[CCWG-ACCT] Who is managing the lawyers and what have they beenasked to do?

Greg Shatan gregshatanipc at gmail.com
Tue Jul 7 05:57:05 UTC 2015


Kavouss,

We need to understand the objections that any SO/AC has to a proposal on
the table to see if those objections can be dealt with.  If we don't
understand why there are concerns, we'll never resolve them.  There are
concerns around every model.

If a concern can be resolved by the lawyers, where there is a legal issue,
that is money well spent.

If any SO/AC has decided anything "for certain," we are in trouble.

As Jordan has said, everybody has to get out of their corners so that we
can come to resolution.

In any democratic process, there should be open and substantive debate, and
open-minded work toward resolving concerns.

I don't consider asking any SO/AC why they have taken a particular position
to be "pressure."  I consider it a necessity.  Hidden reasons or no reason
at all leave very little to work with when trying to solve problems.

Greg

On Tue, Jul 7, 2015 at 1:01 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Dear Grec
> If a SO and/ AC has decided for certain
> Model it is neither CCWG nor the Lawyers to provide convincing reasons
> No penny is to be authorised to the lawyers.
> This is a democratic process and no pressure from anybody
> Regards
> Kavouss
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On 7 Jul 2015, at 06:34, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 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
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/cb777bfb/attachment.html>


More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list