[CWG-Stewardship] Client Committee
Alan Greenberg
alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca
Tue Mar 10 15:59:54 UTC 2015
Ignoring for the moment the composition of the
Client Committee, I do have an issue with the transparency of the process.
Having used and managed mailing lists for well
over 3 decades, there is a very large difference
between the "push" technology of being on a
mailing list and the "pull" technology of having
access to the list archives. I scan what arrives
in my in-box. I rarely have the time or patience
to read what is in archives I have access to.
I strongly suggest that we allow all CWG
Members/Participants to be subscribed to the
cwg-client list, even if they are not given posting rights.
Moreover, in the interest of transparency, I also
suggest that the list membership be viewable to
all, regardless of whether they are members of the list or not.
Alan
At 10/03/2015 08:15 AM, Jonathan Robinson wrote:
>All,
>
>A couple of points to add / re-iterate for complete clarity:
>
>1. The client committee remains as was
>i.e. the four members and has not had ICANN legal added to it
>2. The mailing list was set up to
>facilitate the work of the client committee
>primarily communication between the CC & Sidley
>- but to do so in an open and transparent method.
>Therefore
><mailto:cwg-client at icann.org>cwg-client at icann.org
>is visible to all. This is clearly extremely
>unusual in client / lawyer relationship but done
>so for (I hope) obvious reasons.
>
>The working methods of the client committee are
>work in progress and linked to from the URL below:
><https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocwgdtstwrdshp/Client+Committee>https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocwgdtstwrdshp/Client+Committee
>Please feel free to assist in refining these by
>proposing any updates to the working methods document.
>
>Overall, the intention is that any discussions,
>meetings etc that take place between the client
>committee and Sidley and are visible and clear
>to all (including ICANN Legal / Kevin),
>primarily via <mailto:cwg-client at icann.org>cwg-client at icann.org.
>
>I understand the principle highlighted by Robin
>below but wonder if, given that the transparency
>of the
><mailto:cwg-client at icann.org>cwg-client at icann.org
>list, it is advantageous in some way to retain
>ICANN Legals permission to post to the list
>e.g. for items of clarification, additional
>information etc? We have no sense of ICANN
>Legals intention to post to the list and could
>simply check with them if they are interested to
>retain that right (which has been given to them
>at the set-up of the mailing list without
>significant debate or discussion). Personally,
>my inclination is to leave it as is for the
>moment but I havent had the opportunity to
>discuss it with Lise nor fully absorb the feedback / concerns from the CWG.
>
>Thanks.
>
>
>Jonathan
>
>From: James Gannon [mailto:james at cyberinvasion.net]
>Sent: 10 March 2015 00:40
>To: Robin Gross
>Cc: cwg-stewardship at icann.org
>Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Client Committee
>
>Agreed thats a fair point.
>
>On 10 Mar 2015, at 00:33, Robin Gross
><<mailto:robin at ipjustice.org>robin at ipjustice.org> wrote:
>
>
>Well, the ICANN website says that 3 ICANN
>attorneys are also included on the CWG Client
>Committee mailing list (Samantha, John J, Kevin
>from Jones Day) and meetings. And ICANN's
>lawyers are also part of the conversations with
>the CWG Client Cmte, so it seems like they are
>participants of the Client Cmte, even if not labeled as such.
>
>Since the phase of retaining the law firm and
>needing ICANN's help identifying conflicts is
>over, ICANN's lawyers should no longer be
>participants on the CWG Client Committee mailing
>list, meetings, discussions, etc., if the client
>committee can be said to be independent of the conflict.
>
>Thanks,
>Robin
>
>
>On Mar 9, 2015, at 5:06 PM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
>
>
>Robin,
>
>My understanding is that there are only 4
>members of the client committee: Greg, Maartin,
>Lise and Jonathan. I have seen nothing that
>expanded the membership. The fact that others
>have been involved with the client committee in
>finalizing the arrangements with Sidley is in my
>understanding simply a result of the fact that
>ICANN is funding the effort and has to be a
>legal party to the agreement, which you probably understand better than me.
>
>Chuck
>
>From:
><mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org>cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org
>[<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org>mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org]
>On Behalf Of Robin Gross
>Sent: Monday, March 09, 2015 8:01 PM
>To: <mailto:jrobinson at afilias.info>jrobinson at afilias.info
>Cc: <mailto:cwg-stewardship at icann.org>cwg-stewardship at icann.org
>Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Client Committee
>
>Thanks, Jonathan. I'm concerned about inclusion
>of more ICANN representatives than community
>representatives on the CWG Client Committee:
>
><https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocwgdtstwrdshp/Client+Committee>https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocwgdtstwrdshp/Client+Committee
>
>When did CWG decide it would allow 5 ICANN
>representatives, including 3 of ICANN's
>attorneys on the CWG's Client
>Committee? Secretarial support work is fine,
>but actual participation is another thing entirely.
>
>We are supposed to obtain truly independent
>legal advice. So why are we re-introducing the
>conflict we are trying to avoid into the Client Committee?
>
>I suggest a CWG discussion about the
>appropriateness of ICANN's attorneys remaining
>on the Client Committee going forward. Now that
>outside counsel has been retained, any need for
>their involvement to help identify possible conflicts has been removed.
>
>Thanks,
>Robin
><image001.png>
>
>
>On Mar 8, 2015, at 3:48 PM, Jonathan Robinson wrote:
>
>
>
>All,
>
>We are following up on the very good news that
>the Client Committee has successfully worked
>with ICANN staff to secure the retention of
>Sidley Austin. First, particular thanks are due
>to Greg Shatan for the extraordinary effort he
>has put in to assist the committee with all aspects of its work.
>
>Since the CWG initially discussed and agreed the
>set-up and composition of the Client Committee,
>there has been some e-mail discussion regarding
>the functioning of the Committee. As you know,
>the composition comprises the two co-chairs and
>two legally qualified individuals (Greg Shatan
>and Maarten Simon) which is a manageable size
>and contains appropriately qualified members.
>The Committee was set up to provide an effective
>interface between the CWG and the firm providing
>the CWG with appropriate advice on the relevant
>legal issues. However, prior to that, the first
>task of the Committee was to secure the services
>of a suitably qualified firm and that job is now
>complete. Therefore, now seems to be a good time
>to seek input on the working of the Client Committee.
>
>The Client Committee remains required in order
>to provide a coherent interface between the CWG
>& the retained law firm because it is not
>practical or cost-effective for a group the size
>of the CWG to continuously interact with the
>retained law firm at all times. However, in
>order for the CWG (and anyone relying on the
>work of the CWG) to have confidence in the work
>of the Client Committee, the CWG needs to fully
>trust that the Client Committee will accurately
>and effectively transmit and represent the
>issues and challenges facing the CWG. And
>moreover, that there will be opportunities for
>the CWG to interact directly with the law firm
>in order to enhance that confidence and clarify
>issues where relevant. As per the announcement
>of the selection of Sidley, representatives of
>the firm will be at the CWG meeting on Tuesday to both listen and interact.
>
>Therefore, what (if any) changes to the working
>methods of the Client Committee should be made
>so that the CWG can be as confident as possible
>in the capabilities and work of the Client
>Committee as this crucial aspect of the CWGs work commences in earnest?
>
>Thank-you,
>
>
>
>Jonathan & Lise
>
>_______________________________________________
>CWG-Stewardship mailing list
><mailto:CWG-Stewardship at icann.org>CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>CWG-Stewardship mailing list
><mailto:CWG-Stewardship at icann.org>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/20150310/1a076de4/attachment.html>
More information about the CWG-Stewardship
mailing list