[CWG-Stewardship] Client Committee

[James Gannon]

>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.

With all due respect please don’t  claim speak for the group Kieran, many of us do understand the need to have ICANN Staff involved in the process and see no issue with it.

From: cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Kieren McCarthy
Sent: Friday, March 13, 2015 8:28 PM
To: David Conrad
Cc: cwg-stewardship at icann.org
Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Client Committee

> 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<mailto: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)

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20150313/cd49e6fe/attachment.html>