[CWG-Stewardship] Client Committee

[Greg Shatan]

All,

The "client' mailing list was set up as soon as Sidley was retained so that
we could immediately have a transparent list for the legal consultation.
Generally, we have set up lists for each subgroup of this CWG.    The
client committee was an exception, and that exception has been rectified.
I'm surprised to hear anyone now suggest the list shouldn't exist.  They
are helpful tools, and that will be particularly true with the client
committee list, since Sidley lawyers aren't all subscribed to this main
list (and it wouldn't be cost effective for them all to be here).

Because the "client" list was set up quickly, we just ported over the
people that had been involved in various aspects of the potential counsel
process up to that time.  There was no grand plan associated with that; it
was entirely a matter of moving forward.  As a result, some ICANN people
have posting rights; maybe that will be changed.  But whether ICANN legal
has posting rights or not is beside the point, unless one is obsessed.

The real point is what if anything ICANN Legal might try to do with those
posting rights.  If they were to wade into the middle of a discussion and
try to influence the advice or the questions being asked in an attempt to
make the advice more favorable to ICANN, that would be transparent for all
to see, and it would also be a breach of the engagement letter, which ICANN
has signed.  Do you really think that this is going to happen, and that
unless we remove the ICANN names from the list, heinous acts will be
committed?  I doubt it, and if they do, they will happen in public.

I'm not saying the names will stay, but the deep symbolism and concern that
has been attached to the names being on the list is without merit, and
spending time discussing it is just a distraction from the real work we all
have to do.  In any event, iCANN legal will still be able to have
"observer" status on the list, which is publicly archived in any event.
So, one way or the other, the client committee list will be transparent to
everyone including ICANN.  And if ICANN wants to respond to something on
that list, they could still do by posting to this CWG list.

Greg




On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 3:44 PM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:

>
>
> On 13-Mar-15 15:34, David Conrad wrote:
>
>
>  Is ICANN staff a stakeholder in the transition or not?
>
>
> that seems to be a point of dispute.
>
> Some like me believe/argue yes.
> Many others believe/argue no.
>
> Definitely not something we have consensus on.
>
> avri
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>    <http://www.avast.com/>
>
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> www.avast.com
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
>
>


-- 

*Gregory S. Shatan **ï* *Abelman Frayne & Schwab*

*Partner* *| IP | Technology | Media | Internet*

*666 Third Avenue | New York, NY 10017-5621*

*Direct*  212-885-9253 *| **Main* 212-949-9022

*Fax*  212-949-9190 *|* *Cell *917-816-6428

*gsshatan at lawabel.com <gsshatan at lawabel.com>*

*ICANN-related: gregshatanipc at gmail.com <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>*

*www.lawabel.com <http://www.lawabel.com/>*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20150313/56a54485/attachment-0001.html>