<div dir="ltr"><div><div><div>Kieren:<br></div>To respond to your posting referenced below--yes, the Client Committee was self-appointed by the Co-Chairs as a closed group consisting of the two Co-Chairs and the 2 attorneys who are members/participants of CWG. I had volunteered to be a member, but I also understood the need for efficiency and speed, therefore I do not consider it necessarily "precedent."<br><br>Unfortunately, we are month later, and CWG still has no independent legal counsel, although I understand these things take "time." The extent of ICANN staff involvement with the Client Committee is of some concern--I have heard Greg refer to it somewhat obliquely. I do not know the specifics, but I do trust Greg Shatan's judgment in such matters--he understands who the "client" is here--CWG-Stewardship--not ICANN, not ICANN legal staff, etc.<br><br>So yes, we have a closed, self-appointed group of 4 deciding a critical issue--<br>selection of independent legal counsel--in a somewhat opaque process up to this point. I hope for a successful outcome, soon. Your request for transparency was reasonable and I hope will be respected.<br><br></div>Best regards,<br></div>John Poole<br><div><div><div><br><div><br><i><b>Kieren McCarthy</b>
<a href="mailto:cwg-stewardship%40icann.org?Subject=Re:%20Re%3A%20%5BCWG-Stewardship%5D%20Client%20Committee%20Update&In-Reply-To=%3CCAA4fB%3D1-BWXEzQNBCoKL6uwbCn3%3DEL-xpBgvbBK%2Bu9Rm9g3f3Q%40mail.gmail.com%3E" title="[CWG-Stewardship] Client Committee Update">kierenmccarthy at gmail.com
</a><br>
<i>Tue Feb 24 18:24:41 UTC 2015</i><br>So far with this transition process, every group has been open to all those<br>who wish to join with an expectation of participation.<br><br>I would expect those same rules to apply here.<br><br>It strikes me that it would set a dangerous <b>precedent</b> if the chairs are<br>allowed to create a closed group at any time.<br><br>Kieren</i></div></div></div></div></div>