[CCWG-ACCT] Responses to questions from Jones Day

[Dr Eberhard W Lisse]

Bounced. S here it is again.

el

On 2015-02-10 09:45 , cctldcommunity-owner at cctld-managers.org wrote:
> You are not allowed to post to this mailing list, and your message has
> been automatically rejected.  If you think that your messages are
> being rejected in error, contact the mailing list owner at
> cctldcommunity-owner at cctld-managers.org.
> 
> 
> Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Responses to questions from Jones Day.eml
> 
> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Responses to questions from Jones Day
> From: Dr Eberhard W Lisse <directors at omadhina.net>
> Date: 2015-02-10, 09:38
> 
> To: CCWG Accountability <accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
> CC: Lisse Eberhard <directors at omadhina.net>, "ccnso-members at icann.org"
> <ccnso-members at icann.org>, cctldcommunity at cctld-managers.org
> 
> 
> Phil, Kieran, all,
> 
> Lawyers are expected and paid to defend the interests of their
> client to the utmost best of their abilities.  It does not matter if
> they disagree with their clients, even in criminal cases, when they
> *KNOW* the client is guilty they *HAVE* to do their best or can be
> disbarred.
> 
> In Commonwealth English this is referred to as "taking
> instructions".
> 
> 
> So, in this context you just have to take Jones Day's "opinion" (who
> from my reading of papers they have filed for ICANN in various
> cases, have a *VERY* cushy gig) with a grain of salt.
> 
> Read their "opinion" keeping in mind that this is ICANN's opinion of
> the legal situation, not the legal situation per se.
> 
> I would see this as an opportunity rather than an issue.
> 
> el
> 
> On 2015-02-10 09:20 , Jordan Carter wrote:
>> > Kieran, all:
>> > 
>> > Do you think the payment issue outranks the fact that this CCWG's
>> > team doing legal will be the effective client?  That is, do you
>> > think the CCWG can rely on advice that it briefs out and manages
>> > the relationships for, regardless of who ends up paying the bill?
>> > 
>> > I am not a lawyer but your last point seems important to me.
>> > 
>> > best, Jordan
>> > 
>> > On 10 February 2015 at 02:25, Kieren McCarthy
>> > <kieren at kierenmccarthy.com <mailto:kieren at kierenmccarthy.com>>
>> > wrote:
>> > 
>> >     I can't for the life of me understand why this group is
>> >     prepared to accept ICANN paying for external legal advice on a
>> >     topic of the highest possible interest to ICANN.
>> > 
>> >     Considering the importance of this topic, I am pretty sure
>> >     that the various internet organizations who depend so heavily
>> >     on ICANN would be willing to pay into a fund to cover
>> >     independent legal advice.
>> > 
>> >     I also think it would be advisable for whoever is contracted
>> >     to provide this advice to be obligated to report any and all
>> >     approaches and conversations with third parties in order to
>> >     limit the opportunity for behind-the-scenes influencing.
>> > 
>> > 
>> > 
>> >     Kieren
>> > 
> [...]
>