[CWG-Stewardship] Client Committee

Tue Mar 10 17:38:14 UTC 2015

I like the idea of subscribing to the cwg-client list even if there are not
posting rights.

-ed

On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 12:36 PM, Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson at afilias.info>
wrote:

> Thanks Alan,
>
>
>
> That seems like a good suggestion re: “we allow all CWG
> Members/Participants to be subscribed to the cwg-client list, even if they
> are not given posting rights”.
>
> It seems to me to be consistent with the current position yet permit
> better access. Does anyone have any reservations?
>
>
>
> Please clarify “that the list membership be viewable to all, regardless
> of whether they are members of the list or not”? Do we not do that
> already.
>
>
>
> Jonathan
>
>
>
> *From:* Alan Greenberg [mailto:alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca]
> *Sent:* 10 March 2015 16:00
> *To:* jrobinson at afilias.info; 'James Gannon'; 'Robin Gross'
>
> *Cc:* cwg-stewardship at icann.org
> *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Client Committee
>
>
>
> 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 “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
> 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 “cwg-client at icann.org”.
>
> I understand the principle highlighted by Robin below but wonder if, given
> that the transparency of the “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
> <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 <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:* cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org [
> mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org
> <cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Robin Gross
> *Sent:* Monday, March 09, 2015 8:01 PM
> *To:* jrobinson at afilias.info
> *Cc:* 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
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
>

-- 
*NOTICE:* This email may contain information which is confidential and/or
subject to legal privilege, and is intended for the use of the named
addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use,
disclose or copy any part of this email. If you have received this email by
mistake, please notify the sender and delete this message immediately.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20150310/51e99553/attachment.html>