[CWG-Stewardship] Client Committee

[Kieren McCarthy]

I wasn't at all distrustful, just curious, when I first start asking
questions.

It is the answers that are making me uncomfortable. Especially the
involvement of ICANN's lawyers, both in-house and external.

The concept of "trust" as it is being relayed in the context of this closed
committee is most unusual.

"Trust" is not a replacement for procedural norms. Arguing otherwise only
raises more questions.



Kieren


On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 5:00 PM, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes at verisign.com> wrote:

>  Kieren,
>
>
>
> Your excessive mistrust is becoming counterproductive.  I am all for
> asking hard questions if they are asked in a constructive manner but in my
> personal opinion you have gone beyond that point.  I admit that I have had
> the opportunity of working with Greg fairly extensively in multiple GNSO
> WGs so I probably have a very strong basis for trusting his leadership in
> this effort, but I still think it would be helpful if you moderate your
> high level of suspicion.
>
>
>
> Chuck
>
>
>
> *From:* cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org [mailto:
> cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Kieren McCarthy
> *Sent:* Monday, March 09, 2015 7:23 PM
> *To:* jrobinson at afilias.info
> *Cc:* cwg-stewardship at icann.org
> *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] 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.
>
>
>
>
>
> 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/f33ff07f/attachment-0001.html>