gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>

www.lawabel.com<http://www.lawabel.com/>

_______________________________________________

CWG-Stewardship mailing list

CWG-Stewardship at icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship at icann.org>

https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship

_______________________________________________
CWG-Stewardship mailing list
CWG-Stewardship at icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship at icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship

_______________________________________________
CWG-Stewardship mailing list
CWG-Stewardship at icann.org<mailto: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/a28088d3/attachment-0001.html>