[CCWG-ACCT] Legal counsel engagement enhancements

[León Felipe Sánchez Ambía]

Thanks Roelof,

This is a maximum, not a minimum. Therefore, this doesn’t mean we will be having 4 lawyers a call but rather limit their attendance to 4 whereas before we had no limit and I can recall meetings where we had more than 4 lawyers attending.

I hope this is more clear.

Best regards,


León

> El 20/06/2015, a las 16:44, Roelof Meijer <Roelof.Meijer at sidn.nl> escribió:
> 
> Léon, Mathieu,
> 
> You can¹t be serious. I see no reason whatsoever why we would need 2
> lawyers per firm and so 4 lawyers per call/meeting. These are reputed
> firms and expert lawyers, one of each firm should suffice.
> I really take an issue with the amount of money we¹re spending on legal
> advice
> 
> Best,
> 
> Roelof
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 20-06-15 16:35, "accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org on
> behalf of León Felipe Sánchez Ambía"
> <accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org on behalf of
> leonfelipe at sanchez.mx> wrote:
> 
>> Dear all,
>> 
>> Just as a follow up to Mathieu¹s email, I would like to clarify that
>> lawyers maximum attendance per call/meeting is 2 lawyers per firm.
>> 
>> 
>> Best regards,
>> 
>> 
>> León
>> 
>>> El 20/06/2015, a las 16:24, Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill at afnic.fr>
>>> escribió:
>>> 
>>> Dear Colleagues,
>>> 
>>> During last week's call, we agreed that the co-chair would engage with
>>> the lawyers in order to optimize interactions between our group and the
>>> independent legal counsel, taking into account the importance of quality
>>> advice as well as the concerns regarding expenses.
>>> 
>>> We have met today with Holly and Rosemary and this is to report on the
>>> ways forward we have agreed on :
>>> 
>>> * to avoid any misunderstanding on questions, as well as enable a
>>> better assessment of costs, we will refrain from certifying questions
>>> until :
>>>   * a discussion has taken place between lawyers and the colleague
>>> asking the question, either through a regular call or through ad hoc
>>> calls (such ad hoc calls would obviously be transcribed and open)
>>>   * such a discussion has, if need be, produced a clarified version of
>>> the question, an estimate of whether the response would require a lot of
>>> research, and an indication of the potential value of the research for
>>> the group's further deliberations.
>>> 
>>> * participation of lawyers to meetings and calls will be limited to a
>>> maximum of 2. As a consequence, lawyers may not always be able to
>>> respond to our questions instantly. In such cases, we will rely on the
>>> above certification process.
>>> 
>>> * a "punch list" of issues will be produced avec Buenos Aires and
>>> shared with the group as a project management tool.
>>> 
>>> We are convinced these simple steps will be useful to get the best
>>> value out of the outstanding expertise of our cousel.
>>> 
>>> Best regards,
>>> 
>>> --
>>> *****************************
>>> Mathieu WEILL
>>> AFNIC - directeur général
>>> Tél: +33 1 39 30 83 06
>>> mathieu.weill at afnic.fr
>>> Twitter : @mathieuweill
>>> *****************************
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>> 
> 

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 842 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150620/a81810c2/signature.asc>