[CCWG-ACCT] Proposed Agenda CCWG ACCT Meeting - 12 July 2016 @ 20:00 UTC
Seun Ojedeji
seun.ojedeji at gmail.com
Fri Jul 15 18:14:28 UTC 2016
Hello,
By default means always considering use of ICANN legal staff first before
going independent. I don't think this should require a dialout as I think
we all agree that CCWG should have access to independent legal whenever
required.
Regards
Sent from my LG G4
Kindly excuse brevity and typos
On 15 Jul 2016 19:00, "farzaneh badii" <farzaneh.badii at gmail.com> wrote:
> No. Using the independent legal advisers *responsibly* does not mean that
> we have to have a default approach.
>
> I wonder what the next steps would be on this issue. Perhaps co-chairs can
> help us on this ? Are we going to have a call and discuss this and come up
> with a solution?
>
> On 15 July 2016 at 19:46, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> +1 on ensuring access to independent legal adviser whenever required by
>> CCWG. This would imply referring to internal legal(staff) by default and
>> then call for independent legal advice whenever the group sense there is
>> need for clarification (or when the issues at hand is warranted).
>>
>> Regards
>> Sent from my LG G4
>> Kindly excuse brevity and typos
>>
>> On 15 Jul 2016 13:19, "James M. Bladel" <jbladel at godaddy.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Agree with Keith.
>>>
>>> CCWG must preserve the use of independent legal advisors, but use this
>>> responsibly, and with an eye on controlling costs. Ultimately, it is gTLD
>>> registrants picking up the bill, and we need to ensure that this work is
>>> mindful of their interests.
>>>
>>> Thanks—
>>>
>>> J.
>>>
>>> From: <accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of
>>> Keith Drazek <kdrazek at verisign.com>
>>> Date: Thursday, July 14, 2016 at 16:53
>>> To: Phil Corwin <psc at vlaw-dc.com>, Matthew Shears <mshears at cdt.org>,
>>> Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>, Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org>
>>> Cc: Accountability Cross Community <
>>> accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
>>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Proposed Agenda CCWG ACCT Meeting - 12 July
>>> 2016 @ 20:00 UTC
>>>
>>> Agreed. Access to independent legal advice was never in question.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> That said, in the interest of controlling costs, I have no problem
>>> seeking input from ICANN’s internal lawyers on issues that are deemed
>>> non-contentious or where potential conflicts do not exist.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I am obligated to report that the Registries Stakeholder Group is very,
>>> very concerned about the cost of legal fees from WS1 and wants to ensure
>>> the CCWG is efficient with its future spending. I know we’re developing
>>> cost-control mechanisms for WS2, and I’ve advised my SG accordingly, but
>>> this will continue to receive attention from the RySG.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Holly’s question and the response about budgeting vis-à-vis ICANN’s
>>> outside counsel was instructive. Any and all outside counsel expenses will
>>> require certification.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> So, let me reiterate my view…the CCWG must have access to independent
>>> legal advice. We must ensure costs are controlled and resources are used
>>> efficiently. If that means selectively turning to ICANN’s lawyers on
>>> occasion, I can and do support that, but not at the expense of our ability
>>> to seek independent advice.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Keith
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From:* accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org [
>>> mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org
>>> <accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Phil
>>> Corwin
>>> *Sent:* Thursday, July 14, 2016 5:34 PM
>>> *To:* Matthew Shears; Greg Shatan; Robin Gross
>>> *Cc:* Accountability Cross Community
>>> *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Proposed Agenda CCWG ACCT Meeting - 12 July
>>> 2016 @ 20:00 UTC
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Access to independent legal advice for WS2 issues is fundamental and
>>> should be non-negotiable
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Use your power, Empowered Community
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal
>>> Virtualaw LLC
>>> 1155 F Street NW
>>> Suite 1050
>>> Washington, DC 20004
>>> 202-559-8597/Direct
>>> 202-559-8750/Fax
>>> 202-255-6172/Cell
>>>
>>> Twitter: @VlawDC
>>>
>>> "Luck is the residue of design" --- Branch Rickey
>>>
>>> *From:*mshears at cdt.org
>>>
>>> *Sent:*July 14, 2016 5:26 PM
>>>
>>> *To:*gregshatanipc at gmail.com; robin at ipjustice.org
>>>
>>> *Cc:*accountability-cross-community at icann.org
>>>
>>> *Subject:*Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Proposed Agenda CCWG ACCT Meeting - 12 July
>>> 2016 @ 20:00 UTC
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> + 1 well said Robin.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 14/07/2016 03:20, Greg Shatan wrote:
>>>
>>> Robin,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Agree 100%.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Greg
>>>
>>> On Wednesday, July 13, 2016, Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> It is simply a non-starter to suggest that CCWG would lose its right to
>>> independent counsel at this stage. I am struggling to understand *where*
>>> the suggestion to start this debate all over again even came from. We have
>>> very important issues on our agenda for WorkStream 2 that require
>>> independence of legal advice: transparency of board deliberations,
>>> reforming the DIDP, the CEP, etc., which all involve trying to reform the
>>> policies that were created by the in-house legal dept. It is silly to
>>> suggest that we must seek the legal advice from those who created the
>>> policies we are trying to reform as that would be counter-productive to our
>>> goals.
>>>
>>> Additionally it was revealed in yesterday’s calls, that ICANN’s legal
>>> dept fees will be added to the CCWG’s independent fees, so CCWG will be
>>> billed for the in-house efforts to resist our reforms (and we won’t be
>>> given access to the legal advice that we would be paying for). I think it
>>> is extremely important the legal fees NOT be conflated together. We need
>>> to understand what the separate costs are, and we cannot be held
>>> responsible for spending on Jones Day that is outside of our control. Fees
>>> that ICANN corporate undertakes must be separated from fees that CCWG
>>> undertakes or the proposed budget process makes absolutely no sense, unless
>>> it was intended to tie CCWG’s hands and give ICANN corporate a blank check
>>> to spend resisting our reforms.
>>>
>>> This is an important issue that we cannot roll over on, or everything
>>> else we try to do from here on out will be of questionable value. This
>>> settled debate should not be re-opened, despite the huge win for ICANN
>>> corporate if were to succeed in over-turning this group’s previous decision
>>> on this critical matter of independence of legal advice.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Robin
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> > On Jul 13, 2016, at 2:06 PM, Niels ten Oever <lists at nielstenoever.net>
>>> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > Also +1 to Greg and +1 to James
>>> >
>>> > On 07/13/2016 10:50 PM, Dr. Tatiana Tropina wrote:
>>> >> Thanks, Greg. +1. Fully agree.
>>> >>
>>> >> CCWG shall retain the ability to ask for independent advice. Also
>>> agree
>>> >> that continuing with Sidley Austin and Adler & Colvin is the best
>>> option.
>>> >>
>>> >> + 1 also to James previous email about not reopening the debate.
>>> >>
>>> >> Best,
>>> >>
>>> >> Tanya
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> On 13/07/16 22:42, Greg Shatan wrote:
>>> >>> Siva,
>>> >>>
>>> >>> The reasons are all in the record. Please go back and read all of
>>> the
>>> >>> materials and discussions relating to our desire and choice to hire
>>> >>> independent counsel. If you have any specific questions after that,
>>> >>> please ask them.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> I will briefly say the following:
>>> >>>
>>> >>> 1. This has nothing to do with competence, although being generally
>>> >>> competent and competent in a specific area are two different things.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> 2. Where we needed first-hand knowledge or history, we've turned to
>>> >>> ICANN legal as one source for such things. That won't change. Advice
>>> >>> is another thing entirely.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> 3. Ask yourself "Who is ICANN legal's client?" and you will have
>>> >>> answered your own question.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Greg
>>> >>>
>>> >>> On Wednesday, July 13, 2016, Sivasubramanian M <isolatedn at gmail.com
>>> >>> <mailto:isolatedn at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>> >>>
>>> >>> 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
>>> >>> <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 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
>>> >>> <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/
>>> >>> <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
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> _______________________________________________
>>> >>> 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
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> --
>>> >>> 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
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> _______________________________________________
>>> >> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>>> >> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>>> >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> > --
>>> > Niels ten Oever
>>> > Head of Digital
>>> >
>>> > Article 19
>>> > www.article19.org
>>> >
>>> > PGP fingerprint 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4
>>> > 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9
>>> > _______________________________________________
>>> > 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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --------------
>>>
>>> Matthew Shears
>>>
>>> Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
>>>
>>> Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
>>>
>>> + 44 771 2472987
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------
>>>
>>> [image: Avast logo] <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
>>>
>>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>>> www.avast.com <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------
>>>
>>> No virus found in this message.
>>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>>> Version: 2016.0.7497 / Virus Database: 4613/12558 - Release Date:
>>> 07/04/16
>>> Internal Virus Database is out of date.
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Farzaneh
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20160715/83a14ab7/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community
mailing list