[CCWG-ACCT] Proposed Agenda CCWG ACCT Meeting - 12 July 2016 @ 20:00 UTC

Wed Jul 13 20:32:06 UTC 2016

+ 1


On 13/07/2016 21:19, James Gannon wrote:
> I really don’t think its useful to reopen this debate that we had at 
> length at the start of the CCWG,
>
> -Jg
>
> From: <accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org 
> <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org>> on behalf 
> of Sivasubramanian M <isolatedn at gmail.com <mailto:isolatedn at gmail.com>>
> Date: Wednesday 13 July 2016 at 22:15
> To: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>>
> Cc: CCWG-Accountability <accountability-cross-community at icann.org 
> <mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>>
> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Proposed Agenda CCWG ACCT Meeting - 12 July 
> 2016 @ 20:00 UTC
>
> Greg,
>
> How valid are your assumptions? What are the reasons for this 
> unwillingness to make use of ICANN Legal, who are competent, have 
> first hand knowledge and a complete understanding of the legal nuances 
> on matters concerning ICANN, may I ask? Saves money on most matters 
> requiring legal advice, and should there be areas that require 
> specialized advice, we could seek external advice.
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 12:28 AM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com 
> <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>     I object, and I think many others objected, to the idea that
>     advice from inhouse (i.e., ICANN legal) should be the "default."
>      We retained independent counsel to the CCWG for good reason
>     s
>
>     and those reasons are still applicable today.  I hope we don't
>     need to rehash that.
>
>     We need the continued ability and discretion to go directly to
>     CCWG's counsel.  Requesting inhouse to solicit an opinion from an
>     external counsel is not only "cumbersome," it's absolutely
>     antithetical to the relationship between CCWG and its independent
>     counsel.
>
>     I strongly believe that the "default" must be the status quo,
>     i.e., that the CCWG (through reasonable processes) has the ability
>     and discretion to turn to its own counsel.  Further, I strongly
>     believe that CCWG's independent counsel must remain Sidley Austin
>     and Adler & Colvin.  They have been up a tremendous learning curve
>     and worked with us every step of the way.  It would be folly to
>     cast that aside. It's worth noting that Sidley is a full-service
>     law firm with offices outside the US in Beijing, Brussels, Geneva,
>     Hong Kong, London, Munich, Shanghai, Singapore, Sydney and Tokyo. 
>     I'm confident that Sidley (and Adler) will (a) tell us when they
>     don't have the expertise to help us, and (b) work with us on
>     working methods to make our use of the firms more cost-effective.
>
>     Greg
>
>     On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 9:22 PM, Rudolph Daniel
>     <rudi.daniel at gmail.com <mailto:rudi.daniel at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>         Based on comments on the call today, IMO; A good body of
>         knowledge was accquired on the subject of legal requests in
>         wg1. WG2 legal resources would be both inhouse and external,
>         from start, We should be much more efficient this time around.
>         Each sub however will have their needs and there may be
>         requests applicable across the subgroups and/or specific to a
>         subgroup.
>         So, that suggests close relationship between budget control
>         and the former legal request team [reconfigured and/or
>         augmented] who would have to coordinate requests across ws2 sub
>         groups as i see it.
>         What determines the initial choice inhouse/external resources
>         may be a matter of consensus, but it may be prudent to
>         consider the process as [default] inhouse with the flexible
>         and necessary option of external sources by consensus [as the
>         fog clears so to speak]. I think it may be cumbersome to
>         request inhouse to solicit an opinion from an external,
>          because there may arise an instance where; on the strength of
>         an opinion, [inhouse or external] ; a wg2 may wish to
>         reframe and seek alternative advise elswhere.
>         rd
>
>
>
>         Rudi Daniel
>         /danielcharles consulting
>         <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Kingstown-Saint-Vincent-and-the-Grenadines/DanielCharles/153611257984774>/
>         *
>         *
>
>
>         On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 7:21 PM, Vinay Kesari
>         <vinay.kesari at gmail.com <mailto:vinay.kesari at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>             Dear all,
>
>             I was unfortunately unable to join the call as I was on a
>             flight at the time, my apologies. I've just had a chance
>             to catch up on the Adobe Connect recording, and I'm happy
>             to reconfirm my willingness and availability to serve as a
>             rapporteur. Also, I agree with the thrust of Kavouss'
>             comment at 0:24:30, and affirm my commitment to serve
>             impartially. I look forward to working with Greg on the
>             jurisdiction subgroup.
>
>             Separately, on the issue of allocation of legal requests,
>             I agree that we need further discussion, and endorse
>             creating an Option 3 based on the points made and the
>             specific requirements of the different WS2 subgroups.
>
>             Regards,
>             Vinay
>
>
>             On 12 July 2016 at 20:55, Mathieu Weill
>             <mathieu.weill at afnic.fr <mailto:mathieu.weill at afnic.fr>>
>             wrote:
>
>                 Dear Colleagues,
>
>                 Attached is a short set of slides to support our
>                 discussion on agenda item #4
>
>                 Talk to you in a few hours
>
>                 Mathieu
>
>                 *De :*accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org
>                 <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org>
>                 [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org
>                 <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org>]
>                 *De la part de* MSSI Secretariat
>                 *Envoyé :* lundi 11 juillet 2016 19:46
>                 *À :* CCWG-Accountability
>                 *Objet :* [CCWG-ACCT] Proposed Agenda CCWG ACCT
>                 Meeting - 12 July 2016 @ 20:00 UTC
>
>                 Good day all,
>
>                 In preparation for your call, CCWG Accountability WS2
>                 Meeting
>                 #2<https://community.icann.org/x/FyOOAw>– Tuesday, 12
>                 July @ 20:00 – 22:00 UTC.  Time zone converter here
>                 <http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=CCWG+Accountability+Meeting&iso=20160712T20&p1=1440&ah=2>
>
>                 *Proposed Agenda:*
>
>                 1. Welcome, SOI
>
>                 2. Articles of Incorporation : finalize submission
>
>                 3. Appointment of rapporteurs for WS2 – next steps
>
>                 4. Legal Cost Control Mechanism : initial discussion
>
>                 5. AOB
>
>                 6. Closing
>
>                 *Adobe Connect:
>                 *https://icann.adobeconnect.com/accountability/
>
>                 Thank you!
>
>                 With kind regards,
>
>                 Brenda Brewer
>
>                 MSSI Projects & Operations Assistant
>
>                 ICANN-Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
>
>
>                 _______________________________________________
>                 Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>                 Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>                 <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
>                 https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>
>
>
>             _______________________________________________
>             Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>             Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>             <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
>             https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>
>
>
>         _______________________________________________
>         Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>         Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>         <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
>         https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>
>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>     Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>     <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
>     https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> Sivasubramanian M <https://www.facebook.com/sivasubramanian.muthusamy>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

-- 

--------------
Matthew Shears
Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
+ 44 771 2472987


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20160713/7c2525be/attachment-0001.html>