[Ws2-transparency] ICANN and Attorney-Client Privilege

[Michael Karanicolas]

Ok, revised version is attached, for tomorrow's plenary.

On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 8:16 AM, McAuley, David <dmcauley at verisign.com> wrote:
> That's better, ok with me.
>
> Best regards,
> David
>
> David McAuley
> Sr International Policy & Business Development Manager
> Verisign Inc.
> 703-948-4154
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael Karanicolas [mailto:mkaranicolas at gmail.com]
> Sent: Monday, October 16, 2017 7:09 PM
> To: McAuley, David <dmcauley at Verisign.com>
> Cc: ws2-transparency at icann.org
> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Ws2-transparency] ICANN and Attorney-Client Privilege
>
> Ok - typo is corrected - thanks for catching that.
>
> I was hoping the wording could point a way forward a bit more clearly though - how about:
>
> "The working group discussed this exception with ICANN legal, but were unable to arrive at an avenue for progress in this respect. It is hoped that this matter will be revisited as part of future processes."
>
> That ok?
>
> On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 4:12 PM, McAuley, David <dmcauley at verisign.com> wrote:
>> 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
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: CCWG-Accountability-WS2-Transparency-Rev.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 107143 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ws2-transparency/attachments/20171017/2941ae31/CCWG-Accountability-WS2-Transparency-Rev-0001.docx>