<html>
<body>
Ignoring for the moment the composition of the Client Committee, I do
have an issue with the transparency of the process.<br><br>
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.<br><br>
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.<br><br>
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.<br><br>
Alan<br><br>
At 10/03/2015 08:15 AM, Jonathan Robinson wrote:<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">All,<br>
<br>
A couple of points to add / re-iterate for complete clarity:<br>
<br>
1. The client committee remains as
was i.e. the four members and has not had ICANN legal added to it<br>
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. <br>
Therefore
“<a href="mailto:cwg-client@icann.org">cwg-client@icann.org</a>” is
visible to all. This is clearly extremely unusual in client / lawyer
relationship but done so for (I hope) obvious reasons.<br>
<br>
The working methods of the client committee are work in progress and
linked to from the URL below:<br>
<a href="https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocwgdtstwrdshp/Client+Committee">
https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocwgdtstwrdshp/Client+Committee</a>
<br>
Please feel free to assist in refining these by proposing any updates to
the working methods document.<br>
<br>
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
“<a href="mailto:cwg-client@icann.org">cwg-client@icann.org</a>”.<br>
<br>
I understand the principle highlighted by Robin below but wonder if,
given that the transparency of the
“<a href="mailto:cwg-client@icann.org">cwg-client@icann.org</a>” list, it
is advantageous in some way to retain ICANN Legal’s permission to post to
the list e.g. for items of clarification, additional information etc? We
have no sense of ICANN Legal’s 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 haven’t had the opportunity to discuss it
with Lise nor fully absorb the feedback / concerns from the CWG.<br>
<br>
Thanks.<br>
<br>
<br>
Jonathan<br>
<br>
<b>From:</b> James Gannon
[<a href="mailto:james@cyberinvasion.net" eudora="autourl">
mailto:james@cyberinvasion.net</a>] <br>
<b>Sent:</b> 10 March 2015 00:40<br>
<b>To:</b> Robin Gross<br>
<b>Cc:</b> cwg-stewardship@icann.org<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Client Committee<br>
<br>
Agreed thats a fair point. <br>
<br>
On 10 Mar 2015, at 00:33, Robin Gross
<<a href="mailto:robin@ipjustice.org">robin@ipjustice.org</a>>
wrote:<br><br>
<br>
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. <br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
Thanks,<br>
Robin<br>
<br>
<br>
On Mar 9, 2015, at 5:06 PM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:<br><br>
<br>
Robin,<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
Chuck<br>
<br>
<b>From:</b>
<a href="mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org">
cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org</a>
[<a href="mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org">
mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org</a>] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Robin
Gross<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Monday, March 09, 2015 8:01 PM<br>
<b>To:</b>
<a href="mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info">jrobinson@afilias.info</a><br>
<b>Cc:</b>
<a href="mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org">cwg-stewardship@icann.org</a>
<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Client Committee<br>
<br>
Thanks, Jonathan. I'm concerned about inclusion of more ICANN
representatives than community representatives on the CWG Client
Committee:<br>
<a href="https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocwgdtstwrdshp/Client+Committee">
https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocwgdtstwrdshp/Client+Committee</a>
<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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?<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
Thanks,<br>
Robin<br>
<image001.png><br>
<br>
<br>
On Mar 8, 2015, at 3:48 PM, Jonathan Robinson wrote:<br><br>
<br><br>
All,<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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 CWG’s work commences in earnest?<br>
<br>
Thank-you,<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Jonathan & Lise<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
CWG-Stewardship mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org">CWG-Stewardship@icann.org</a>
<br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship" eudora="autourl">
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship</a><br>
<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
CWG-Stewardship mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org">CWG-Stewardship@icann.org</a>
<br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship" eudora="autourl">
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship</a><br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
CWG-Stewardship mailing list<br>
CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship" eudora="autourl">
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship</a></blockquote>
</body>
</html>