[CCWG-ACCT] Responses to questions from Jones Day

[León Felipe Sánchez Ambía]

Thanks Eberhard. I agree with you that we may want to see this more as an opportunity rather than an issue.


Best regards,


León

> El 10/02/2015, a las 10:17, Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el at lisse.na> escribió:
> 
> 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
>>>> 
>> [...]
>> 
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community