[Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] - Legal Expert Follow-Up

Wed Sep 23 23:19:27 UTC 2015

Paul,

John Bellinger did indicate that if the issues were narrowed, he would be open to considering a reduction of his estimate and a possible discount.

He also felt that Professor Swayne, as an academic, might have an estimate more consistent with the proposed budget.

I hope this helps,

Jim

James L. Bikoff | Attorney at Law

202-263-4341 Phone
202-263-4329 Fax
www.sgrlaw.com
jbikoff at sgrlaw.com

1055 Thomas Jefferson Street, N.W.
Suite 400
Washington, D.C. 20007

Smith, Gambrell & Russell, LLP

-----Original Message-----
From: gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces at icann.org [mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Steve Chan
Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2015 6:37 PM
To: Paul Keating
Cc: gnso-igo-ingo-crp at icann.org
Subject: Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] - Legal Expert Follow-Up

Paul,

I realized after sending the email that the WG would want to know why the candidates removed their names from consideration, so thanks for asking the question. David Stewart removed his name because of availability issues and Mark Feldman removed his name because of concerns about the scope of work, as well as the timeline. There were also budget concerns for Mr. Feldman as you’ll recall.

Mr. Bellinger was informed that his rate was substantially higher than the budget and as far as I am aware, did not indicate there was much room for negotiation with the current scope of questions. Jim might have more information as he was primarily responsible for these conversations.

Finally, I understand your frustrations and staff shares your concern about pace, as well as the sudden lack of qualified candidates. We will continue to try and move things forward as best we can.

Best,
Steve

On 9/23/15, 3:00 PM, "Paul Keating" <paul at law.es> wrote:

>Steve
>
>Thanks for the response. I have several Questions/comments.
>
>Why did they remove their names
>
>Did Bellinger receive follow up contact to reconsider rates (that was
>decided as a thing to do if I recall correctly). Did he not agree to
>change his rates?
>
>I am very concerned about timing and delays. I have raised this before
>as it provides an excuse to ignore our work and only consider the
>response from the 'secret' (my term) group working for the GAC.
>
>We need to get this moving. I personally am growing tired of what I
>perceive as a lack of support from ICANN given that the need for
>outside legal assistance was raised months ago and we still have no
>such assistance. The initial "opinion" letter was not serious IMHO and
>the fact that this was even considered as a potential solution to the
>need is a negative IMHO.
>
>
>I am sorry to be so frank but feel it needs saying.  I doubt very much
>we would - as a WG- be seeing the same sort of delays of this were an
>issue for the ICANN board.
>
>Sincerely,
>Paul Keating, Esq.
>
>> On Sep 23, 2015, at 11:50 PM, Steve Chan <steve.chan at icann.org> wrote:
>>
>> George,
>>
>> Thanks for the follow-up email. We did in fact receive response from
>>the  candidates, but unfortunately, not of the nature that we were seeking.
>>Two
>> of the candidates (David Stewart and Mark Feldman) removed their
>>names  from consideration and John Bellinger¹s preliminary rate is
>>considerably  higher than the allocated budget for this work. However,
>>Mr. Bellinger was  kind enough to provide another name for
>>consideration that, with Jim  Bikoff¹s assistance, staff is currently
>>reaching out to determine his  level of interest and ability to assist
>>(taking into account timing and  budget concerns as well). His name is
>>Edward Swaine and he is a law  professor at George Washington
>>University  (http://www.law.gwu.edu/Faculty/profile.aspx?id=10968).
>>While we await  response from him, it would be useful if WG members
>>could review his CV  and other background information to ensure that
>>there is support for  pursuing this candidate.
>>
>> Apologies for not providing an update earlier and I regret that the
>> news is not more positive at this juncture.
>>
>> Best,
>> Steve
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On 9/23/15, 11:10 AM, "George Kirikos" <icann at leap.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Just following up on the earlier email from Steve to see whether the
>>> candidates responded by September 18th, as it's now the 23rd and I
>>> don't think their responses were sent to this working group's
>>> mailing list.
>>>
>>> Sincerely,
>>>
>>> George Kirikos
>>> 416-588-0269
>>> http://www.leap.com/
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 6:21 PM, Steve Chan <steve.chan at icann.org>
>>>>wrote:
>>>> Dear WG Members,
>>>>
>>>> The purpose of this message is to inform you all that pursuant to
>>>>the  agreed  upon actions on Wednesday¹s WG call, staff has worked
>>>>with the  co-chairs to  prepare a brief follow-up message to the
>>>>three final candidates (I.e.,  John  Bellinger, David Stewart, and
>>>>Mark Feldman), which was just sent a short  while ago. The message
>>>>seeks response by COB Friday, 18 September 2015  or  earlier, after
>>>>which responses will be shared with WG members to help  reach
>>>>agreement on a candidate. If you have any questions, please let me
>>>>know.
>>>>
>>>> Have a great weekend.
>>>>
>>>> Best,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Steven Chan
>>>> Sr. Policy Manager
>>>>
>>>> ICANN
>>>> 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300
>>>>
>>>> Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536
>>>> steve.chan at icann.org
>>>>
>>>> direct: +1.310.301.3886
>>>> mobile: +1.310.339.4410
>>>>
>>>> tel: +1.310.301.5800
>>>>
>>>> fax: +1.310.823.8649
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list
>>>> Gnso-igo-ingo-crp at icann.org
>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp
>> _______________________________________________
>> Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list
>> Gnso-igo-ingo-crp at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp

________________________________
Confidentiality Notice
This message is being sent by or on behalf of a lawyer. It is intended exclusively for the individual or entity to which it is addressed. This communication may contain information that is proprietary, privileged or confidential or otherwise legally exempt from disclosure. If you are not the named addressee, you are not authorized to read, print, retain, copy or disseminate this message or any part of it. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately by e-mail and delete all copies of the message.