[CWG-Stewardship] Client Committee

[Kieren McCarthy]

> The Client Committee remains required in order to provide a coherent
interface between the
> CWG & the retained law firm because it is not practical or cost-effective
for a group the size of
> the CWG to continuously interact with the retained law firm at all times.


Can I ask who decided this? Was it the closed committee itself or was there
a discussion on this list that I missed?

I'm not sure these assertions hold much water to be honest. And the
previous justification for having a closed committee for selecting the
legal team - expediency - turned out not to be true either.

I am concerned that important decisions are being made by a closed
committee without the normal, or adequate, transparency or accountability
measures.

It seems peculiar that with well established processes for the rest of this
process that this aspect now has to rely on people recommending
transparency and accountability components.

Surely it should be the case that this part of the process is run exactly
the same as the rest of the IANA transition. That means an open mailing
list, open meetings, minutes, recordings and so on.

If any changes are made they should be dependent on persuading others that
they need to be *removed* rather than this approach which appears to start
from complete secrecy and then ask the community to persuade the select
group of four people (plus ICANN lawyers, both in-house and external) that
they should introduce norms.

The fact that this process is about developing external legal advice and
that that advice is expected to contradict ICANN's own legal advice, makes
this abnormal approach all the more concerning to me.

I'm almost hesitant to ask but does this group expect that ICANN's legal
team and/or legal representatives would remain on the closed committee?

If so, I'd like to see an explanation for why that isn't a highly
significant conflict of interest.



Kieren



On Sun, Mar 8, 2015 at 3:48 PM, Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson at afilias.info>
wrote:

> All,
>
>
>
> We are following up on the very good news that the Client Committee has
> successfully worked with ICANN staff to secure the retention of Sidley
> Austin. First, particular thanks are due to Greg Shatan for the
> extraordinary effort he has put in to assist the committee with all aspects
> of its work.
>
>
>
> Since the CWG initially discussed and agreed the set-up and composition of
> the Client Committee, there has been some e-mail discussion regarding the
> functioning of the Committee. As you know, the composition comprises the
> two co-chairs and two legally qualified individuals (Greg Shatan and Maarten
> Simon) which is a manageable size and contains appropriately qualified
> members. The Committee was set up to provide an effective interface between
> the CWG and the firm providing the CWG with appropriate advice on the
> relevant legal issues. However, prior to that, the first task of the
> Committee was to secure the services of a suitably qualified firm and that
> job is now complete. Therefore, now seems to be a good time to seek input
> on the working of the Client Committee.
>
>
>
> The Client Committee remains required in order to provide a coherent
> interface between the CWG & the retained law firm because it is not
> practical or cost-effective for a group the size of the CWG to continuously
> interact with the retained law firm at all times. However, in order for the
> CWG (and anyone relying on the work of the CWG) to have confidence in the
> work of the Client Committee, the CWG needs to fully trust that the Client
> Committee will accurately and effectively transmit and represent the issues
> and challenges facing the CWG. And moreover, that there will be
> opportunities for the CWG to interact directly with the law firm in order
> to enhance that confidence and clarify issues where relevant. As per the
> announcement of the selection of Sidley, representatives of the firm will
> be at the CWG meeting on Tuesday to both listen and interact.
>
>
>
> Therefore, what (if any) changes to the working methods of the Client
> Committee should be made so that the CWG can be as confident as possible in
> the capabilities and work of the Client Committee as this crucial aspect of
> the CWG’s work commences in earnest?
>
>
>
> Thank-you,
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Jonathan & Lise
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20150309/72be8333/attachment.html>