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

Thu Jul 14 01:58:19 UTC 2016

Generally icann in house legal services Greg.
rd

Rudi Daniel
*danielcharles consulting
<http://www.facebook.com/pages/Kingstown-Saint-Vincent-and-the-Grenadines/DanielCharles/153611257984774>*

On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 6:41 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Rudi,
>
> Just so I understand your point clearly, when you refer to "in-house
> counsel," who are your referring to?
>
> Thanks!
>
> Greg
>
> On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 6:16 PM, Rudolph Daniel <rudi.daniel at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> I see Greg's points clearly. And the working methodology of ICANN legal
>> as a default,  is not the same as 'advice from in-house as default'..that
>> would clearly be a disaster.
>> Greg's alternative definition of default reads as the ability to appoint
>> and use its own council as and when deemed necessary, well I take as a
>> given and a necessity.
>> And I agree, it would be throwing the baby out with the bath water to
>> even suggest a change of counsel :)
>> But let's not wish to be dismissive of 'in house' counsel, because of
>> some rigorous belief that (Greg's) default drives the process. We are on
>> the same page. We drive the process.
>> rd
>>
>> On Jul 13, 2016 2:58 PM, "Greg Shatan" <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 reasons, 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>
>>> 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>
>>>> 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>
>>>>> 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] *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
>>>>>> 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/20160713/a7a2dc25/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 92 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20160713/a7a2dc25/image002-0001.gif>