[CWG-Stewardship] Client Committee

[Greg Shatan]

Milton, thanks for your email.

I understand the concerns and I don't mind tough questions.  Indeed, I
agree that asking tough questions is part of assuring the integrity of this
(or any other) process.  It's the side dishes of suspicion, accusations,
allegations of bad faith, and nascent conspiracy theory that upset my
stomach (probably along with the antibiotics, but I'm taking acidophilus
now for that).  Perversely, these arsenic-laced side dishes deter and
distract from discussions of the meaty questions that should be the main
course of the matter.  Most times, I have a cast iron stomach for such
unpalatable bits (or I'm willing to absorb my upset so as not to contribute
to the distraction).  However, from time to time, swallowing so much
second-hand bile causes me to have an equal and opposite reaction.

If we can stick to the substance of the issues, and avoid the temptation to
resort to the poison pen, we'll get further faster.  There are better ways
to emphasize deep concern and strongly-held beliefs.

I look forward to continuing the discussion.

Greg

On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 10:17 PM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:

>  I don’t find Kieren’s comments to be out of line. I trust Greg, think
> he’s been doing yeoman’s work for us and I don’t think he has any hidden
> agenda at all. I don’t think any of the client committee people do, either.
> But there are legitimate concerns about these crucial relationships between
> the law firm, the CWG as a whole, the client committee, and ICANN. It’s
> hard for people who know what is going on behind the scenes to understand
> why the people who don’t feel suspicious at times. If none of us asks tough
> questions about how that plays out, the integrity of the process could
> suffer. Let’s just all be patient and try to get this done right.
>
>
>
> --MM
>
>
>
> *From:* cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org [mailto:
> cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Gomes, Chuck
> *Sent:* Monday, March 9, 2015 8:01 PM
> *To:* Kieren McCarthy; jrobinson at afilias.info
>
> *Cc:* cwg-stewardship at icann.org
> *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Client Committee
>
>
>
> 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
> <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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20150310/663c418b/attachment.html>