[Ws2-transparency] ICANN and Attorney-Client Privilege

[Cheryl Langdon-Orr]

Thanks Michael and David...

On Oct 17, 2017 23:17, "Michael Karanicolas" <mkaranicolas at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ws2-transparency mailing list
> Ws2-transparency at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-transparency
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ws2-transparency/attachments/20171018/da1887d6/attachment.html>