<html>
<body>
Thanks Kurt,<br><br>
I was hesitant to jump in here, not on the substance of the benefits of
legal counsel, but on the implementation.<br><br>
Having sat through the CWG-IANA Stewardship and the CCWG-Accountability,
where we went through tens of millions of dollars of outside legal fees,
not all of it wisely (in my opinion), the details of how we do this are
crucial. A few points:<br><br>
- If the outside counsel is a firm that ICANN has not already dealt with,
the delays in establishing that relationship can be problematic (as they
might have been with the outside facilititator if it was not an already
contracted firm)<br><br>
- As you implied, open-ended vague questions get the same in return, and
while they may provide options, provide little certainty.<br><br>
- Having someone sitting in out meetings and reading all of our e-mail
not only has the results you imply, but is bloody expensive.<br><br>
- Exactly who makes the choices of when and how to use counsel will be
important.<br><br>
Certainly burned by the earlier experiences, ICANN is going to be leary
if we do not have a clear plan.<br><br>
Alan<br><br>
At 07/10/2018 03:54 PM, Kurt Pritz wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">Thanks, Stephanie (and to those
who collaborated on this). <br><br>
We have anticipated this request since the meeting in Los Angeles but our
thinking on how to best execute on it has not fully evolved. Nor does the
request provide the information necessary to write the Statement of Work
necessary to procure the requisite skill set. <br><br>
In order to rapidly create that document in a form to everyone’s
satisfaction, I am asking the Support team to set up an Adobe Connect
room for early in the week for anyone interested so that we can jointly
form a statement of work. I’d like to schedule it at a time convenient
for Rafik, who has been attending calls at midnight and 6AM everyday. I
would ask interested members of the EPDP team to provide bullets that
describe the legal expertise required. <br><br>
Without opining on the legal expertise and knowledge requirement, here is
what I am for and not for as far as the operational aspects of this
procurement. <br><br>
I think that appropriate legal expertise will increase our effectiveness
/ efficiency. The charter (rightly or wrongly) asks us to make a number
of legal determinations, <br><br>
I am for a reserved resource that can provide detailed, on-point, written
responses to written questions within 24 hours of receipt. If necessary,
we can request an in-person briefing on a specific issue.<br><br>
I am not for having an attorney attend all our meetings, whether they be
telephonic or face-to-face. Here is my rationale for this: <br><br>
1) Orally-posed questions are often poorly formed and not sufficiently
well-considered to elicit the desired information. The legal response is
often “it depends.” Written questions require appropriate reflection
on the desired information and will serve to promote an understanding of
an issue across the entire group. <br><br>
2) A corollary to the point above, vaguely worded questions, combined
with on-hand counsel are likely to result in time-consuming back-and
forth discussion. We attend meetings to discuss policy, not legal issues.
(It goes without saying - but I cannot help myself - that outside counsel
will have the incentive to extend such discussions.)<br><br>
3) The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. The mere act of observing any
event will affect that event. I believe, especially after witnessing some
of the IANA transition / accountability discussions that this principle
applies to ICANN discussions. I.e., having on-hand counsel would change
the nature and content of our discussions - and retard progress.<br><br>
4) Cost - benefit. Most all of us have employed outside counsel and with
good reason - to provide specialized expertise when needed. It is likely
we will have periods where there are more legal questions and then
periods where there are not. I do think we have a duty to act in a
fiscally responsible way and employ outside counsel in the same way that
we would do in our own organizations. <br><br>
I believe that using outside counsel as outlined here is the most
effective and efficient path for our group.<br><br>
I hope you find this constructive. <br><br>
Best regards,<br><br>
Kurt<br><br>
<br><br>
<br>
<br><br>
<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">On Oct 5, 2018, at 4:14 PM,
Stephanie Perrin
<<a href="mailto:stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca">
stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca</a>> wrote:<br><br>
<font size=1>Hello everyone, please find attached a request to hire
outside counsel with expertise in data protection law, to assist us with
the analysis on the EPDP. The RySG, RrSG, and NCSG representatives
on the EPDP are all in support of this proposal, which as you know was
foreseen in the Charter and in our earlier GNSO discussions. <br>
</font><br>
<font size=1>Thank you.<br>
</font><br>
<font size=1>Stephanie Perrin<br>
</font><br><br>
<EPDP note re EPDP Counsel.docx></blockquote><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Gnso-epdp-team mailing list<br>
Gnso-epdp-team@icann.org<br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-team" eudora="autourl">
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-team</a></blockquote>
</body>
</html>