[Ws2-transparency] ICANN and Attorney-Client Privilege

[Michael Karanicolas]

Hi all,

Just got through speaking with John Jeffries and Samantha Eisner, and
unfortunately we didn't really make any headway. They essentially said
they were opposed to any language that might be seen to set firm
standards on what they should or shouldn't do with regard to
attorney-client privilege - which basically means we are not going to
get buy-in on any kind of substance for this recommendation.

We have the option of pushing forward with our recommendation anyway,
but we'd likely need to go through another public consultation, which
is also problematic in terms of the timelines for reporting back.

Alternately, as discussed on our last call, we can add in a line to
the main body stating that we were unable to agree with ICANN legal on
an avenue for bringing greater transparency to their operations, and
that we hope this will be considered as part of future processes. I am
attaching a revised draft, with language to that effect, and with Rec.
15 basically amended to suggest that the topic be considered in future
processes.

Please let me know your thoughts asap, as if we're going with the
second option it would be good to submit it tomorrow for a first
reading at the plenary Wednesday.

Best,

Michael Karanicolas
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: CCWG-Accountability-WS2-Transparency-Rev.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 107102 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ws2-transparency/attachments/20171016/02034527/CCWG-Accountability-WS2-Transparency-Rev-0001.docx>