[CWG-Stewardship] Questions for "Outside Counsel"? --REPLIES REQUESTED

[WUKnoben]

I agree. This is one major important question. And the answer should take into consideration appropriate international legislation in addition to Californian law.

Wolf-Ulrich



From: Gomes, Chuck 
Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2014 5:50 PM
To: Greg Shatan ; cwg-stewardship at icann.org 
Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Questions for "Outside Counsel"? --REPLIES REQUESTED

A very broad question is whether the proposal for Contract Co. and the MRT is legally viable.  If not, is it possible to make it viable and how?  What advice can you provide about this direction?

 

With these questions we should attach whatever is the latest version of the proposal at the time.

 

Chuck

 

From: cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan
Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2014 8:17 AM
To: cwg-stewardship at icann.org
Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Questions for "Outside Counsel"? -- REPLIES REQUESTED

 

All:

As previously discussed, there are several aspects of our work where we thought it would be helpful to get legal advice from independent counsel.  

I've been advised that in order to make this request, we should have a list of the questions we would like to put to counsel.

I am starting this thread in the hopes that others in the CWG will reply with the questions they believe the CWG should put to counsel.


Thank you for your contributions!

Greg Shatan


 



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
CWG-Stewardship mailing list
CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20141219/d9a9ba52/attachment.html>