[CWG-Stewardship] Sidley Austin LLP

[John Poole]

Greg,
Thanks for the reply and clarification--sorry my "gut reaction" yesterday
offended you (or Jonathan :-)--like you, I am dealing with "health issues"
(stroke in my case). I know there are no perfect processes. The one thing
CWG now has going for it is Sidley Austin--a very fine firm indeed. As you
know I had suggested Latham & Watkins in January, but after reading the
submittal of Sidley Austin, I agree that they are a better fit for CWG.
You, together with the rest of the Client Committee, and with the
assistance of Sidley Austin, will hopefully now be able to lead CWG to a
consensus proposal. Full speed ahead!
Best regards,
John Poole

On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 10:22 AM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
wrote:

> John,
>
> This exact set-up turned out not to be workable since the CWG is not a
> party (nor is it a part of a party like a board committee).  Nonetheless, I
> believe that the substance of this email is carried out in the current
> set-up.
>
> Greg
>
> On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 11:27 PM, John Poole <jp1 at expri.com> wrote:
>
>> Jonathan, Greg, et al:
>>
>> Note that my reaction to today's disclosure that "ICANN is the client"
>> was based, in part, on Greg Shatan's email to Kieren McCarthy in February:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *Kieren,I don't think it is foolish at all to have ICANN pay for the
>> independentadvice.  It is not uncommon for one party to pay the bill and
>> for anotherparty to be the client.  It's not even uncommon to have a board
>> committeeof a corporation hire independent counsel where the committee's
>> interestsare divergent from the corporation (e.g., when dealing with an
>> internalinvestigation) and have the corporation pay.  These are situations
>> that lawfirms are comfortable handling.  Basically, the question is "who is
>> theclient?" and the client would be the Working Group(s), not ICANN.  The
>> lawfirm's ethical "duty of loyalty" is to the client** . . . *
>>
>> [from Greg Shatan's email to Kieren McCarthy dated February 17, 2015
>> <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/2015-February/001261.html>
>> (emphasis added)]
>>
>> The above was my understanding, until today, of the terms under which
>> independent legal counsel would be retained. There are no "pitchforks"
>> intended here--at least not from me.
>>
>> Best regards,
>> John Poole
>>
>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20150310/f3535623/attachment.html>