[CWG-Stewardship] Fwd: Client Committee -- Further Update

Tue Mar 3 16:45:11 UTC 2015

Great, thank you Greg.

When would be best to follow up on the questions re the role of ICANN's legal staff in selecting an independent legal advisor?

Kieren

-
[sent through phone]

On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 8:02 AM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Kieren,
> Please see my inline responses below.
> Greg
> On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 4:26 PM, Kieren McCarthy <kieren at kierenmccarthy.com>
> wrote:
>> Just to follow up on this from a week ago.
>>
>>
>> > As noted before, we will ask the firms' permission to reveal their
>> identities at this stage and for permission to circulate their
>> submissions.
>>
>> Has this happened?
>>
> Yes
>> Have you asked the firms?
>>
> Yes
>> Have they responded?
>>
> Two have responded (positively). The third will get back to me -- this is
> not a snap answer to give (for any of the firms).
>> How was the question phrased?
>>
> Something like -- Do you think you could allow us to disclose your firm's
> identity or the materials you provided to us?
>> If they do not respond, will you publish the names regardless?
>>
> If they don't respond, I'll follow up until they do.
>>
>>
>> > The Client Committee has now scheduled conference calls with each of
>> the three "short list" firms.  These meetings are scheduled for Thursday,
>> February 26, Friday, February 27, and Monday, March 2.  The calls are
>> expected to last 60-90 minutes.
>>
>> > We will also make clear to them that, if chosen, the representation
>> should be designed to meet transparency and accountability standards beyond
>> those typically encountered in the attorney-client relationship (which tend
>> to value confidentiality and the maintenance of the attorney-client
>> privilege)
>>
>>
>> I note that all three meetings have now occurred.
>>
>> Was this clarification over openness made clear to each firm?
>>
> Yes
>> How was that done?
>>
> In a fairly substantial conversation.
>> Did any of the firms express reservations?
>>
> Not per se, but each indicated they would need to consider the issue and
> would work with us to configure the representation to meet these needs.
>> What was the agreed resolution?
>>
> Each call was 60-90 minutes and we had plenty of ground to cover. It would
> be both impossible and premature to resolve that issue at this stage.
> However, each firm did bring up some ideas on how they might approach this.
>>
>>
>> > I expect that we will schedule a call for as soon as possible after the
>> 3 meetings take place to discuss and compare the firms and move forward
>> toward engaging one of the firms on our behalf.
>>
>>
>> When will this call be?
>>
> A debrief call took place Monday, not long after the last law firm
> conference call.  We are trying to keep this moving, and we want to discuss
> the firms before our next meeting today, so that we could bring a somewhat
> considered set of views back to the CWG.
>> Will you be making that call public?
>>
> We'll discuss how best to share the discussion and outcomes of that
> discussion.  It's not my decision to make alone.
>> Will you be providing minutes of the meetings so far?
>>
> I assume you are referring to the meetings of the Committee and not the
> meetings with the firms. I've provided updates on prior meetings.  See
> above regarding Monday's call.  We will also be discussing how to change
> our working methods, given the difference in task and approach between
> hiring a law firm and being involved in getting advice from them (in an
> unusually transparent manner),  However, we'll need the input of the firm
> we hire to finalize these revised working methods.
>> When do you expect this to be resolved and a decision made?
>>
> As quickly as possible -- this week, if at all possible.
>>
>>
>> I also note that there were a number of questions from John Poole a number
>> of days ago that have so far gone unanswered, including several about the
>> role that ICANN's legal team is taking in the selection of an independent
>> law firm that is due to review ICANN's own legal position.
>>
> I'll go back and look at those questions as soon as possible.
>>
>> Can you confirm that you will answer these questions in due course?
>>
> I just did.
>>
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> Your're most welcome.
>>
>>
>> Kieren
>>
> Greg
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 11:39 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> As soon as we can, you will.
>>>
>>> Greg
>>>
>>> On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 12:01 AM, Phil Corwin <psc at vlaw-dc.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>  Thanks for this helpful update. Look forward to learning the names of
>>>> the firms being considered.
>>>>
>>>> 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
>>>>
>>>>  Sent from my iPad
>>>>
>>>> On Feb 25, 2015, at 5:43 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>   All:
>>>>
>>>>  The Client Committee has now scheduled conference calls with each of
>>>> the three "short list" firms.  These meetings are scheduled for Thursday,
>>>> February 26, Friday, February 27, and Monday, March 2.  The calls are
>>>> expected to last 60-90 minutes.
>>>>
>>>>  In addition to the Client Committee, Leon Sanchez, a member of the
>>>> CCWG legal committee, will be sitting in on most, if not all, of the
>>>> calls.  Samantha Eisner, a member of the ICANN legal staff, will also be on
>>>> the calls.
>>>>
>>>>  Each of the firms have seen the legal scoping document and the
>>>> Singapore discussion document, and provided a link to the CWG's wiki page
>>>>  They were also informed of today's US Senate hearing beforehand.
>>>>
>>>>  As noted before, we will ask the firms' permission to reveal their
>>>> identities at this stage and for permission to circulate their
>>>> submissions.  We will also make clear to them that, if chosen, the
>>>> representation should be designed to meet transparency and accountability
>>>> standards beyond those typically encountered in the attorney-client
>>>> relationship (which tend to value confidentiality and the maintenance of
>>>> the attorney-client privilege)
>>>>
>>>>  I expect that we will schedule a call for as soon as possible after
>>>> the 3 meetings take place to discuss and compare the firms and move forward
>>>> toward engaging one of the firms on our behalf.  We may also have further
>>>> prep/debrief calls around the conferences.
>>>>
>>>>  In a addition, we are in the process of preparing documents to
>>>> memorialize our initial selection criteria/process, so that it can be
>>>> better understood.  We will keep you informed of the process as it
>>>> progresses.  If there are any specific subjects you would like me to try to
>>>> cover, please let me know.
>>>>
>>>>  Greg
>>>>
>>>>  --
>>>>
>>>> *Gregory S. Shatan **ï* *Abelman Frayne & Schwab*
>>>>
>>>> *Partner* *| IP | Technology | Media | Internet*
>>>>
>>>> *666 Third Avenue | New York, NY 10017-5621*
>>>>
>>>> *Direct*  212-885-9253 *| **Main* 212-949-9022
>>>>
>>>> *Fax*  212-949-9190 *|* *Cell *917-816-6428
>>>>
>>>> *gsshatan at lawabel.com <gsshatan at lawabel.com>*
>>>>
>>>> *ICANN-related: gregshatanipc at gmail.com <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>*
>>>>
>>>> *www.lawabel.com <http://www.lawabel.com/>*
>>>>   ------------------------------
>>>>
>>>> No virus found in this message.
>>>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>>>> Version: 2015.0.5646 / Virus Database: 4299/9172 - Release Date: 02/24/15
>>>>
>>>>  <ATT00001.c>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> *Gregory S. Shatan **ï* *Abelman Frayne & Schwab*
>>>
>>> *Partner* *| IP | Technology | Media | Internet*
>>>
>>> *666 Third Avenue | New York, NY 10017-5621*
>>>
>>> *Direct*  212-885-9253 *| **Main* 212-949-9022
>>>
>>> *Fax*  212-949-9190 *|* *Cell *917-816-6428
>>>
>>> *gsshatan at lawabel.com <gsshatan at lawabel.com>*
>>>
>>> *ICANN-related: gregshatanipc at gmail.com <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>*
>>>
>>> *www.lawabel.com <http://www.lawabel.com/>*
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
>>> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
>>>
>>>
>>
> -- 
> *Gregory S. Shatan **ï* *Abelman Frayne & Schwab*
> *Partner* *| IP | Technology | Media | Internet*
> *666 Third Avenue | New York, NY 10017-5621*
> *Direct*  212-885-9253 *| **Main* 212-949-9022
> *Fax*  212-949-9190 *|* *Cell *917-816-6428
> *gsshatan at lawabel.com <gsshatan at lawabel.com>*
> *ICANN-related: gregshatanipc at gmail.com <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>*
> *www.lawabel.com <http://www.lawabel.com/>*
> -- 
> *Gregory S. Shatan **ï* *Abelman Frayne & Schwab*
> *Partner* *| IP | Technology | Media | Internet*
> *666 Third Avenue | New York, NY 10017-5621*
> *Direct*  212-885-9253 *| **Main* 212-949-9022
> *Fax*  212-949-9190 *|* *Cell *917-816-6428
> *gsshatan at lawabel.com <gsshatan at lawabel.com>*
> *ICANN-related: gregshatanipc at gmail.com <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>*
> *www.lawabel.com <http://www.lawabel.com/>*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20150303/33653dc5/attachment-0001.html>