[CWG-Stewardship] Revised Scoping Document for Legal Advice

[Gomes, Chuck]

Sounds good to me Greg.  Thanks.

Chuck

From: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2015 11:55 AM
To: Gomes, Chuck
Cc: cwg-stewardship at icann.org
Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Revised Scoping Document for Legal Advice

Chuck:

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).

Greg


On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 10:20 AM, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes at verisign.com<mailto:cgomes at verisign.com>> wrote:
I personally think this is good enough to finalize as is but do have two questions:

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?



Chuck

From: cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org> [mailto: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<mailto:cwg-stewardship at icann.org>
Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Revised Scoping Document for Legal Advice

All:

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 document.
I have also uploaded this as a new Google Doc: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1EUtXShskfHF6DRyVwTnAMG3eQ0DcFMca4EovrwkcP3k/edit?usp=sharing
Please make any suggested changes in the new Google Doc.
Greg

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20150121/2fa0ec8a/attachment.html>