On Sun, Jul 25, 1999 at 04:29:28PM -0400, Martin B. Schwimmer wrote:
> If the $500k covers fees pre-ICANN then who were the services rendered on
> behalf of (and who signed off on the retainer)? IANA? Then it's IANA's
> bill. Did ICANN pick up IANA's bills?
I really don't know, Marty -- I was just pointing out what might be
some complicating factors. I am pretty sure that at least part of the
IANA work was pro bono. Someone did mention to me in private
email, though, that having a certain amount of money on hand is
required before one can hire in-house counsel :-)
I also believe, and I have some evidence from personal conversations
and the like, that ICANN's legal situation is a great deal more
complicated than appears on the surface (and the surface is
complicated enough). I have mentioned several times in the past, for
example, that ICANN really must be very aware of where it sits vis a
vis anti trust, not only in the US, but worldwide. Research into
such topics doesn't come cheap.
Also, it is probably the case that the amount of legal work varies
with the situation. For example, I imagine that preparing for
Congressional hearings is fairly labor intensive from a legal
perspective. Not only do you have to prepare presentations, but you
have to prepare supporting documentation, and you have to prepare for
a wide spectrum of possible questions, most of which will never be
asked.
--
Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be
[EMAIL PROTECTED] lonesome." -- Mark Twain
