[CWG-Stewardship] Client Committee

[Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond]

Dear Greg,

with the archive of the list being public, it has been pointed out to me
that there has been no traffic on the client list since 14 March. With
your update on today's call letting us know that Sidley are working on
the questions, is it clear how Sidley are to engage with the client
committee: by direct email or through the list?
Thanks for the clarification.

Kind regards,

Olivier

On 14/03/2015 19:53, Greg Shatan wrote:
> Olivier,
>
> As you know, these are just "on the fly" meeting notes by our support
> staff, and they generally don't get edited much.  To clarify, the
> suggestion that was captured (more or less artfully) by this bullet
> point was that we should try not to clutter the list with
> administrative exchanges, so that the list is as substantive as
> possible.  So the essence of the suggestion was to take the
> administrative exchanges "off-list," not the other way around.  (I'm
> not sure I agree, but it does make the list easier to scan as an
> archive if there aren't 20 messages about the time of a call and who
> can make it, etc.)
>
> I hope that helps.
>
> Greg 
>
> On Sat, Mar 14, 2015 at 11:25 AM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond
> <ocl at gih.com <mailto:ocl at gih.com>> wrote:
>
>     Dear Greg,
>
>     I have a question regarding the "client mailing list".
>
>     On 13/03/2015 20:23, Greg Shatan wrote:
>>     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).
>
>     In the Client Committee kick-off call, the notes/action items show
>     the following record:
>
>     /Public information and transparency/
>
>       * Hours reporting and fees will be public (on a monthly basis)
>       * Limit the email exchanges on CWG-Client list for
>         administrative things such as securing a time for a conference
>         call. 
>       * Archive is live: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-client/
>       * Most assignments are discussed by phone (recorded and
>         transcribed) and confirmed by email on public mailing list
>
>
>     Could you please explain the meaning of the second bullet point?
>     There's a huge thread on our CWG Stewardship about this list
>     having ICANN staff subscribed (which I am not bothered by), and
>     yet, is this client list only going to be used for administrative
>     things?
>
>     Kind regards,
>
>     Olivier
>
>
>
>
> -- 
>
> *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 <mailto:gsshatan at lawabel.com>/*
>
> *ICANN-related: /gregshatanipc at gmail.com
> <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>/*
>
> */www.lawabel.com <http://www.lawabel.com/>/*
>

-- 
Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD
http://www.gih.com/ocl.html

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20150318/e1dc0c81/attachment.html>