[CCWG-ACCT] Legal counsel engagement enhancements

[Chris Disspain]

Speaking as a lawyer……give lawyers a maximum and they will use it!


Cheers,

Chris

> On 21 Jun 2015, at 05:49 , León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe at sanchez.mx> wrote:
> 
> 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
>>> 
>> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20150621/01b0bd14/attachment.html>