[CCWG-ACCT] [CCWG-Accountability] On legal advise concerning California non-profits

[Avri Doria]

Hi,

Additionally, borrowing from a another professional field: whenever
contemplating surgery, get a second opinion.

avri

On 22-Jan-15 12:00, Greg Shatan wrote:
> I agree with Becky, Eberhard, Phil, Paul and David, for all their
> reasons and more.  If ICANN legal had all the expertise necessary, it
> would be a bad idea, due to lack of independence, ethical obligations
> to their client, etc.  And even if they are reasonably well-informed
> on California non-profit law, that is necessary but not sufficient for
> the task at hand.  Someone with considerable expertise and experience
> in corporate governance (especially non-profit) and corporate
> structuring in a variety of contexts (a "big brain," so to speak) is
> also necessary.
>
> (Notably, when ICANN has needed significant advice in this area in the
> past, it is my impression that they have turned to the international
> mega firm of Jones Day (the biggest thing to come out of Cleveland,
> Ohio since  
>
>
> Greg Shatan
>
> *Gregory S. Shatan *
>
> Partner|* **Abelman Frayne & Schwab*
>
> *666 Third Avenue **|**New York, NY 10017-5621*
>
> *Direct*  212-885-9253 *| **Main* 212-949-9022
>
> *Fax*  212-949-9190 *|* *Cell *917-816-6428
>
> */gsshatan at lawabel.com <mailto:gsshatan at lawabel.com>/*
>
> *ICANN-related: gregshatanipc at gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com> *
>
> */www.lawabel.com <http://www.lawabel.com/>/*
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 9:59 AM, Dr Eberhard Lisse <el at lisse.na
> <mailto:el at lisse.na>> wrote:
>
>     Eric,
>
>     I was not looking at it from that perspective, but Becky make sense,
>     ie if we get an opinion that is contrary to what ICANN has
>     previously asserted in court it would put ICANN in a difficult
>     position.
>
>     Almost as much as their Counsel estopping ICANN on anything not yet
>     litigated.
>
>
>     So, we need "unconflicted" Counsel.
>
>     el
>
>     On 2015-01-22 16:49, Burr, Becky wrote:
>     > Eric, I have great respect for the ICANN legal staff, but I¹m not
>     > aware that anyone on staff possesses legal expertise on
>     > international law and/or California not-for-profit law.  More that
>     > that, we know that ICANN has asserted various limitations on some
>     > of the accountability mechanisms based on the ³fiduciary duty²
>     > of Board members to the corporation.  Whether the ideas in
>     > question are good or bad, there is some skepticism - and a
>     > conclusion by the Berkman Center during the first ATRT review that
>     > additional legal research was needed, about the legal positions
>     > asserted by ICANN¹s legal staff and its outside counsel.  Given
>     > the above, and ethical obligation of counsel to defend the views
>     > of its client vigorously, I disagree with your view that ICANN¹s
>     > counsel is well situated to provide the legal analysis we need.
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     > J. Beckwith Burr
>
>     [...]
>     _______________________________________________
>     Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>     Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>     <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
>     https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150122/2e87fa2d/attachment.html>