[Ws2-transparency] ICANN and Attorney-Client Privilege

[McAuley, David]

Thank you, Michael, John, and Samantha, for trying to find a middle ground.

Michael, while not objecting, I would suggest that the amended sentence on page 9 of 23 read more along a simple statement of non-agreement, something like this (by way of example):

"The working group discussed broader releases under this exception with ICANN legal, but were unable to reach an agreement in this respect. It is hoped that this matter will be considered as part of future processes."

One more note – a typo midway in recommendation #16, page 21 of 23: the phrase “…satisfies ICANN that is …” should read “satisfies ICANN that it …”.

Best regards,
David

David McAuley
Sr International Policy & Business Development Manager
Verisign Inc.
703-948-4154

-----Original Message-----
From: ws2-transparency-bounces at icann.org [mailto:ws2-transparency-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Michael Karanicolas
Sent: Monday, October 16, 2017 2:45 PM
To: ws2-transparency at icann.org
Subject: [EXTERNAL] [Ws2-transparency] ICANN and Attorney-Client Privilege

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