[CCWG-ACCT] Who is managing the lawyers and what have they beenasked to do?
Greg Shatan
gregshatanipc at gmail.com
Tue Jul 7 03:34:37 UTC 2015
Alan,
What are the specific reasons that the ALAC would opt not to be a member,
if a membership model were adopted? Have our lawyers been asked to respond
to these reasons?
Greg
On Tue, Jul 7, 2015 at 12:00 AM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>
wrote:
> Among the problems with Membership is that there are strong indications
> that several AC/SOs will not sign on as members (the ALAC is among them)
> leaving the possibility of very few members, and those members (or quite
> possibly member) would have the statutory power to unilaterally and
> irreversibly dissolve the corporation, and the IANA Names stewardship along
> with it.
>
> You might ask, "Why would they do that?" and I have no clue. But if we are
> determined to consider world with a rogue Board with not a single Board
> member who is objecting, then a rogue SO cannot be off the radar either.
>
> Alan
>
>
>
> At 06/07/2015 09:01 PM, you wrote:
>
> Hello Avri,
>
> I believe membership raises the issues of accountability to the full diversity
> of stakeholders to a much higher threshold, including the issue of the
> degree to which ICANN is accountable to stakeholders not included among
> our SG/C/RALO/ALS / as well as among parrticpating CCs and govts.
>
>
>
> Please, if possible, raise your concerns stating fact rather than belief.
> Maybe there is something I have missed. There is absolutely no difference
> in the openness to non ICANN stakeholders between the empowered membership
> and empowered designator models. At least I don't see any. Both are based
> upon the current SOAC's. If there is a difference in this area I need to
> and want to be educated. Please respond with specific and detailed
> instances or examples of why what you claim is true is. Vague generalities
> are not particularly helpful. Again, I am open to be educated and persuaded
> but with substantive fact rather than vague as yet unsubstantiated beliefs.
>
> No model is as open to non SOAC's as is Malcolm's proposal for individual
> membership. That, again, is a membership model. Do you support this open
> membership model and if not why not? Would you prefer other models to be
> looked at that are not based upon the SOAC's? I think that would be a very
> reasonable position and one I certainly am open to supporting if a workable
> model would be proposed. As yet I have not seen one. Have you? Should we
> try to find one?
> I think enough of the comments bring out questions of accountability in a
> mebership organization to make the membership option less than optimal.
>
>
>
> What comments are you referring to? Certainly not the public comments
> which were basically supportive of membership. Are these comments you refer
> to based upon vague generalities or specific problems? If there are
> specific problems what specifically are they? Should we not determine
> whether there are solutions to those problems rather than just dismissing
> the model outright? If not, what are your views as to the ultimate apparent
> unenforceability of the designator model in certain areas? Do you disagree
> with Paul Rosenzweig when he states that "a direct community veto of budget
> and strategic plan remains essential to accountability"? If not, what do
> you propose to do in these areas without membership. Should we simply
> forget them?
>
> I do think there may be another option or two out there and hopefully
> working with our counsel we'll find them.
>
> In the interim, I really am looking to be educated. No one has taught me
> more about ICANN since I became involved in it than you Avri. I'm just not
> easily persuadable by vague opinions, I'm a fact based sort of guy. As this
> process has moved forward I've seen your views and positions change. To me,
> that is an admirable sign of someone truly looking for an optimal answer
> rather than one who is clinging to a defined position. I'm just having some
> trouble understanding, factually, the specific objections you are now
> raising about membership. I hope you can help me understand so I can better
> test and evaluate my own views..
>
> Thanks,
>
> Ed
>
> On 06-Jul-15 19:05, Edward Morris wrote: > +1. Well said. > > > On Mon,
> Jul 6, 2015 at 9:04 PM, Jonathan Zuck <JZuck at actonline.org > <
> mailto:JZuck at actonline.org <JZuck at actonline.org>>> wrote: > > Hmm. I
> think it’s important to bear in mind that there was > overwhelming
> consensus among the public comments to support the > membership model.
> The detractors from the model, while important > and perhaps critical,
> are not in the majority. I’m not sure this > process speaks to how we
> better use counsel as much as how we > achieve consensus on principles. >
> > > > > > > *From:* accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org > <
> mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org
> <accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org>> > [mailto:
> accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org > <
> mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org
> <accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org>>] *On > Behalf Of
> *Seun Ojedeji > *Sent:* Monday, July 6, 2015 3:50 PM > *To:* Becky Burr >
> *Cc:* accountability-cross-community at icann.org > <
> mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org
> <accountability-cross-community at icann.org>> > *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT]
> Who is managing the lawyers and what > have they beenasked to do? > > > >
> Hi Becky, > > Thanks for asking, item 3 is actually in connection to the
> fact > that such veto may not be possible without item 1(as I understood >
> it) and that is why I said an indirect veto can happen not that I > was
> entirely suggesting that those powers be off the table. > > It seem
> however that folks are only looking at the powers and not > at what it
> will take to have them. > > By the way, I also did put in a reservation
> that we may not > necessarily agree with those views but my concern is
> mainly that > the ccwg does not spend so much time developing proposals
> that we > know has certain implementation requirements that are not >
> compatible with the ICANN community structure. I think we should > learn
> from the the past (based on comments from the last PC) and > utilize
> legal council and volunteer hours more effectively. > > FWIW speaking as
> participant. > > Regards > > On 6 Jul 2015 8:08 pm, "Burr, Becky" <
> Becky.Burr at neustar.biz > < mailto:Becky.Burr at neustar.biz
> <Becky.Burr at neustar.biz>>> wrote: > > Seun, > > > > I am not
> sure why we would take direct budget/strat plan veto > off the
> table. Could you explain? Thanks. > > > > Becky > > J.
> Beckwith Burr > > *Neustar, Inc. /* Deputy General Counsel and
> Chief Privacy Officer > > 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington,
> DC 20006 > > Office: + 1.202.533.2932 <tel:%2B%201.202.533.2932>
> Mobile: > +1.202.352.6367 > <tel:%2B1.202.352.6367> /
> becky.burr at neustar.biz > < mailto:becky.burr at neustar.biz
> <becky.burr at neustar.biz>> / www.neustar.biz > <
> http://www.neustar.biz> > > > > *From: *Seun Ojedeji <
> seun.ojedeji at gmail.com > < mailto:seun.ojedeji at gmail.com
> <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com>>> > *Date: *Monday, July 6, 2015 at 11:09
> AM > *To: *Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org > <
> mailto:robin at ipjustice.org <robin at ipjustice.org>>> > *Cc:
> *Accountability Community > <
> accountability-cross-community at icann.org > <
> mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org
> <accountability-cross-community at icann.org>>> > *Subject: *Re:
> [CCWG-ACCT] Who is managing the lawyers and > what have they
> beenasked to do? > > > > Hi, > > I have no problem with
> having a new proposal presented. > However it is important that
> there some adherence to basic > principles on proposals that the
> ccwg would not want to > explore. Three areas comes to mind: > >
> - Its my understanding that anything that will turn some/all > of
> the SO/AC to members and thereby exposing them to legal > challenge
> is not acceptable > > - Its my understanding that anything that
> allows removal of > individual board member without the approval of
> the entire(or > larger part) of the community is not acceptable > >
> - Its my understanding that a solution that allows direct >
> community veto on certain elements like budget, strategic plan > et
> all is not acceptable but an indirect enforcement could be >
> considered (i.e using a power to get another power executed >
> indirectly) > > > > Some/none of the above may be acceptable by us,
> but my point > is that there should be some focus going forward,
> especially > if the target of ICANN54 is to be meet > >
> Regards > > > > > > On Mon, Jul 6, 2015 at 3:37 PM, Robin Gross >
> <robin at ipjustice.org < mailto:robin at ipjustice.org <robin at ipjustice.org>>>
> wrote: > > I would also like to hear what they propose at this >
> stage. I really don't see how it could hurt to have >
> another proposal to consider. Larry Strickling did say he >
> wanted us to be sure we examined all the options carefully. > > > >
> Thanks, > > Robin > > > > On Jul 6, 2015, at 7:32
> AM, Greg Shatan wrote: > > > > I agree. We should have the
> benefit of their thoughts. > > > > Greg > > > >
> On Mon, Jul 6, 2015 at 9:38 AM, Jordan Carter > <
> jordan at internetnz.net.nz > < mailto:jordan at internetnz.net.nz
> <jordan at internetnz.net.nz>>> wrote: > > Well, I would
> really really like to see what the > creative thinking
> they have done has suggested. I > trust our ability as a
> group to make decisions, > and do not believe we should
> cut off input from > any direction... > > > >
> Jordan > > > > On 7 July 2015 at 01:13, James Gannon >
> <james at cyberinvasion.net > <
> mailto:james at cyberinvasion.net <james at cyberinvasion.net>>> wrote: > >
> Hey Avri, > > > > Yes the 3rd model was
> brought up, and the > lawyers feel that it might be a
> cleaner way > for us to get the powers that we need. > >
> But without a call from the CCWG to present it >
> they feel that its not their position to >
> propose a model on their own initiative. > > > >
> Personally i would like to see what they have > come up
> with but the CCWG would need to ask as > an overall
> group for the chairs to direct them > to give some more
> information on the model if > we wanted it. > >
> I think if after we hear from them on Tuesdays >
> call we still feel we might have some >
> shortcomings that it might be the time to ask > them
> about the 3rd option. > > > > Also +1 I think they are
> really enjoying the > work and are finding themselves
> getting more > and more involved as we go on, which is
> great > for the CCWG as the more background and >
> details they know the better that are able to >
> give us solid well reasoned advice in my opinion. > > > >
> -James > > > > > > On 6 Jul 2015, at 13:19,
> Avri Doria > <avri at acm.org <mailto:avri at acm.org
> <avri at acm.org> >> wrote: > > > > Hi, > >
> I have not had a chance to get back to the >
> recording of the call. Not > sure I will, that
> time was the time I had > for that call and that is
> why > i was listening then. > >
> In any case, the lawyers were talking > about a new
> model they had come up > with, but not knowing what
> to do about it > since they had not been asked >
> for a new model. > > I was told to
> leave before I got to hear > the end of that story.
> Or about > the model itself. Anyone who has had a >
> chance to listen, whatever happened? > >
> avri > > ps. sometimes i think the lawyers are >
> getting interested in what we are >
> doing, almost like stakeholders. not that > i expect
> them to give up their > hourly rates because they
> are stakeholders. > > On 06-Jul-15 05:07, James
> Gannon wrote: > > > I listened to the last
> co-chairs > lawyers’ call at; >
> https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=53782602 >
> <
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_pages_viewpage.action-3FpageId-3D53782602&d=AwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=rX8zWSdUbF0XJ6RQyX5HABE7NaQIgAXHj6WfvEXkLh8&s=5REzt6Gk0Mt5evnhe_F8O87Kpc4hX8wql7vP--WYsnQ&e=
> > > (I’m a glutton for punishment) > > > >
> It was a short call and I’ll make a >
> particular note that Leon and >
> Mathieu made a point of not making any >
> decisions on behalf of the > whole group and made
> it clear anything > requiring a decision must be >
> made by the overall CCWG, so I was >
> happy with that side of things > myself,
> most of my own fears about not > having a
> sub-group are somewhat > assuaged. > >
> So my paraphrasing and overview is: > > > >
> · Lawyers working hard on the >
> models for us collaboratively > between the two
> firms since BA > > · Lawyers are prepping
> a > presentation to give to us ASAP >
> before Paris if possible, that >
> presentation will take the majority of > a call,
> it can’t be done quickly, they > need about
> 45mins uninterrupted > to go through the
> presentation and > then would likely need Q&A
> time > after they present. > >
> · Some small >
> wording/clarifications to come back to > the CCWG >
> to make sure everyone’s on the same page > >
> · Everyone feels Paris will be >
> an important time for the > models,
> lawyers will be ready for a > grilling on the
> details of the > models from us to flesh out any
> of our > concerns/questions > > > >
> Note that the above is all my very >
> condensed overview of the > conversations. > >
> It seemed like a productive call to me. > > > >
> -James > > > > > > *From:*
> accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org >
> < mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org
> <accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org>> >
> [mailto: accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org >
> <
> mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org
> <accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org>>] >
> *On Behalf > Of *Greg Shatan >
> *Sent:* Monday, July 06, 2015 5:33 AM >
> *To:* Carlos Raul > *Cc:* >
> accountability-cross-community at icann.org >
> < mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org
> <accountability-cross-community at icann.org>> >
> *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Who is > managing the
> lawyers and what have > they beenasked to do? > > >
> > Carlos, > > > > As the
> legal sub-team was disbanded, > your guess is as
> good as mine..... > > > > Greg > > > >
> On Mon, Jul 6, 2015 at 12:27 AM, >
> Carlos Raul <carlosraulg at gmail.com > <
> mailto:carlosraulg at gmail.com <carlosraulg at gmail.com>> >
> < mailto:carlosraulg at gmail.com <carlosraulg at gmail.com>>> wrote: > >
> Thank you Greg! > > > > It
> makes a lot of sense and I guess > those are all
> good reasons as > we hired them in the first
> place. > What are the next steps now? >
> What happened in the recent call? > > > >
> Best regards > > > > > Carlos Raúl
> Gutiérrez > > +506 8837 7176 >
> <tel:%2B506%208837%207176> >
> <tel:%2B506%208837%207176> > > Skype carlos.raulg >
> > _________ > > Apartado
> 1571-1000 > > *COSTA RICA* > > > > > >
> On Mon, Jul 6, 2015 at 12:02 AM, >
> Greg Shatan > <gregshatanipc at gmail.com >
> < mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com
> <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>> < mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com
> <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>>> > wrote: > >
> Chris, > > > > That was
> tried to some extent, > at least in the CWG. > > >
> > There are several substantial >
> problems with that approach. > > > >
> First, lawyers are not > fungible. The
> particular legal skills, > background and
> experience > required for the issues before both >
> WGs are fairly specific, and in >
> some cases, very specific. > The
> primary core competency > needed here is
> corporate > governance. While a number of >
> lawyers in the community have a >
> reasonable working knowledge of > the
> area, at least in their > home jurisdictions,
> I don't > believe there are any who would >
> say that this is their primary >
> focus and expertise -- at least > none
> who identified themselves > to either WG. The
> second core > competency required, especially >
> in the CCWG, is non-profit >
> law. Again there are a number > of lawyers
> with a decent working > knowledge of this
> fairly broad > field, but not as a primary >
> focus. There may be a couple >
> of lawyers in the community who > would
> claim this fairly broad > field as a primary
> focus and > expertise -- but none who >
> became involved with either WG. >
> This then becomes further > narrowed by
> jurisdiction. Since > ICANN is a California >
> non-profit corporation, US corporate >
> governance and non-profit >
> experience is more relevant than > experience
> from other > jurisdictions, and California law >
> corporate governance and >
> non-profit experience is more >
> relevant than that from other > US
> jurisdictions. In my > experience, the more
> a US > lawyer focuses on a particular >
> substantive area, the greater >
> their knowledge of and comfort > with state
> law issues in US > state jurisdictions other than >
> their own (e.g., someone who >
> spend a majority of their time >
> working in corporate governance > will have a
> greater knowledge > of the law, issues,
> approaches > and trends outside their >
> primary state of practice, >
> while someone who spends a > relatively small
> amount of time > in the area will tend to feel >
> less comfortable outside their >
> home jurisdiction). (An > exception
> is that many US > lawyers have specific knowledge
> of > certain Delaware corporate law >
> issues, because Delaware often >
> serves as the state of > incorporation for
> entities operating > elsewhere.) > > > >
> Second, lawyers in the >
> community will seldom be seen as > neutral
> advisors, no matter how > hard they try. They
> will tend > to be seen as working from >
> their point of view or stakeholder >
> group or "special interest" or >
> desired outcome, even if they > are trying to
> be even-handed. > Over the course of time, this >
> balancing act would tend to >
> become more untenable. > > > > Third,
> the amount of time it > would take to provide
> truly > definitive legal advice >
> (research, careful drafting, >
> discussions with relevant > "clients", etc.)
> would be > prohibitive, even compared to >
> the substantial amount of time >
> it takes to provide reasonably >
> well-informed and competent > legal-based
> viewpoints in the > course of either WG's work. > >
> > > Fourth, in order to formally >
> counsel the community, the lawyer >
> or lawyers in question would > have to enter
> into a formal > attorney-client relationship. >
> Under US law, an >
> attorney-client relationship > may inadvertently
> be created by > the attorney's actions, so >
> attorneys try to be careful about >
> not providing formal legal > advice
> without a formal engagement > (sometimes
> providing an > explicit "caveat" if they feel
> they > might be getting too close to >
> providing legal advice). If the >
> attorney is employed by a >
> corporation, they would likely be > unable to
> take on such a > representation due to the terms
> of > their employment, and that is >
> before getting to an exploration >
> of conflict of interest > issues. If
> the attorney is employed > by a firm, the
> firm would have > to sign off on the >
> representation, again dealing >
> with potential conflict issues. > > > >
> Fifth, even if the above issues > were all
> somehow resolved, it > would be highly
> unlikely that > any such attorney would provide >
> substantial amounts of advice, >
> written memos, counseling, etc. > on
> a pro bono (unpaid) basis, > especially given the >
> time-consuming nature of the >
> work. Pro bono advice and >
> representation is generally > accorded to
> individuals and > entities that could not >
> otherwise be able to pay for it. That >
> is clearly not the case here, >
> at least with ICANN taking > financial
> responsibility. It > would likely be very
> difficult > to justify this to, e.g., a >
> firm's pro bono committee, as a >
> valid pro bono representation. > > > >
> Sixth, if ICANN were not taking > the role
> they are taking, it > would be extremely
> difficult to > identify the "client" in this >
> situation. The "community" is >
> a collection of sectors, > mostly
> represented by various > ICANN-created
> structures, which > in turn have members of
> widely > varying types (individuals, >
> corporations, sovereigns, >
> non-profits, IGOs, partnerships, > etc.).
> This would also make it > extremely difficult to
> enter > into a formal counseling >
> relationship with the "community." > > > >
> Seventh, this is a sensitive, >
> high-profile, transformative set > of actions
> we are involved in, > which is subject to an >
> extraordinary amount of >
> scrutiny, not least that of the NTIA > and
> the US Congress. That > eliminates any
> possibility of > providing informal, >
> off-the-cuff, reasonably well-informed but >
> not quite expert, "non-advice" >
> advice -- which might happen in > a
> more obscure exercise. > There's simply too much
> at stake. > > > > Finally, I would say that a >
> number of attorneys involved in >
> one or both of the WGs are in > fact
> providing a significant > amount of legal
> knowledge and > experience to the WGs, helping >
> to frame issues, whether in >
> terms of general leadership (e.g., >
> Thomas, Leon, Becky) or more > specifically in a >
> "lawyer-as-client" capacity -- >
> working with outside counsel, >
> tackling the more legalistic > issues, providing
> as much legal > background and knowledge as >
> possible without providing the >
> type of formal legal advice > that
> would tend to create an > attorney-client
> relationship, > etc. So I do think that many >
> lawyers in the community are >
> giving greatly of themselves in > this
> process, even though they > cannot and would not
> be able to > formally be engaged by the >
> community as its "counsel of record." > > > >
> In sum, it might be a nice >
> thought in theory, but it is no way > a
> practical possibility. > > > > Greg > > > >
> On Sat, Jul 4, 2015 at 3:08 AM, >
> CW Lists > <
> lists at christopherwilkinson.eu > <
> mailto:lists at christopherwilkinson.eu <lists at christopherwilkinson.eu>> >
> < mailto:lists at christopherwilkinson.eu
> <lists at christopherwilkinson.eu>>> > wrote: > >
> Good morning: > > > >
> I had decided not to enter > this debate.
> But I am bound to > say that the thought
> had > occurred to me at the time, that >
> there were more than enough >
> qualified lawyers in this > community
> that they could > perfectly well have counselled
> … > themselves. > > > >
> CW > > > > On 04 Jul 2015, at
> 08:41, > Greg Shatan >
> <gregshatanipc at gmail.com > <
> mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>> <
> mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>>> >
> wrote: > > > >
> Wolfgang, > > > > To your first point, >
> the billing rates were clearly >
> stated in the law > firms'
> engagement letters. > > > > To your
> second point, > I'm sure we could all think of >
> other projects and >
> goals where the money could have >
> been "better spent." > You've stated yours.
> But that > is not the proper >
> test. This was and continues to be >
> money we need to spend > to
> achieve the goals we have > set. Under
> different > circumstances, perhaps it would >
> be a different amount >
> (or maybe none at all). But it >
> was strongly felt at > the outset that the group
> needed > to have independent >
> counsel. Clearly that counsel >
> needed to have > recognized expertise
> in the appropriate > legal areas. As
> such, > I believe we made excellent >
> choices and have been >
> very well represented. > > > > As to
> your "better > spent" test, I just had to have >
> $4000.00 worth of >
> emergency dental work done. This >
> money definitely could > have been "better spent"
> on a > nice vacation, >
> redecorating our living room or on >
> donations to my favored > charitable
> causes. But I had > no choice, other
> than > to choose which dentist and >
> endodontist I went to, >
> and I wasn't going to cut > corners --
> the dental > work was a necessity. >
> Similarly, the legal > work
> we are getting is a > necessity and
> whether > we would have preferred to spend >
> the money elsewhere is >
> not merely irrelevant, it is an >
> incorrect and > inappropriate proposition. Many
> of us > are investing vast >
> quantities of time that could be >
> "better spent" > elsewhere as well, but
> we are willing > (grudgingly sometimes) >
> to spend the time it takes to >
> get it right, because > we believe it
> needs to be done. > This is the
> appropriate > measure, whether it comes to >
> our time or counsels' >
> time. If we believe in this >
> project, we have to > invest in it, and do what
> it takes > to succeed. > > > >
> Of course, this >
> investment has to be managed wisely >
> and cost-effectively, > and by and large, I
> believe the > CCWG has done that >
> reasonably well -- not perfectly, >
> but reasonably well and > with
> "course corrections" > along the way
> intended > to improve that management. >
> It's certainly fair to >
> ask, as Robin has done, for a >
> better understanding of > that management as we
> go > along. But asserting >
> that the money could have been >
> "better spent" > elsewhere sets up a
> false test that we > should not use to >
> evaluate this important aspect of >
> our work. Instead, we > need to
> focus on whether the > money was "well
> spent" > on these critical legal >
> services. If you have >
> reason to believe it was not, > that
> could be useful to > know. That would at least
> be > the right discussion to >
> have. > > > > Greg > >
> > > On Sat, Jul 4, 2015 at >
> 1:13 AM, "Kleinwächter, >
> Wolfgang" > <
> wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de > <
> mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de
> <wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de>> >
> < mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de
> <wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de>>> >
> wrote: > > HI, > >
> and please if you >
> ask outside lawyers, ask for the >
> price tag in > advance. Some of the money
> spend fo > lawyers could have >
> been spend better to suppport >
> and enable Internet > user and
> non-commercial groups > in developing >
> countries. > > >
> Wolfgang > > > > > >
> -----Ursprüngliche > Nachricht----- >
> Von: >
> accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org >
> < mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org
> <accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org>> >
> <
> mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org
> <accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org>> >
> im Auftrag von > Robin Gross >
> Gesendet: Fr >
> 03.07.2015 14:57 > An:
> accountability-cross-community at icann.org > <
> mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org
> <accountability-cross-community at icann.org>> >
> < mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org
> <accountability-cross-community at icann.org>> >
> Community > Betreff: >
> [CCWG-ACCT] Who is managing the lawyers >
> and what have they >
> beenasked to do? > > > After the
> legal > sub-team was disbanded, I haven't >
> been able to follow >
> what communications are >
> happening with CCWG > and the independent lawyers
> we > retained. > >
> I understand the > lawyers are
> currently "working on > the various
> models" > and will present something to >
> us regarding that >
> work soon. However, *what > exactly*
> have the > lawyers been asked to do and >
> *who* asked them? >
> If there are written >
> instructions, may > the group please see them?
> Who > is now taking on >
> the role of managing the outside >
> attorneys for this > group, including
> providing > instructions and >
> certifying legal work? > >
> Sorry, but I'm > really trying to
> understand what is > happening, and >
> there doesn't seem to be much >
> information in the > public on this
> (or if there is, > I can't find it). >
> Thanks for any information >
> anyone can provide. > >
> Best, > Robin > >
> _______________________________________________ >
> Accountability-Cross-Community >
> mailing list >
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org > <
> mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> <Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>> >
> < mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> <Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>> >
>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community >
> <
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=AwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=rX8zWSdUbF0XJ6RQyX5HABE7NaQIgAXHj6WfvEXkLh8&s=Yqq66BmsF0-t9R7GjryZsv1k1c4OBxUhFvNoM2kB7g8&e=
> > > > > >
> _______________________________________________ >
> Accountability-Cross-Community >
> mailing list >
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org > <
> mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> <Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>> >
> < mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> <Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>> >
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community >
> <
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=AwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=rX8zWSdUbF0XJ6RQyX5HABE7NaQIgAXHj6WfvEXkLh8&s=Yqq66BmsF0-t9R7GjryZsv1k1c4OBxUhFvNoM2kB7g8&e=
> > > > > > > > >
> _______________________________________________ >
> Accountability-Cross-Community > mailing list >
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org >
> < mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> <Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>> >
> < mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> <Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>> >
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community >
> <
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=AwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=rX8zWSdUbF0XJ6RQyX5HABE7NaQIgAXHj6WfvEXkLh8&s=Yqq66BmsF0-t9R7GjryZsv1k1c4OBxUhFvNoM2kB7g8&e=
> > > > > > > > > >
> _______________________________________________ >
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing > list >
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org >
> < mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> <Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>> >
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community >
> <
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=AwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=rX8zWSdUbF0XJ6RQyX5HABE7NaQIgAXHj6WfvEXkLh8&s=Yqq66BmsF0-t9R7GjryZsv1k1c4OBxUhFvNoM2kB7g8&e=
> > > > > > --- > This email has
> been checked for viruses by > Avast antivirus
> software. > https://www.avast.com/antivirus >
> <
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.avast.com_antivirus&d=AwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=rX8zWSdUbF0XJ6RQyX5HABE7NaQIgAXHj6WfvEXkLh8&s=3Kl-xLZ-zsiAfE_l0c-D1OctY2CAccIpPM7a3Zt5pnw&e=
> > > >
> _______________________________________________ >
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list >
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org > <
> mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> <Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>> >
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community >
> <
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=AwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=rX8zWSdUbF0XJ6RQyX5HABE7NaQIgAXHj6WfvEXkLh8&s=Yqq66BmsF0-t9R7GjryZsv1k1c4OBxUhFvNoM2kB7g8&e=
> > > > > > >
> _______________________________________________ >
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list >
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org > <
> mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> <Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>> >
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community >
> <
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=AwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=rX8zWSdUbF0XJ6RQyX5HABE7NaQIgAXHj6WfvEXkLh8&s=Yqq66BmsF0-t9R7GjryZsv1k1c4OBxUhFvNoM2kB7g8&e=
> > > > > > > > -- > > Jordan Carter > >
> Chief Executive > *InternetNZ* > >
> 04 495 2118 (office) | +64 21 442 649 >
> <tel:%2B64%2021%20442%20649> (mob) >
> jordan at internetnz.net.nz > <
> mailto:jordan at internetnz.net.nz <jordan at internetnz.net.nz>> >
> Skype: jordancarter > > /A better world through a
> better Internet / > > >
> _______________________________________________ >
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list >
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org > <
> mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> <Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>> >
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community >
> <
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=AwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=rX8zWSdUbF0XJ6RQyX5HABE7NaQIgAXHj6WfvEXkLh8&s=Yqq66BmsF0-t9R7GjryZsv1k1c4OBxUhFvNoM2kB7g8&e=
> > > > > > _______________________________________________ >
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list >
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org > <
> mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> <Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>> >
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community >
> <
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=AwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=rX8zWSdUbF0XJ6RQyX5HABE7NaQIgAXHj6WfvEXkLh8&s=Yqq66BmsF0-t9R7GjryZsv1k1c4OBxUhFvNoM2kB7g8&e=
> > > > > > > _______________________________________________ >
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list >
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org > <
> mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> <Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>> >
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community >
> <
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=AwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=rX8zWSdUbF0XJ6RQyX5HABE7NaQIgAXHj6WfvEXkLh8&s=Yqq66BmsF0-t9R7GjryZsv1k1c4OBxUhFvNoM2kB7g8&e=
> > > > > > > -- > >
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >
> > /Seun Ojedeji, > Federal University Oye-Ekiti >
> web: //http://www.fuoye.edu.ng > <
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.fuoye.edu.ng&d=AwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=rX8zWSdUbF0XJ6RQyX5HABE7NaQIgAXHj6WfvEXkLh8&s=JO_X0eTa_TpfkJXFV8e7p5fCVLDvN5atmTw0JvZra7w&e=
> > > //Mobile: +2348035233535 <tel:%2B2348035233535>// >
> //alt email:seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng > <
> mailto:seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng <seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng>>/ > >
> The key to understanding is humility - my view ! > > > > >
> _______________________________________________ >
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list >
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org > <
> mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> <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
>
> --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
> _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community
> mailing list 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20150707/a9c05435/attachment.html>
More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community
mailing list