[CWG-Stewardship] Revised Scoping Document for Legal Advice
gregshatanipc at gmail.com
Wed Jan 21 16:55:25 UTC 2015
Good points. Fresh(er) eyes are always useful.
The first item is trying to say: "Currently, ICANN's duties and
obligations as the IANA Functions Operator are set forth in the IANA
Functions Contract. If there is no Contract, where will these duties and
obligations be documented?" This should also deal with the fact that the
NTIA's rights and obligations are also in the Contract, and these rights
and obligations will also need to be documented somewhere. I'll try to
clean this up so it is not so cryptic.
The second item is somewhat more nuanced. If we need advice in a totally
new area (e.g., libel and defamation), a new "request" would be
appropriate. But this document is just meant to set the stage for counsel
-- it's not a closed-end set of questions, and I don't want to give the
impression that we would need an additional request to ask additional
questions in this field. These are not "written interrogatories" -- where
we send them 30 questions and they respond with 30 answers; that's not how
getting legal advice works (and I'm sure you already know that). I expect
that our advice on corporate governance, corporate structuring and
not-for-profit corporations law will evolve -- not into uncharted waters,
but as a result of the process of discussing our legal needs with outside
counsel. It's rare that a client comes to a lawyer with all the right
questions -- it's a somewhat iterative process to hone in on the issues
that really matter. As a result, we will need an appropriate amount of
latitude to get the advice and deliverables we need to complete our work.
I'll see if anything needs to be said to clarify these points (but I hate
to make this longer than it already is).
On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 10:20 AM, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes at verisign.com> wrote:
> I personally think this is good enough to finalize as is but do have two
> 1. At the bottom of page 2, what does this mean: “How to maintain
> documentation of ICANN’s obligations as the IANA Functions Operator?”
> 2. Should we add a statement that says that additional requests for
> advice may be added as needed or is this not necessary?
> *From:* cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org [mailto:
> cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Greg Shatan
> *Sent:* Wednesday, January 21, 2015 3:36 AM
> *To:* cwg-stewardship at icann.org
> *Subject:* [CWG-Stewardship] Revised Scoping Document for Legal Advice
> Attached is a revised "scoping document" for the request for legal
> advice. We need to finalize this document no later than Thursday's call of
> the CWG. While we could spend more time working on the document, it is
> more important to get access to legal counsel than to wordsmith this
> I have also uploaded this as a new Google Doc:
> Please make any suggested changes in the new Google Doc.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the CWG-Stewardship