[CCWG-ACCT] Legal Committee and WS2 budget - new proposal

[Seun Ojedeji]

Hello Paul,

That is fair enough, however if such decisions must be left to the
committee to allow for efficiency, a proactive approach to notifying the
CCWG needs to be put in place; such decisions should be documented with
appropriate *rationale* as well.

Regards

Sent from my LG G4
Kindly excuse brevity and typos

On 18 Jul 2016 6:15 p.m., "Paul Rosenzweig" <
paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com> wrote:

> With respect, I disagree.  The question of whether or not to seek advice
> is a ministerial one that can and should be left to the good judgment of
> the co-chairs and the committee members.   As we have seen in the last few
> days, the broader CCWG can get overwhelmed with disagreement on relatively
> inconsequential matters of process when for the most part our thinking and
> time are best devoted to substantive questions that require analysis and
> resolution
>
>
>
> Cheers
>
> Paul
>
>
>
> Paul Rosenzweig
>
> paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com
>
> O: +1 (202) 547-0660
>
> M: +1 (202) 329-9650
>
> VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739
>
> www.redbranchconsulting.com
>
> My PGP Key: http://redbranchconsulting.com/who-we-are/public-pgp-key/
>
>
>
> *From:* accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org [mailto:
> accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Seun
> Ojedeji
> *Sent:* Monday, July 18, 2016 12:32 PM
> *To:* Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill at afnic.fr>
> *Cc:* ACCT-Staff <acct-staff at icann.org>;
> accountability-cross-community at icann.org
> *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Legal Committee and WS2 budget - new proposal
>
>
>
> Hello Mathieu,
>
> The attached document indicated that decision will be handled based on
> case by case basis which is fine.
>
> However I think sub-bullet 1 of item 2 on page 6 is not explicit about
> decision making process. I like to suggest that when independent council is
> required, the legal committee should rather recommend (not decide on
> behalf) to the group as it should be the decision of the CCWG-ACT to make.
> Such recommendation should also include adequate rationale on why external
> council is preferred over ICANN legal staff.
>
> Regards
>
> Sent from my LG G4
> Kindly excuse brevity and typos
>
>
>
> On 18 Jul 2016 5:10 p.m., "Mathieu Weill" <mathieu.weill at afnic.fr> wrote:
>
> Dear Colleagues,
>
>
>
> Based on the feedback received during last week’s call, as well as on the
> robust discussion on the list, we are suggesting a revised approach for the
> Legal Committee :
>
> -          Composition based on previous Legal executive team
>
> -          Co-chairs remain budget owners, working with support from the
> PCST
>
> -          Legal committee may direct requests to external firms, on a
> case by case assessment taking into account costs, skills as well as
> potential requirement for “independent” advice.
>
>
>
> We believe this strikes a good balance between the need to manage costs
> efficiently and responsibly, and the ability for our group to request
> independent advice when needed.
>
>
>
> Depending on the feedbacks, we will report on our progress to the Board
> Finance Committee and SO/AC leaders during a call that has been arranged at
> the BFC’s request on Monday 25 July.
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> Mathieu Weill
>
> Co-chair
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20160718/6948de2f/attachment.html>