[CWG-Stewardship] Client Committee

Fri Mar 13 21:06:58 UTC 2015

Kieren,

Your email is rife with overstatement and inaccuracy.  As a starting point,
continually referring to the Client Committee as the "closed committee"
reminds me of the tactic that certain Republicans have of calling the
Democratic Party the "Democrat Party."  Just call it by its proper name.
And the committee and its mailing list are not unique in that regard -- the
Design Teams are also "closed committees" as well with "by request only"
mailing lists with limited posting rights -- but you don't seem very
interested in joining any of them....

The Client Committee was fully proposed and disclosed on CWG calls when we
started the process of looking for counsel, so it is hardly unilateral, and
there were opportunities for discussion on those calls.  But, since you
don't actually attend very many calls (4 out of 26, at last count), you
wouldn't know that.

Despite your complaint, I have made it clear that currently there some
"ICANN legal" people on the list and why -- I'll give you the benefit of
the doubt that my previous email "crossed" with yours.  It's also clear if
you look at the list on the Wiki.  I'll do your research for you and
provide you with the link:
https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocwgdtstwrdshp/Client+Committee  You
will see that there are two inhouse attorneys and no outside attorneys on
the list. (I don't know where it "appears" otherwise.)

I'm not sure what you mean by "closed" meetings.  The meetings are all
being recorded, and Adobe connect is being used, so there are public notes
and chat.  They are as open as any RFP group and any Design Team meeting.

As to whether ICANN's staff should be voluntarily excusing themselves, you
can take that up with ICANN's staff.  In point of fact, ICANN staff has had
no "direct influence" on the on our discussions with counsel.  To the
extent they were on the calls with our lawyers, they were essentially
silent.  I think Sam Eisner posted two small factual points in the chat on
the last call.  But it's all available for your listening pleasure should
you want to satisfy yourself.  Our working methods are still a work in
progress and things may change.  Nonetheless, I think it's incorrect to
term the current situation as one of "elevated position and direct
influence."  Since this is not the case, it's ridiculous to say that anyone
thinks that "elevated position and direct influence" is appropriate.  It's
also ridiculous to think that ICANN legal is so fiendishly brilliant, and
that the members of the client committee and Sidley Austin are such naive
clods, that we can be manipulated and influenced by ICANN legal through the
mere ability to post to a list (which they haven't done) and to get on a
call (which has only been done silently).  Finally, it's ridiculous to
think that you can "clearly" deduce what everyone in this very varied CWG
thinks, especially about something that isn't so in the first place.

To reiterate, that doesn't mean that this is the way things will stay.  Far
from it.  And I understand the importance of managing the perception of
influence, even if it is only perception.  But this tendentious,
exaggerated method of discussing suggestions for change actually slows down
the process of change, rather than accelerating it.  As my grandmother used
to say, "You catch more flies with honey than vinegar."

Greg

On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 4:28 PM, Kieren McCarthy <kieren at kierenmccarthy.com>
wrote:

> > Is ICANN staff a stakeholder in the transition or not?
>
> Yes.
>
> Although in this case - the process for getting independent legal advice -
> I would question whether it was appropriate for ICANN staff to be involved
> at all.
>
> But that's not even where we are.
>
> * As I understand it, Jonathan is proposing/has implemented a closed
> committee to act as the intermediary between the transition group and the
> independent lawyers. (Something that appears to have been done
> unilaterally.)
>
> * That closed committee will have its own mailing list that people have to
> actively ask to be subscribed to (something that is out of step with the
> rest of the transition processes).
>
> * Even when subscribed, those people will not have posting rights.
>
> * However, ICANN's lawyers - both internal and external - as well as ICANN
> staff appear to already be on this list and have posting rights to it. (At
> least I think that is the case; it's not clear, despite questions asking
> for clarity.)
>
> * It's also appears to be the case that the committee intends to have
> closed meetings. And to allow ICANN's lawyers and/or staff to be a part of
> those meetings.
>
>
> In other words, in the one area where ICANN's staff should be voluntarily
> excusing themselves to avoid a fairly obvious conflict of interest, they
> appear instead to actually have an elevated position and direct influence
> on the process.
>
> I'm at a loss to understand why either ICANN staff or the closed committee
> members think this is appropriate. It's clear that no one outside those two
> groups does.
>
>
>
> Kieren
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 12:34 PM, David Conrad <david.conrad at icann.org>
> wrote:
>
>> Kieren,
>>
>> And I don't see why ICANN's staff should be given posting rights to the
>> new mailing list either
>>
>>
>> Is ICANN staff a stakeholder in the transition or not?
>>
>> Regards,
>> -drc
>> (ICANN CTO but speaking only for myself)
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20150313/88bb2616/attachment-0001.html>