Transcript

Transcript CCWG ACCT Legal Subteam Meeting 1 April.doc

Transcript CCWG ACCT Legal Subteam Meeting 1 April.pdf

Recording

The Adobe Connect recording is available here:  https://icann.adobeconnect.com/p7nh6dlpqgv/

The audio recording is available here:  http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-legal-subteam-01apr15-en.mp3

Agenda

1.       Working with counsel:

2.       Dealing with questions; and

3.       Considering holistic approach.

4.        Timeline

Notes

These high-level notes were prepared to help you navigate through content of the call and do not substitute in any way the transcript 

Chat sessions are being archived and follow the ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior: http://www.icann.org/en/news/in-focus/accountability/expected-standards 

CCWG-ACCT LEGAL SUBTEAM CALL #9

Working with counsel

Channeling questions raised in a memorandum has been successful so far but need to provide additional detail and context to lawyers. 

Suggestion to assign Sidley & Austin as lead - their involvement in CWG work would allow for holistic view.

If we ask for one voice, we will minimize input but will make coordination easier. 

Hybrid: Sidley & Austin to lead - and ask Adler & Colvin's views on specific matters. 

Suggestion to give law firms flexibility to present to legal subteam. 

Suggestion to have S&A (Holly) coordinate legal advice but would be helpful to know where there is a dissenting view. 

Second law firm could confirm or raise other point of view. 

CONCLUSION: Have S&A lead "the coordinating firm" - unify voice of lawyers - state when dissenting views and elaborate on rationale for legal subteam consideration. 

ACTION ITEM: Inform the law firms of this decision. 

Dealing with Questions

- Gather questions and compile them into a single document (legal scoping document). 

- Lawyers should not be answering questions outside of memorandum but should be aware of these questions.

-#1 priority is to work with WPs to ensure we are putting a legally viable proposal together (having measures pros & cons)/

- Concrete suggestions, mechanisms and associated structures need to be submitted to legal advisors: if adjustments are needed, how long it would take etc/

ACTION ITEM Compile, prioritize questions and fit them into proposals to provide greater context to lawyers and build on holistic view. 

- Lawyers to join WP, CCWG calls as deemed appropriate.

- Rapporteurs to flag issues for lawyers.

Timeline 

Legal input - mid Feb->mid-Sept.

CONCLUSIONS

- Inform Sidley & Austin of coordinating firm role. 

- We will compile, prioritize and classify questions, building a contextual document. 

- We will be focusing on WP's work - templates will be circulated to lawyers. 

- Coordinate with WPs to ensure on right track. 

Action Items

ACTION ITEM: Inform the law firms of this decision.

ACTION ITEM Compile, prioritize questions and fit them into proposals to provide greater context to lawyers and build on holistic view. 

Documents Presented

Chat Transcript

Alice Jansen: (4/1/2015 14:46) Welcome to legal subteam call #9 - Chat sessions are being archived and follow the ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior: http://www.icann.org/en/news/in-focus/accountability/expected-standards

  Brenda Brewer: (14:56) Yes! Hi Leon!

  Brenda Brewer: (14:56) operator is trying to call you already

  Athina Fragkouli (ASO): (14:59) hello again

  Leon Sanchez (Co-Chair-ALAC): (14:59) no call still

  Leon Sanchez (Co-Chair-ALAC): (14:59) Hello again Athina!

  Athina Fragkouli (ASO): (14:59) :)

  Athina Fragkouli (ASO): (15:00) yes

  Chris LaHatte: (15:00) sure

  Vrikson Acosta: (15:02) Hello everyone :)

  David McAuley: (15:05) Good point Leon

  David McAuley: (15:06) I wonder how others feel

  David McAuley: (15:06) yes Athina

  Vrikson Acosta: (15:06) Will other countries laws, besides the US,  be taken into account?

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (15:07) Vrikson, when California law can't met our needs.

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (15:07) meet our needs, that is

  David McAuley: (15:08) But this call is for organization of th team not substantive legal issues

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (15:08) right, David.  :-)

  Athina Fragkouli (ASO): (15:09) makes sense Leon

  Samantha Eisner: (15:09) I thought that the justification for two firms was to have the expertise from each, not to have two firms to test the views against each other

  Edward Morris: (15:10) I see the problem on today's call being more our disorganization than anything to do with the firms.

  David McAuley: (15:10) agree @Samantha

  Leon Sanchez (Co-Chair-ALAC): (15:10) that is right Samantha but we always said we would be able to double check some facts at some point

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (15:11) and benefit from the difference in perspective / experience

  Leon Sanchez (Co-Chair-ALAC): (15:11) Exactly @Robin

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (15:11) it makes for a richer understanding, in my view

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (15:11) but I don't see it as testing the firms against each other, but rather complementing each other

  Vrikson Acosta: (15:12) Robin, so can ICANN be hold accountable isf some member from other US state or other country is responsible of something while doing that "in the name of ICANN, or for ICANN"? In that case, besides the subjective responsability of the person involved, would ICANN be hold objectively responsible?

  Jordan Carter: (15:12) Woah, what? WOuldn't we want to know if there were different views?

  Jordan Carter: (15:13) and the more significant the issue, the more important that would be?

  Edward Morris: (15:13) HI Jordan. Completely agree with your perspective.

  David McAuley: (15:13) I think we should ask firms to coordiunate advice through a lead and let us know if an issue exists - these are good firms, Jordfan, but I think it unwise to get several views. We could get five, that might be better than two

  David McAuley: (15:14) sorry Jordan (not Jordon)

  Chris LaHatte: (15:14) the funny thing about legal opinions is that they are opinions, and therefore capable of different views. like Jordan and Robin, I think that is important.

  Jordan Carter: (15:14) i don't mind one of them being a lead

  Jordan Carter: (15:14) sorry, I have to race away - not enough lead time scheduling this. good luck people

  Athina Fragkouli (ASO): (15:14) I like this approach

  Samantha Eisner: (15:14) Clearly if there is a difference in opinion, that could show an important area where there may not be clear advice.  However, I think that the basis for the CCWG asking for two firms was about getting the right mix of experience and competency, not about soliciting multiple viewpoints on a specific topic

  Jordan Carter: (15:14) am OK with what you just said, Leon

  Chris LaHatte: (15:15) +1 Sam

  David McAuley: (15:15) sorry Leon - i dropped something and missed - brief summary

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (15:16) I just don't like the term "single voice"

  David McAuley: (15:16) thanks Leon, sounds good

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (15:16) I'm not sure we need to obsess over it though

  David McAuley: (15:16) lead voice

  Edward Morris: (15:16) Same here Robin.

  Greg Shatan: (15:16) harmonized voice

  David McAuley: (15:16) yes

  Alice Jansen: (15:17) @Leon - this will need to be reflected on the legal subteam wiki page - https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Legal+SubTeam

  Greg Shatan: (15:17) "Lead firm" is a procedural term.  Not a "final say" term.

  David McAuley: (15:18) +1 Greg

  Samantha Eisner: (15:18) Robin, I'd expect the firms to provide us with not just one alternative, but present alternatives.  I agree that the sense that there's a "single voice" isn't quite in line with receiving legal advice

  David McAuley: (15:18) sounds right

  Leon Sanchez (Co-Chair-ALAC): (15:19) coordinating firm?

  Leon Sanchez (Co-Chair-ALAC): (15:19) liasing firm?

  Edward Morris: (15:19) I like coordinating firm.

  Leon Sanchez (Co-Chair-ALAC): (15:20) good @Ed

  David McAuley: (15:20) I agree with how Greg just put it and complementary nature of work

  Samantha Eisner: (15:20) +1 to complementary work

  Greg Shatan: (15:22) Now we just need to get out of their way....

  David McAuley: (15:22) +1

  David McAuley: (15:25) good Greg

  Leon Sanchez (Co-Chair-ALAC): (15:27) haven't seen any compaints so far

  Edward Morris: (15:27) Totally agree Greg. In about 30 minutes I'm going to be asked to express a preference for a mechanism and I still don't completely understand what the optioons are.

  Vrikson Acosta: (15:32) Edward Morris +1 Welcome to the world of the unknown

  Greg Shatan: (15:32) Our rapporteurs are the next link in the lawyer-client chain.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (15:34) We will Leon...

  Leon Sanchez (Co-Chair-ALAC): (15:34) Thank you very much @Cheryl! :-)

  Athina Fragkouli (ASO): (15:35) +1 to Greg

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (15:36) greg that gets one of my Hell Yes!  responses

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (15:37) +1

  David McAuley: (15:37) I agree as well

  Greg Shatan: (15:37) Thanks!

  Greg Shatan: (15:38) I'm ready for the timeline.

  Greg Shatan: (15:38) :-)

  Leon Sanchez (Co-Chair-ALAC): (15:38) could we please enable scrolling?

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (15:39) we live in Adobe Connect these days ;-)

  David McAuley: (15:39) good observation Robin

  Greg Shatan: (15:40) Good to know I'll have the summer off from the CWG-IANA. ::-)

  Greg Shatan: (15:40) Oh, and Happy April Fools Day.

  Leon Sanchez (Co-Chair-ALAC): (15:40) LOL

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (15:40) That was my yesterday Greg  but  thanks and enjoy (if you do)

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (15:41) does this timeline live on the web somewhere?  (I can't scroll this version).

  Greg Shatan: (15:41) Cheryl, you are always so futuristic.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (15:41) LOL

  Paul Twomey: (15:42) LeonI have just joined the working group – have been following from outside, but now thought best to join the Working Group.  I have only one comment on the lawyers: I noted that in the notes for the CCWG ACCT Session #18 call on 31 March that the Sidley & Austin comments that “- Antitrust: it is an issue you have to be mindful of but no significant concerns.”   I just want to share that from my experience of the Verisign anti-trust litigation against ICANN in 2003-05 that it is certainly a very significant issue – including as a form of risk to the financial and operational stability of ICANN.   So you may want to consider this later in setting questions etc to the legal work.  Thanks  Paul

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (15:43) Hi Paul  your particular insights on these matters will be useful indeed!

  Paul Twomey: (15:43) Hi Cheryl - happy to help if useful

  Samantha Eisner: (15:43) @Paul, agreed.  I submitted some additional questions for consideration on that same issue

  David McAuley: (15:44) We will wrap soon, can we agree net result, and what we tell lawyers? What are they to do immediately?

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (15:45) I'd like to send this timeline to my stakeholder group.  is there a copy of it somewhere?  thanks.

  David McAuley: (15:46) That is my understanding as well

  Berry Cobb: (15:46) @Robin we should have a more complete version for distribution tomorrow after the CWG-CCWG Chairs coordination call.

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (15:47) thanks.

  Greg Shatan: (15:47) Taking some Pepto-Bismol to aid in my digestion of this timeline.

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (15:47) yes, it is still a bit ambitious, Greg.

  David McAuley: (15:48) you will need pink type then Greg

  Greg Shatan: (15:50) Robin has the pink type....

  Greg Shatan: (15:51) The first public comment period is very ambitous.  The 10/1 delivery date to SO/ACs is not ambitous enough.

  David McAuley: (15:51) Agree w/Greg

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (15:51) what do you mean, Greg?

  David McAuley: (15:53) OK and then Sidley will coordinate that as a complementary effort then, like phrase of self-priorritize, agree with that

  Samantha Eisner: (15:54) +1 Robin

  Greg Shatan: (15:54) @Robin: I think that's later than I would want it to be.

  David McAuley: (15:54) +1 Robin & Greg

  David McAuley: (15:55) That +1 was on template review

  Edward Morris: (15:55) +1 Robin. THat would make things easier for them and for us as we try to explain things at the subgroup level.

  Samantha Eisner: (15:56) Seeing the group of templates would also help identify which structural changes might better suit getting the most of those changes in

  Edward Morris: (15:56) Thanks Leon

  David McAuley: (15:56) OK thanks Leon and group

  Greg Shatan: (15:56) I think we are in a good place!

  Athina Fragkouli (ASO): (15:56) thank you!

  Greg Shatan: (15:56) Now let's tell the lawyers.

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (15:56) thanks