[CWG-Stewardship] Client Committee

Tue Mar 10 15:59:54 UTC 2015

Ignoring for the moment the composition of the 
Client Committee, I do have an issue with the transparency of the process.

Having used and managed mailing lists for well 
over 3 decades, there is a very large difference 
between the "push" technology of being on a 
mailing list and the "pull" technology of having 
access to the list archives. I scan what arrives 
in my in-box. I rarely have the time or patience 
to read what is in archives I have access to.

I strongly suggest that we allow all CWG 
Members/Participants to be subscribed to the 
cwg-client list, even if they are not given posting rights.

Moreover, in the interest of transparency, I also 
suggest that the list membership be viewable to 
all, regardless of whether they are members of the list or not.

Alan

At 10/03/2015 08:15 AM, Jonathan Robinson wrote:

>All,
>
>A couple of points to add / re-iterate for complete clarity:
>
>1.       The client committee remains as was 
>i.e. the four members and has not had ICANN legal added to it
>2.       The mailing list was set up to 
>facilitate the work of the client committee – 
>primarily communication between the CC & Sidley 
>- but to do so in an open and transparent method.
>Therefore 
>“<mailto:cwg-client at icann.org>cwg-client at icann.org” 
>is visible to all. This is clearly extremely 
>unusual in client / lawyer relationship but done 
>so for (I hope) obvious reasons.
>
>The working methods of the client committee are 
>work in progress and linked to from the URL below:
><https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocwgdtstwrdshp/Client+Committee>https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocwgdtstwrdshp/Client+Committee
>Please feel free to assist in refining these by 
>proposing any updates to the working methods document.
>
>Overall, the intention is that any discussions, 
>meetings etc that take place between the client 
>committee and Sidley and are visible and clear 
>to all (including ICANN Legal / Kevin), 
>primarily via “<mailto:cwg-client at icann.org>cwg-client at icann.org”.
>
>I understand the principle highlighted by Robin 
>below but wonder if, given that the transparency 
>of the 
>“<mailto:cwg-client at icann.org>cwg-client at icann.org” 
>list, it is advantageous in some way to retain 
>ICANN Legal’s permission to post to the list 
>e.g. for items of clarification, additional 
>information etc? We have no sense of ICANN 
>Legal’s intention to post to the list and could 
>simply check with them if they are interested to 
>retain that right (which has been given to them 
>at the set-up of the mailing list without 
>significant debate or discussion). Personally, 
>my inclination is to leave it as is for the 
>moment but I haven’t had the opportunity to 
>discuss it with Lise nor fully absorb the feedback / concerns from the CWG.
>
>Thanks.
>
>
>Jonathan
>
>From: James Gannon [mailto:james at cyberinvasion.net]
>Sent: 10 March 2015 00:40
>To: Robin Gross
>Cc: cwg-stewardship at icann.org
>Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Client Committee
>
>Agreed thats a fair point.
>
>On 10 Mar 2015, at 00:33, Robin Gross 
><<mailto:robin at ipjustice.org>robin at ipjustice.org> wrote:
>
>
>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: 
><mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org>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: <mailto:jrobinson at afilias.info>jrobinson at afilias.info
>Cc: <mailto:cwg-stewardship at icann.org>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>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
><mailto:CWG-Stewardship at icann.org>CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>CWG-Stewardship mailing list
><mailto:CWG-Stewardship at icann.org>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/20150310/1a076de4/attachment.html>