[CWG-Stewardship] Revised Scoping Document for Legal Advice
Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk
Thu Jan 22 13:09:56 UTC 2015
This all looks good and typically thorough, so thanks for all your hard work on it.
As a non-lawyer (and as someone entirely ignorant about US competition legislation), I remember your comment a couple of RFP3 calls ago that it might be that the CSC would be seen as an example of cartel-like behaviour. (I forget and didn’t write down the technical term that you used.)
As someone who would see the CSC role very much as one of being first line of discussion with the IANA functions operator about issues that come out of its regular reports, and seeking to resolve these concerns as a first-line response, I wonder whether we could slip in a question on the boundary between the CSC and the IANA functions operator where the behaviour slips into the potentially illegal.
I suppose the question would be around two parts:
· Would discussing and seeking (non-financial) redress of deteriorating performance between a group of customers and its supplier be seen as acceptable behaviour?
· Would a complete transparency of the exchanges help ensure that there were no questions of impropriety?
· Would the involvement of other – non-customer – stakeholders help ensure general acceptability (or be detrimental or entirely irrelevant to considerations)?
Is this a useful direction of enquiry?
From: cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan
Sent: 21 January 2015 18:06
To: Christopher Wilkinson
Cc: cwg-stewardship at icann.org
Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Revised Scoping Document for Legal Advice
I'm not too surprised at the length of the document, since we have now turned it into an educational tool. Even beginning to communicate the intricacies of ICANN and IANA in a few pages is a challenge -- but we decided to make this "primer" a part of the document. (I'm not sure the questions are entirely "distinct", a number of them are related, but that is of no particular moment.)
In any event, my understanding is that a small group of members/participants in the CWG would select the lawyers, with some assistance from ICANN, and that ICANN will pay.
It's always been clear to me that we would need to engage a law firm, and not merely a single lawyer, to get the advice we need. Most lawyers of the calibre we need work in law firms, not as solo practitioners, and don't work in isolation in any event. It will be important to engage a lead counsel with the core skill sets we need, who will coordinate and provide the bulk of the advice, but would do that with the assistance of his/her colleagues.
On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 7:50 AM, Christopher Wilkinson <lists at christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto:lists at christopherwilkinson.eu>> wrote:
Well Greg: We now have a 6 page legal brief including thirty (30) distinct questions!
Allow me to repeat my earlier query: "Who is going to select the lawyer(s) and pay for the costs of this advice?"
(Particularly as I recall more than a hint on the List, that an individual lawyer might not be able to respond to all of these questions … )
On 21 Jan 2015, at 09:36, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>> wrote:
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.
<CWG Legal Questions v2.docx>_______________________________________________
CWG-Stewardship mailing list
CWG-Stewardship at icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship at icann.org>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the CWG-Stewardship