[CWG-Stewardship] Client Committee

Mon Mar 9 23:48:27 UTC 2015

To respond to one particular item, we have over the last few days been
developing "Rules of Engagement" for the client relationship with Sidley.
These include many things you mention here.  We have set up a "CWG-client"
email list, which is being archived publicly like every other list of this
group.  Our call today with Sidley was conducted on Adobe Connect and
recorded, as well all other such scheduled calls.  A document is being
prepared to reflect these "Rules of Engagement."  I'm sorry it wasn't ready
earlier, but I spent several hours in the ER on Friday night being
diagnosed with cellulitis (a subcutaneous skin infection which can be fatal
if left untreated), and several more hours with my internist today, because
he wanted to do tests to rule out Deep Vein Thrombosis, which is much more
likely than cellulitis to be fatal.  Fortunately, it's only cellulitis.
This slowed me down a bit, in part because of the infection and in part
because I have to spend as much time as possible with my leg elevated above
my heart, which is not an ideal working position.

Jonathan's call for suggestions was meant to open the floor to further
suggestions, not to suggest that we had no idea how to set things up going
forward.  I'm sure this would have been clearer if the "Rules of
Engagement" had been sent out first, but we're not perfect.  However, we're
also trying our best and in good faith to get the CWG the legal advice it
needs and we are on the cusp of doing so.

"Complete secrecy" is an absurd mis-statement, but that's only par for the
course.  As for expediency, we worked on this virtually every day and
sometimes many hours a day since this committee was formed.  You have no
idea how long something like this takes, but you have no problem asserting
that there were delays or lack of expediency.

If you all are getting ready to hand out pitchforks and fire up the
torches, I'm not sticking around for the barbecue.

Greg

On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 7:23 PM, Kieren McCarthy <kieren at kierenmccarthy.com>
wrote:

> > 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
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20150309/3a806fd8/attachment.html>