[CCWG-ACCT] Who is managing the lawyers and what have they beenasked to do?

Burr, Becky Becky.Burr at neustar.biz
Mon Jul 6 20:41:03 UTC 2015


I’m definitely in favor of utilizing volunteer hours efficiently -)

I think we have consensus about the ways in which the community wants to be empowered – Board and member recall, the ability to reject Bylaws amendments, strategic plan, and budget, and effective dispute resolution mechanisms.  We gave the lawyers lots to think about in BA about how we get and exercise that authority, and I am looking forward to hearing from them tomorrow.


J. Beckwith Burr
Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel and Chief Privacy Officer
1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20006
Office: + 1.202.533.2932  Mobile:  +1.202.352.6367  / becky.burr at neustar.biz<mailto:becky.burr at neustar.biz> / www.neustar.biz

From: Jonathan Zuck <jzuck at actonline.org<mailto:jzuck at actonline.org>>
Date: Monday, July 6, 2015 at 4:04 PM
To: Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com<mailto:seun.ojedeji at gmail.com>>, Becky Burr <becky.burr at neustar.biz<mailto:becky.burr at neustar.biz>>
Cc: Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>>
Subject: RE: [CCWG-ACCT] Who is managing the lawyers and what have they beenasked to do?

Hmm. I think it’s important to bear in mind that there was overwhelming consensus among the public comments to support the membership model. The detractors from the model, while important and perhaps critical, are not in the majority. I’m not sure this process speaks to how we better use counsel as much as how we achieve consensus on principles.

From: accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Seun Ojedeji
Sent: Monday, July 6, 2015 3:50 PM
To: Becky Burr
Cc: accountability-cross-community at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Who is managing the lawyers and what have they beenasked to do?


Hi Becky,

Thanks for asking, item 3 is actually in connection to the fact that such veto may not be possible without item 1(as I understood it) and that is why I said an indirect veto can happen not that I was entirely suggesting that those powers be off the table.

It seem however that folks are only looking at the powers and not at what it will take to have them.

By the way, I also did put in a reservation that we may not necessarily agree with those views but my concern is mainly that the ccwg does not spend so much time developing proposals that we know has certain implementation requirements that are not compatible with the ICANN community structure. I think we should learn from the the past (based on comments from the last PC) and utilize legal council and volunteer hours more effectively.

FWIW speaking as participant.

Regards
On 6 Jul 2015 8:08 pm, "Burr, Becky" <Becky.Burr at neustar.biz<mailto:Becky.Burr at neustar.biz>> wrote:
Seun,

I am not sure why we would take direct budget/strat plan veto off the table.  Could you explain? Thanks.

Becky
J. Beckwith Burr
Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel and Chief Privacy Officer
1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20006
Office: + 1.202.533.2932<tel:%2B%201.202.533.2932>  Mobile:  +1.202.352.6367<tel:%2B1.202.352.6367>  / becky.burr at neustar.biz<mailto:becky.burr at neustar.biz> / www.neustar.biz<http://www.neustar.biz>

From: Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com<mailto:seun.ojedeji at gmail.com>>
Date: Monday, July 6, 2015 at 11:09 AM
To: Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org<mailto:robin at ipjustice.org>>
Cc: Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>>
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Who is managing the lawyers and what have they beenasked to do?

Hi,
I have no problem with having a new proposal presented. However it is important that there some adherence to basic principles on proposals that the ccwg would not want to explore. Three areas comes to mind:
- Its my understanding that anything that will turn some/all of the SO/AC to members and thereby exposing them to legal challenge is not acceptable
- Its my understanding that anything that allows removal of individual board member without the approval of the entire(or larger part) of the community is not acceptable
- Its my understanding that a solution that allows direct community veto on certain elements like budget, strategic plan et all is not acceptable but an indirect enforcement could be considered (i.e using a power to get another power executed indirectly)

Some/none of the above may be acceptable by us, but my point is that there should be some focus going forward, especially if the target of ICANN54 is to be meet
Regards


On Mon, Jul 6, 2015 at 3:37 PM, Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org<mailto:robin at ipjustice.org>> wrote:
I would also like to hear what they propose at this stage.  I really don't see how it could hurt to have another proposal to consider.  Larry Strickling did say he wanted us to be sure we examined all the options carefully.

Thanks,
Robin

On Jul 6, 2015, at 7:32 AM, Greg Shatan wrote:


I agree.  We should have the benefit of their thoughts.

Greg

On Mon, Jul 6, 2015 at 9:38 AM, Jordan Carter <jordan at internetnz.net.nz<mailto:jordan at internetnz.net.nz>> wrote:
Well, I would really really like to see what the creative thinking they have done has suggested. I trust our ability as a group to make decisions, and do not believe we should cut off input from any direction...

Jordan

On 7 July 2015 at 01:13, James Gannon <james at cyberinvasion.net<mailto:james at cyberinvasion.net>> wrote:
Hey Avri,

Yes the 3rd model was brought up, and the lawyers feel that it might be a cleaner way for us to get the powers that we need.
But without a call from the CCWG to present it they feel that its not their position to propose a model on their own initiative.

Personally i would like to see what they have come up with but the CCWG would need to ask as an overall group for the chairs to direct them to give some more information on the model if we wanted it.
I think if after we hear from them on Tuesdays call we still feel we might have some shortcomings that it might be the time to ask them about the 3rd option.

Also +1 I think they are really enjoying the work and are finding themselves getting more and more involved as we go on, which is great for the CCWG as the more background and details they know the better that are able to give us solid well reasoned advice in my opinion.

-James


On 6 Jul 2015, at 13:19, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org<mailto:avri at acm.org>> wrote:

Hi,

I have not had a chance to get back to the recording of the  call.  Not
sure I will, that time was the time I had for that call and that is why
i was listening then.

In any case, the lawyers were talking about a new model they had come up
with, but not knowing what to do about it since they had not been asked
for a new model.

I was told to leave before I got to hear the end of that story. Or about
the model itself.  Anyone who has had a chance to listen, whatever happened?

avri

ps. sometimes i think the lawyers are getting interested in what we are
doing, almost like stakeholders. not that i expect them to give up their
hourly rates because they are stakeholders.

On 06-Jul-15 05:07, James Gannon wrote:


I listened to the last co-chairs lawyers’ call at;
https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=53782602<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_pages_viewpage.action-3FpageId-3D53782602&d=AwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=rX8zWSdUbF0XJ6RQyX5HABE7NaQIgAXHj6WfvEXkLh8&s=5REzt6Gk0Mt5evnhe_F8O87Kpc4hX8wql7vP--WYsnQ&e=>
(I’m a glutton for punishment)



It was a short call and I’ll make a particular note that Leon and
Mathieu made a point of not making any decisions on behalf of the
whole group and made it clear anything requiring a decision must be
made by the overall CCWG, so I was happy with that side of things
myself, most of my own fears about not having a sub-group are somewhat
assuaged.

So my paraphrasing and overview is:



·         Lawyers working hard on the models for us collaboratively
between the two firms since BA

·         Lawyers are prepping a presentation to give to us ASAP
before Paris if possible, that presentation will take the majority of
a call, it can’t be done quickly, they need about 45mins uninterrupted
to go through the presentation and then would likely need Q&A time
after they present.

·         Some small wording/clarifications to come back to the CCWG
to make sure everyone’s on the same page

·         Everyone feels Paris will be an important time for the
models, lawyers will be ready for a grilling on the details of the
models from us to flesh out any of our concerns/questions



Note that the above is all my very condensed overview of the
conversations.

It seemed like a productive call to me.



-James





*From:*accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org>
[mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org>] *On Behalf
Of *Greg Shatan
*Sent:* Monday, July 06, 2015 5:33 AM
*To:* Carlos Raul
*Cc:* accountability-cross-community at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
*Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Who is managing the lawyers and what have
they beenasked to do?



Carlos,



As the legal sub-team was disbanded, your guess is as good as mine.....



Greg



On Mon, Jul 6, 2015 at 12:27 AM, Carlos Raul <carlosraulg at gmail.com<mailto:carlosraulg at gmail.com>
<mailto:carlosraulg at gmail.com>> wrote:

   Thank you Greg!



   It makes a lot of sense and I guess those are all good reasons as
   we hired them in the first place. What are the next steps now?
   What happened in the recent call?



   Best regards




   Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez

   +506 8837 7176<tel:%2B506%208837%207176> <tel:%2B506%208837%207176>

   Skype carlos.raulg

   _________

   Apartado 1571-1000

   *COSTA RICA*





   On Mon, Jul 6, 2015 at 12:02 AM, Greg Shatan
   <gregshatanipc at gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com> <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>> wrote:

       Chris,



       That was tried to some extent, at least in the CWG.



       There are several substantial problems with that approach.



       First, lawyers are not fungible.  The particular legal skills,
       background and experience required for the issues before both
       WGs are fairly specific, and in some cases, very specific.
       The primary core competency needed here is corporate
       governance.  While a number of lawyers in the community have a
       reasonable working knowledge of the area, at least in their
       home jurisdictions, I don't believe there are any who would
       say that this is their primary focus and expertise -- at least
       none who identified themselves to either WG.  The second core
       competency required, especially in the CCWG, is non-profit
       law. Again there are a number of lawyers with a decent working
       knowledge of this fairly broad field, but not as a primary
       focus.  There may be a couple of lawyers in the community who
       would claim this fairly broad field as a primary focus and
       expertise -- but none who became involved with either WG.
       This then becomes further narrowed by jurisdiction.  Since
       ICANN is a California non-profit corporation, US corporate
       governance and non-profit experience is more relevant than
       experience from other jurisdictions, and California law
       corporate governance and non-profit experience is more
       relevant than that from other US jurisdictions.  In my
       experience, the more a US lawyer focuses on a particular
       substantive area, the greater their knowledge of and comfort
       with state law issues in US state jurisdictions other than
       their own (e.g., someone who spend a majority of their time
       working in corporate governance will have a greater knowledge
       of the law, issues, approaches and trends outside their
       primary state of practice, while someone who spends a
       relatively small amount of time in the area will tend to feel
       less comfortable outside their home jurisdiction).  (An
       exception is that many US lawyers have specific knowledge of
       certain Delaware corporate law issues, because Delaware often
       serves as the state of incorporation for entities operating
       elsewhere.)



       Second, lawyers in the community will seldom be seen as
       neutral advisors, no matter how hard they try.  They will tend
       to be seen as working from their point of view or stakeholder
       group or "special interest" or desired outcome, even if they
       are trying to be even-handed.  Over the course of time, this
       balancing act would tend to become more untenable.



       Third, the amount of time it would take to provide truly
       definitive legal advice (research, careful drafting,
       discussions with relevant "clients", etc.) would be
       prohibitive, even compared to the substantial amount of time
       it takes to provide reasonably well-informed and competent
       legal-based viewpoints in the course of either WG's work.



       Fourth, in order to formally counsel the community, the lawyer
       or lawyers in question would have to enter into a formal
       attorney-client relationship.  Under US law, an
       attorney-client relationship may inadvertently be created by
       the attorney's actions, so attorneys try to be careful about
       not providing formal legal advice without a formal engagement
       (sometimes providing an explicit "caveat" if they feel they
       might be getting too close to providing legal advice).  If the
       attorney is employed by a corporation, they would likely be
       unable to take on such a representation due to the terms of
       their employment, and that is before getting to an exploration
       of conflict of interest issues.  If the attorney is employed
       by a firm, the firm would have to sign off on the
       representation, again dealing with potential conflict issues.



       Fifth, even if the above issues were all somehow resolved, it
       would be highly unlikely that any such attorney would provide
       substantial amounts of advice, written memos, counseling, etc.
       on a pro bono (unpaid) basis, especially given the
       time-consuming nature of the work.  Pro bono advice and
       representation is generally accorded to individuals and
       entities that could not otherwise be able to pay for it.  That
       is clearly not the case here, at least with ICANN taking
       financial responsibility.  It would likely be very difficult
       to justify this to, e.g., a firm's pro bono committee, as a
       valid pro bono representation.



       Sixth, if ICANN were not taking the role they are taking, it
       would be extremely difficult to identify the "client" in this
       situation.  The "community"  is a collection of sectors,
       mostly represented by various ICANN-created structures, which
       in turn have members of widely varying types (individuals,
       corporations, sovereigns, non-profits, IGOs, partnerships,
       etc.).  This would also make it extremely difficult to enter
       into a formal counseling relationship with the "community."



       Seventh, this is a sensitive, high-profile, transformative set
       of actions we are involved in, which is subject to an
       extraordinary amount of scrutiny, not least that of the NTIA
       and the US Congress.  That eliminates any possibility of
       providing informal, off-the-cuff, reasonably well-informed but
       not quite expert, "non-advice" advice -- which might happen in
       a more obscure exercise.  There's simply too much at stake.



       Finally, I would say that a number of attorneys involved in
       one or both of the WGs are in fact providing a significant
       amount of legal knowledge and experience to the WGs, helping
       to frame issues, whether in terms of general leadership (e.g.,
       Thomas, Leon, Becky) or more specifically in a
       "lawyer-as-client" capacity -- working with outside counsel,
       tackling the more legalistic issues, providing as much legal
       background and knowledge as possible without providing the
       type of formal legal advice that would tend to create an
       attorney-client relationship, etc.  So I do think that many
       lawyers in the community are giving greatly of themselves in
       this process, even though they cannot and would not be able to
       formally be engaged by the community as its "counsel of record."



       In sum, it might be a nice thought in theory, but it is no way
       a practical possibility.



       Greg



       On Sat, Jul 4, 2015 at 3:08 AM, CW Lists
       <lists at christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto:lists at christopherwilkinson.eu>
       <mailto:lists at christopherwilkinson.eu>> wrote:

           Good morning:



           I had decided not to enter this debate. But I am bound to
           say that the thought had occurred to me at the time, that
           there were more than enough qualified lawyers in this
           community that they could perfectly well have counselled …
           themselves.



           CW



           On 04 Jul 2015, at 08:41, Greg Shatan
           <gregshatanipc at gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com> <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>>
           wrote:



               Wolfgang,



               To your first point, the billing rates were clearly
               stated in the law firms' engagement letters.



               To your second point, I'm sure we could all think of
               other projects and goals where the money could have
               been "better spent."  You've stated yours.  But that
               is not the proper test.  This was and continues to be
               money we need to spend to achieve the goals we have
               set.  Under different circumstances, perhaps it would
               be a different amount (or maybe none at all).  But it
               was strongly felt at the outset that the group needed
               to have independent counsel.  Clearly that counsel
               needed to have recognized expertise in the appropriate
               legal areas.  As such, I believe we made excellent
               choices and have been very well represented.



               As to your "better spent" test, I just had to have
               $4000.00 worth of emergency dental work done.  This
               money definitely could have been "better spent" on a
               nice vacation, redecorating our living room or on
               donations to my favored charitable causes.  But I had
               no choice, other than to choose which dentist and
               endodontist I went to, and I wasn't going to cut
               corners -- the dental work was a necessity.
               Similarly, the legal work we are getting is a
               necessity and whether we would have preferred to spend
               the money elsewhere is not merely irrelevant, it is an
               incorrect and inappropriate proposition.  Many of us
               are investing vast quantities of time that could be
               "better spent" elsewhere as well, but we are willing
               (grudgingly sometimes) to spend the time it takes to
               get it right, because we believe it needs to be done.
               This is the appropriate measure, whether it comes to
               our time or counsels' time.  If we believe in this
               project, we have to invest in it, and do what it takes
               to succeed.



               Of course, this investment has to be managed wisely
               and cost-effectively, and by and large, I believe the
               CCWG has done that reasonably well -- not perfectly,
               but reasonably well and with "course corrections"
               along the way intended to improve that management.
               It's certainly fair to ask, as Robin has done, for a
               better understanding of that management as we go
               along.  But asserting that the money could have been
               "better spent" elsewhere sets up a false test that we
               should not use to evaluate this important aspect of
               our work.  Instead, we need to focus on whether the
               money was "well spent" on these critical legal
               services. If you have reason to believe it was not,
               that could be useful to know.  That would at least be
               the right discussion to have.



               Greg



               On Sat, Jul 4, 2015 at 1:13 AM, "Kleinwächter,
               Wolfgang"
               <wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de<mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
               <mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de>>
               wrote:

                   HI,

                   and please if you ask outside lawyers, ask for the
                   price tag in advance. Some of the money spend fo
                   lawyers could have been spend better to suppport
                   and enable Internet user and non-commercial groups
                   in developing countries.


                   Wolfgang





                   -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
                   Von:
                   accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org>
                   <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org>
                   im Auftrag von Robin Gross
                   Gesendet: Fr 03.07.2015 14:57
                   An: accountability-cross-community at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
                   <mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
                   Community
                   Betreff: [CCWG-ACCT] Who is managing the lawyers
                   and what have they beenasked to do?


                   After the legal sub-team was disbanded, I haven't
                   been able to follow what communications are
                   happening with CCWG and the independent lawyers we
                   retained.

                   I understand the lawyers are currently "working on
                   the various models" and will present something to
                   us regarding that work soon.  However, *what
                   exactly* have the lawyers been asked to do and
                   *who* asked them?   If there are written
                   instructions, may the group please see them?  Who
                   is now taking on the role of managing the outside
                   attorneys for this group, including providing
                   instructions and certifying legal work?

                   Sorry, but I'm really trying to understand what is
                   happening, and there doesn't seem to be much
                   information in the public on this (or if there is,
                   I can't find it).  Thanks for any information
                   anyone can provide.

                   Best,
                   Robin

                   _______________________________________________
                   Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
                   Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
                   <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
                   https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=AwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=rX8zWSdUbF0XJ6RQyX5HABE7NaQIgAXHj6WfvEXkLh8&s=Yqq66BmsF0-t9R7GjryZsv1k1c4OBxUhFvNoM2kB7g8&e=>



               _______________________________________________
               Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
               Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
               <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
               https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=AwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=rX8zWSdUbF0XJ6RQyX5HABE7NaQIgAXHj6WfvEXkLh8&s=Yqq66BmsF0-t9R7GjryZsv1k1c4OBxUhFvNoM2kB7g8&e=>






       _______________________________________________
       Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
       Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
       <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
       https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=AwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=rX8zWSdUbF0XJ6RQyX5HABE7NaQIgAXHj6WfvEXkLh8&s=Yqq66BmsF0-t9R7GjryZsv1k1c4OBxUhFvNoM2kB7g8&e=>







_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=AwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=rX8zWSdUbF0XJ6RQyX5HABE7NaQIgAXHj6WfvEXkLh8&s=Yqq66BmsF0-t9R7GjryZsv1k1c4OBxUhFvNoM2kB7g8&e=>


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.avast.com_antivirus&d=AwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=rX8zWSdUbF0XJ6RQyX5HABE7NaQIgAXHj6WfvEXkLh8&s=3Kl-xLZ-zsiAfE_l0c-D1OctY2CAccIpPM7a3Zt5pnw&e=>

_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=AwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=rX8zWSdUbF0XJ6RQyX5HABE7NaQIgAXHj6WfvEXkLh8&s=Yqq66BmsF0-t9R7GjryZsv1k1c4OBxUhFvNoM2kB7g8&e=>


_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=AwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=rX8zWSdUbF0XJ6RQyX5HABE7NaQIgAXHj6WfvEXkLh8&s=Yqq66BmsF0-t9R7GjryZsv1k1c4OBxUhFvNoM2kB7g8&e=>



--
Jordan Carter

Chief Executive
InternetNZ

04 495 2118 (office) | +64 21 442 649<tel:%2B64%2021%20442%20649> (mob)
jordan at internetnz.net.nz<mailto:jordan at internetnz.net.nz>
Skype: jordancarter

A better world through a better Internet

_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=AwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=rX8zWSdUbF0XJ6RQyX5HABE7NaQIgAXHj6WfvEXkLh8&s=Yqq66BmsF0-t9R7GjryZsv1k1c4OBxUhFvNoM2kB7g8&e=>

_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=AwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=rX8zWSdUbF0XJ6RQyX5HABE7NaQIgAXHj6WfvEXkLh8&s=Yqq66BmsF0-t9R7GjryZsv1k1c4OBxUhFvNoM2kB7g8&e=>


_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=AwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=rX8zWSdUbF0XJ6RQyX5HABE7NaQIgAXHj6WfvEXkLh8&s=Yqq66BmsF0-t9R7GjryZsv1k1c4OBxUhFvNoM2kB7g8&e=>



--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Seun Ojedeji,
Federal University Oye-Ekiti
web:      http://www.fuoye.edu.ng<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.fuoye.edu.ng&d=AwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=rX8zWSdUbF0XJ6RQyX5HABE7NaQIgAXHj6WfvEXkLh8&s=JO_X0eTa_TpfkJXFV8e7p5fCVLDvN5atmTw0JvZra7w&e=>
Mobile: +2348035233535
alt email:seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng<mailto:seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng>
The key to understanding is humility - my view !

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150706/766897e1/attachment.html>


More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list