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

Thu Jul 14 02:32:53 UTC 2016

Agree, though I'm not sure if they were referring to ICANN's legal Dept or
to ICANN's outside counsel (Jones Day). Outside counsel would be bad
enough. In-house verges on the ridiculous.

On Wednesday, July 13, 2016, Rudolph Daniel <rudi.daniel at gmail.com> wrote:

> Greg
> In light of Robin's statement, "Additionally it was revealed in
> yesterday’s calls, that ICANN’s legal dept fees will be added to the CCWG’s
> independent fees"
> I do not see that as contributing to a positive working scenario. I do not
> comprehend the logic .
> 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
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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
>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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
>>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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
>>>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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
>>>>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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
>>>>>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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
>>>>>>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org');>
>>>>>>> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org
>>>>>>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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
>>>>>>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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
>>>>>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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
>>>>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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/20160713/9340098b/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/20160713/9340098b/image002-0001.gif>