[CWG-Stewardship] Client Committee

Tue Mar 10 01:20:23 UTC 2015

Elaborating further.

In response to this:

"Also, the client relationship has been clearly defined and emphasized in the retention letter in that ICANN has instructed Sidley to take direction exclusively from and provide advice and consultation exclusively to the CWG, primarily through the CWG’s Client Committee."

The clear implication is that if the CWG is the exclusive client, then ICANN is not since enhanced accountability mechanisms would further constrain ICANN as a corporate entity.

If ICANN is conclusively not the client, then it is entirely inappropriate to have ICANN staff or legal representatives on the Client Committee.

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 Mar 9, 2015, at 8:46 PM, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes at verisign.com<mailto:cgomes at verisign.com>> wrote:

Robin,

I fully agree that they should not be a part of the client committee.

Chuck

From: cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Robin Gross
Sent: Monday, March 09, 2015 8:34 PM
To: cwg-stewardship at icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Client Committee

Well, the ICANN website says that 3 ICANN attorneys are also included on the CWG Client Committee mailing list (Samantha, John J, Kevin from Jones Day) and meetings.  And ICANN's lawyers are also part of the conversations with the CWG Client Cmte, so it seems like they are participants of the Client Cmte, even if not labeled as such.

Since the phase of retaining the law firm and needing ICANN's help identifying conflicts is over, ICANN's lawyers should no longer be participants on the CWG Client Committee mailing list, meetings, discussions, etc., if the client committee can be said to be independent of the conflict.

Thanks,
Robin

On Mar 9, 2015, at 5:06 PM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:

Robin,

My understanding is that there are only 4 members of the client committee:  Greg, Maartin, Lise and Jonathan.  I have seen nothing that expanded the membership.  The fact that others have been involved with the client committee in finalizing the arrangements with Sidley is in my understanding simply a result of the fact that ICANN is funding the effort and has to be a legal party to the agreement, which you probably understand better than me.

Chuck

From: cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Robin Gross
Sent: Monday, March 09, 2015 8:01 PM
To: jrobinson at afilias.info<mailto:jrobinson at afilias.info>
Cc: cwg-stewardship at icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Client Committee

Thanks, Jonathan.  I'm concerned about inclusion of more ICANN representatives than community representatives on the CWG Client Committee:
  https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocwgdtstwrdshp/Client+Committee

When did CWG decide it would allow 5 ICANN representatives, including 3 of ICANN's attorneys on the CWG's Client Committee?  Secretarial support work is fine, but actual participation is another thing entirely.

We are supposed to obtain truly independent legal advice.  So why are we re-introducing the conflict we are trying to avoid into the Client Committee?

I suggest a CWG discussion about the appropriateness of ICANN's attorneys remaining on the Client Committee going forward.  Now that outside counsel has been retained, any need for their involvement to help identify possible conflicts has been removed.

Thanks,
Robin
<image001.png>

On Mar 8, 2015, at 3:48 PM, Jonathan Robinson 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<mailto:CWG-Stewardship at icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship

________________________________

No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com>
Version: 2015.0.5751 / Virus Database: 4299/9238 - Release Date: 03/06/15

<ATT00001.c>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20150310/263f41f7/attachment-0001.html>