[CWG-Stewardship] Client Committee

[Kieren McCarthy]

Are you proposing a poll, James? If so, I will support you.


Kieren

On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 4:06 PM, James Gannon <james at cyberinvasion.net>
wrote:

>  Yes and there are over 100 other members and participants who have not
> stated their opinion either way so I feel that a statement that ‘it’s clear
> that no one outside of these two groups does’  Is putting words in people’s
> mouths.
>
>
>
> I encourage and support any comments that you want to make about the
> process but please don’t make statements on behalf of anyone else, unless
> you have been selected to speak on their behalf and are doing so in some
> official capacity.
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Kieren McCarthy [mailto:kieren at kierenmccarthy.com]
> *Sent:* Friday, March 13, 2015 9:29 PM
> *To:* James Gannon
> *Cc:* David Conrad; cwg-stewardship at icann.org
>
> *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Client Committee
>
>
>
> > 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.
>
>
>
> So I wasn't speaking for the group, I was reflecting the messages on this
> list.
>
>
>
> The only people that have spoken up in favor of ICANN staff being on the
> closed committee past the legal team selection (in whatever capacity) have
> been ICANN staff or the closed committee members.
>
>
>
> Every other post to this list on this issue has said that they don't think
> it is appropriate. Until yours just now.
>
>
>
>
>
> Kieren
>
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 1:44 PM, James Gannon <james at cyberinvasion.net>
> wrote:
>
>  >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>
> 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/20150313/2c69be04/attachment.html>