[CWG-Stewardship] Client Committee Update

Wed Feb 25 21:41:49 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.

James, there are three pretty significant logical problems with your
statement:

1. The firms are already participating. Are you seriously arguing that a
new committee member would cause legal firms to withdraw from pitching for
work? Why would they do that?

2. I am not offering my services as a reporter. I am offering to provide
basic comms work. Something that I have done for over 20 years for ICANN as
well as a significant number of other companies, many in this field.

3. You are imagining that the selection of a law firm for a piece of work
is worthy of a mainstream news story. I can assure you it is not. You are
also imagining that I would write about the process and name the law firms,
regardless of whether they did not wish their names to be made public. But
as I have made clear on this list on several occasions, the confidentiality
aspect is understandable and simply has to be communicated properly.

It seems incredible that I am offering to fix a clear accountability and
transparency hole in this group's process and have to argue to be allowed
to spend my spare time doing so.

I would also remind you that the reason this group forewent the normal open
and transparent processes was to get a faster result. That hasn't happened.
It is now time to either pull the process back into the default openness or
to provide sufficient information on what is happening.

How this is something worth arguing against is beyond me.

Kieren

On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 12:53 PM, James Gannon <james at cyberinvasion.net>
wrote:

>  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> 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> 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/acb8dc8e/attachment-0001.html>