[CCWG-ACCT] Who is managing the lawyers and what have they beenasked to do?
Avri Doria
avri at acm.org
Wed Jul 8 22:17:41 UTC 2015
Hi,
Yes.
The jaws of the IRP are the right jaws in my view.
avri
On 08-Jul-15 16:42, Burr, Becky wrote:
> Avri -
>
> Does it matter to you if the jaws are the jaws of a court or the jaws of
> the IRP?
>
> B
> 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 / www.neustar.biz
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 7/7/15, 8:49 AM, "Avri Doria" <avri at acm.org> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I do want to point out that I have moved away from the voluntary
>> community model, though it remains dear to my heart to accepting a form
>> of designator model.
>>
>> I also see that the empowered membership models, is in some ways,
>> similar to the empowered designator model. Unfortunately it also has
>> the ability to slide down the slope to a full membership model. and as
>> I have argued, I think that leaves ICANN not only without proper checks
>> and balnces, but into the jaws of the courts.
>>
>> avri
>>
>> On 07-Jul-15 08:29, Jordan Carter wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> Firstly I think facts speak for themselves, but it is our
>>> understanding of them - including how they change through the
>>> accumulation of further facts - that changes over time. And am not a
>>> scientist. Nor a lawyer :-)
>>>
>>> On Avri's broad point, it does summn up a nub of the debate. I
>>> reiterate for the record that my concern with ICANN's post-transition
>>> reality is that power is concentrated from the status quo (NTIA -
>>> Board, with community advie) into a newly powerful and concentrated
>>> single entity - the ICANN Board.
>>>
>>> The purpose of a membership or designator model is to distribute power
>>> into the global multistakeholder community, as organised through the
>>> SO/AC structure, which is how ICANN organises the various stakeholders
>>> with interests in the DNS.
>>>
>>> There's no claim of perfection in such a model. Quite the opposite.
>>> The whole point of a distribution of power is to share accountability
>>> and responsibility more broadly.
>>>
>>> The "voluntary" model concentrates power in one place to an unhealthy
>>> degree. It is difficult for me to understand how anyone could accept a
>>> clear worsening of accountability and concentration of power that it
>>> represents, compared with the status quo.
>>>
>>> Seems to me the sole difference between members and designators comes
>>> down to how strong you want the auhority of the community to be.
>>> Neither represents "total" power: there is no abrogation in either of
>>> the Board's responsibility to govern ICANN consistent with its limited
>>> mission and consistent with the global public interest.
>>>
>>> All that either offers is an acknowledgement that authority in the DNS
>>> community should lie with stakeholders. Organised through the SOs and
>>> ACs.
>>>
>>> That's the same as where authority in the RIR community lies.
>>>
>>> As I understand it, it is also pretty similar towhere authority in
>>> the protocols community lies.
>>>
>>> It isn't clear to me why the names community would settle for a less
>>> reliable and reputable model.
>>>
>>>
>>> Anyhow, much fodder for thought as we come to Paris. I think we have
>>> to acknowledge that the differences here are of degree, except in
>>> regards to the voluntary model. That oe stands on its own as a unique
>>> reallocation of authority into a single place in a manner that would
>>> ceate serious risks for all of us in assuring the stability and
>>> security of the DNS.
>>>
>>> best
>>> Jordan
>>>
>>> On 7 July 2015 at 23:52, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org
>>> <mailto:avri at acm.org>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> To start, I believe that facts are just things that people believe
>>> to
>>> be the case. I try not to speak of anthing stronger that a belief.
>>> Both my personal history and world histoy, even history of science
>>> -
>>> that bastion of fact, shows me that yesterda's Fact is often just a
>>> matter of prejudice, superstition and point of view.
>>>
>>> In terms of the accountability problem with the membership model,
>>> it has
>>> been discussed before. Fairly extensively. Some of the gaps such as
>>> those exposed by the UA have been eliminated, but others have
>>> not. Some
>>> involve the degree to which the various SOAC are really the solid
>>> organizations we portray. As Iwrote in an earlier message where i
>>> spoke of the SOAC themselves:
>>> > Having been a member or observer of many of these entities I
>>> have fond
>>> > that they are often disorganized, ruled by a few strong
>>> personalities in
>>> > a se of apathy, and given to making up rules on the fly when
>>> needed.
>>> > They do not even necessarily follow the rules they have agreed
>>> to in the
>>> > charters, hough some do, not all of them. And for the most
>>> part, though
>>> > they are supposed to transparent, most aren't.
>>>
>>> Are these structures really fit of unchecked rule? How can we
>>> show that?
>>>
>>> For me the primary deficit is the loss of checks and balances.
>>>
>>> The current system relies on a set of checks and balances between
>>> the
>>> Board andthe rest of the community. The current problem is that
>>> the
>>> power of the rest of the community seem too weak to many, allowing
>>> the
>>> Board to seemingly work without any checks on its activities.
>>>
>>> By strengthening the community in the designator model, we
>>> strengthen
>>> the set of checks and balance between the Board and the rest of the
>>> community. By doing so, we increase accountability.
>>>
>>> There is a reciprocity in this notion of accountability, one that
>>> does
>>> not require external oversight. We vote them in, can appeal the
>>> board
>>> in a serious manner and will even be able to vote them out by
>>> some yet
>>> to be determined procedure. And the Board, can review the degree to
>>> which the stakeholder groups are fulfilling their mandate to
>>> represent
>>> the larger community within the ICANN mission. In a sense there is
>>> mutual reciprocal oversight. The Board and the rest of the community
>>> check each other and establish a functional balance. Most of the
>>> this
>>> CCWG's activities are working on the details of these check and
>>> balances.
>>>
>>> That is other than the grand reorganization of ICANN into a
>>> membership
>>> organization. Something that leaves the current check and balances
>>> behind and attempts to create a major new structure.
>>>
>>> In the designator model the Board can make decisions and we can
>>> appeal
>>> them. And we make recommendations and give advise the Board needs to
>>> give it serious consideration on penalty of appeal. In extreme
>>> case they
>>> can be removed from their duties and we can be subjected to
>>> disussions
>>> of reorganization.
>>>
>>> Going to the membership model eliminaes this balance by giving the
>>> putative community representatives supreme power. How can that
>> power be
>>> appealed? Can membership decisions be appealed, by whom and to
>>> whom?
>>> Who determines whether the ACSO are adequately representing the
>>> global
>>> community and living up to their obligations under the bylaws?
>>> Membership turns the Board into an administrative unit without
>>> sufficient power to act as a check or balance to the ACSOs.
>>>
>>> Eliminating any checks and balances on the ACSO from the
>>> accountability
>>> equation seems to be a critical failure to me in the creation of a
>>> new
>>> accountability regime. Perhaps if we were going with the individual
>>> membership option a degree of accountability to global members
>>> could be
>>> argued, not sure. But I believe that is not what we are working
>>> on as
>>> that would involve even greater difficulty to get right. We are
>>> not even
>>> working on a model where organizations that exist on their own come
>>> together to form a group. Our ACSO are artificial organizations
>>> created
>>> by and within ICANN. Our multistakeholder model depends on the
>>> interaction and interplay of these organization with the Board and
>>> on
>>> the checks and balances between them.
>>>
>>> Perhaps you have 'fact based' responses to all the possible
>>> accountability questions that NTIA might ask us about this new power
>>> structure you favor. I do not believe tht you can show how the
>>> ACSO
>>> will be responsible to the global Internet community. I a rogue set of ACSO can be stopped from doing
>>> things
>>> that harm the organizations or the Internet without allowing the
>>> Board
>>> some degree of decision making based on the confluence of
>>> recommendations and advice received from the various ACSO and the
>>> greater community.
>>>
>>> As was stated in the call by NTIA, it was up to us to show how
>>> anything
>>> new we created could be held accountable. As far as I can tell in
>>> membership there is no way to hold the members accountable. In the
>>> designator model we show how we are adding accountability
>>> measures. In
>>> the membership model we require the ACSO to verify their own
>>> representativity, but I have seen no expression of how they can do
>>> that
>>> or show that it is the case. When I speak of having a "much higher
>>> threshold" in proving ACSO accountabilty to the global public
>>> interest,
>>> this is what I mean. How are you going to prove, as you say - with
>>> the
>>> facts that you believe in, that the membership model is more
>>> accountable
>>> given its unassailable postion in a membership organization.
>>>
>>> I have seen no evidence of membership creating greater
>>> accountability to
>>> the global public interest. I cannot state that I believe it is
>>> impossible for it to do so, just that I have seen no evidence of it.
>>>
>>> avri
>>>
>>>
>>> On 06-Jul-15 21:01, Edward Morris wrote:
>>> > Hello Avri,
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > I believe membership raises the issues of accountability to
>>> the full
>>> > diversity of stakeholders to a much higher threshold,
>>> including the
>>> > issue of the degree to which ICANN is accountable to
>>> stakeholders not
>>> > included among our SG/C/RALO/ALS / as well as among
>>> parrticpating CCs
>>> > and govts.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Please, if possible, raise your concerns stating fact rather than
>>> > belief. Maybe there is something I have missed. There is
>>> absolutely no
>>> > difference in the openness to non ICANN stakeholders between the
>>> > empowered membership and empowered designator models.At least I
>>> don't
>>> > see any. Both are based upon the current SOAC's. If there is a
>>> > ifference in this area I need to and want to be educated. Please
>>> > respond with specific and detailed instances or examples of why
>>> what
>>> > you claim is true is. Vague general > Again, I am open to be educated and persuaded but with substantive
>>> > fact rather than vague as yet unsubstantiated beliefs.
>>> >
>>> > No model is as open to non SOAC's as is Malcolm's proposal for
>>> > individual membership. That, again, is a membership modip model and if not why not? Would you
>>> > prefer other models to be looked at that are not based upon the
>>> > SOAC's? I think that would be a very reasonable position and one I
>>> > certainly am open to supporting if a workable model would be
>>> proposed.
>>> > As yet I have not seen o >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > I think enough of the comments bring out questions of
>>> > accountability in
>>> > p option less
>>> than
>>> > optimal.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > What comments are you referring to? Certainly not the public
>>> comments
>>> > which were basically supportive of membership. Are these
>>> comments you
>>> > refer to based upon vague generalities or specific proboblems what specifically are they? Should we not
>>> > determine whether there are solution to those problems rather
>> ht? If not, what are your views
>>> as to
>>> > the ultimate apparent unenforceability of the designator model in
>>> > certain areas? Do you disagree with Paul Rosenzweig when he states
>>> > that "a direct community veto of budget and strategic plan remains
>>> > essential to accountability"? If not, what do you propose to do in
>>> > tese areas without membership. Should we simply forget them?
>>> >
>>> > I do think there may be another option or two out there and
>>> hopefully
>>> > working with our counsel we'll find them.
>>> >
>>> > In the interim, I really am looking to be educated. No one has
>>> taught
>>> > me more about ICANN since I became involved in it than you Avri.
>>> I'm
>>> > just not easily persuadable by vague opinions, I'm a fact based
>>> sort
>>> > of guy. As this process has moved forward I've seen your views and
>>> > positions change. To me, that is an admirable sign of someone
>>> truly
>>> > looking for an optimal answer rather than one who is clinging to a
>>> > defined position. I'm just having some trouble understanding,
>>> > factually, the specific objections you are now raising about
>>> > membership. I hope you can help me understand so I can better
>>> test and
>>> > evaluate my own views..
>>> >
>>> > Thanks,
>>> >
>>> > Ed
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > On 06-Jul-15 19:05, Edward Morris wrote:
>>> > > +1. Well said.
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > > On Mon, Jul 6, 2015 at 9:04 PM, Jonathan Zuck
>>> > <JZuck at actonline.org <mailto:JZuck at actonline.org>
>>> <mailto:JZuck at actonline.org <mailto:JZuck at actonline.org>>
>>> > > <mailto:JZuck at actonline.org <mailto:JZuck at actonline.org>
>>> <mailto:JZuck at actonline.org <mailto:JZuck at actonline.org>>>> wrote:
>>> > >
>>> > > Hmm. I think it¹s 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. I¹m 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
>>> <mailto: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
>>> <mailto: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
>>> <mailto: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
>>> <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>
>>> > <mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org
>>> <mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>>
>>> > > <mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org
>>> <mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
>>> > <mailto: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: > <mailto:Becky.Burr at neustar.biz
>>> <mailto:Becky.Burr at neustar.biz>>
>>> > > <mailto:Becky.Burr at neustar.biz
>>> <mailto:Becky.Burr at neustar.biz>
>>> > <mailto: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> <tel:%2B%201.202.533.2932>
>>> > <tel:%2B%201.202.533.2932> Mobile:
>>> > > +1.202.352.6367 <tel:%2B1.202.352.6367>
>>> > > <tel:%2B1.202.352.6367> / becky.burr at neustar.biz
>>> <mailto:becky.burr at neustar.biz>
>>> > <mailto:becky.burr at neustar.biz
>>> <mailto:becky.burr at neustar.biz>>
>>> > > <mailto:becky.burr at neustar.biz
>>> <mailto:becky.burr at neustar.biz>
>>> > <mailto:becky.burr at neustar.biz
>>> <mailto:becky.burr at neustar.biz>>> /
>>> www.neustar.biz <http://www.neustar.biz>
>>> > <http://www.neustar.biz>
>>> > > <http://www.neustar.bi > >
>>> > >
>>> > > *From: *Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com
>>> <mailto:seun.ojedeji at gmail.com>
>>> > <mailto:seun.ojedeji at gmail.com
>>> <mailto:seun.ojedeji at gmail.com>>
>>> > > <mailto:seun.ojedeji at gmail.com>> <mailto:seun.ojedeji at gmail.com>
>>> > <mailto: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>
>>> > <mailto:robin at ipjustice.org <mailto:robin at ipjustice.org>>
>>> > > <mailto:robin at ipjustice.org
>>> <mailto:robin at ipjustice.org> <mailto: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>
>>> > <mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org
>>> <mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>>
>>> > > <mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org
>>> <mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
>>> > <mailto: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 alloof
>>> > > 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>
>>> <mailto:robin at ipjustice.org <mailto:robin at ipjustice.org>>
>>> > <mailto:robin at ipjustice.org <mailto:robin at ipjustice.org>
>>> <mailto: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, t 7:32 AM, Greg Shatan wrote:
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > > I agree. We should have the benefit of
>>> their
>>> > thoughts.
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > > >> > >
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > > On Mon, Jul 6, 2015 at 9:38 AM, Jordan
>>> Carter
>>> > > <jordant.nz
>>> <mailto:jordan at internetnz.net.nz>
>>> > <mailto:jordan at internetnz.net.nz
>>> <mailto:jordan at internetnz.net.nz>>
>>> > > <mailto:jordan at internetnz.net.nz
>>> <mailto:jordan at internetnz.net.nz>
>>> > <mailto: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>
>>> > <mailto:james at cyberinvasion.net
>>> <mailto:james at cyberinvasion.net>>
>>> > > <mailto:james at cyberinvasion.net
>>> <mailtberinvasion.net>
>>> > <mailto: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
>>> > > 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> <mailto:avri at acm.org <mailto:avri at acm.org>>
>>> > <mailto:avri at acm.org <mailto:avri at acm.org>
>>> <mailto: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 wilt time was the
>>> time
>>> > I had
>>> > > for that call and that is why
>>> > > i was listening then.
>>> > >
>>> > > In any case, th 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
>>> > > lawyers¹ call at;
>>> > >
>>> >
>>>
>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_
>>> pages_viewpage.action-3FpageId-3D53782602&d=AwIF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lUL
>>> rw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=WFn00v80Cv5VwEgmjVcgIG
>>> rVjb75abO-S6JrONX7jKM&s=zSmXcLCXRxT8cvoxbhuDA2mgEJqygwNhe2KdqzxJaeo&e=
>>> > >
>>> >
>>>
>>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org
>>> _pages_viewpage.action-3FpageId-3D53782602&d=AwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lU
>>> Lrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=rX8zWSdUbF0XJ6RQyX5HA
>>> BE7NaQIgAXHj6WfvEXkLh8&s=5REzt6Gk0Mt5evnhe_F8O87Kpc4hX8wql7vP--WYsnQ&e=>
>>> > > (I¹m a glutton for
>>> punishment)
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > > It was a short call and
>>> I¹ll 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, ost 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 can¹t 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 everyone¹s 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>>
>>> > >
>>> > <mailto: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>>>
>>> > >
>>> > [mailto: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>>
>>> > >
>>> > <mailto: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>
>>> > <mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org
>>> <mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>>
>>> > >
>>> > <mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org
>>> <mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
>>> > <mailto: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 <mailto:carlosraulg at gmail.com>>
>>> > >
>>> <mailto:carlosraulg at gmail.com <mailto:carlosraulg at gmail.com>
>>> > <mailto:carlosraulg at gmail.com <mailto:carlosraulg at gmail.com>>>
>>> > >
>>> <mailto:carlosraulg at gmail.com <mailto: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>
>>> > > <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
>>> <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>>
>>> > >
>>> <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
>>> > <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com
>>> <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>>> <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com
>>> <mailto: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
>>> <mailto:lists at christopherwilkinson.eu>>
>>> > >
>>> > <mailto:lists at christopherwilkinson.eu
>>> <mailto:lists at christopherwilkinson.eu>
>>> > <mailto:lists at christopherwilkinson.eu
>>> <mailto:lists at christopherwilkinson.eu>>>
>>> > >
>>> > <mailto:lists at christopherwilkinson.eu
>>> <mailto: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 S
>>> > > 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 <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>>
>>> > >
>>> <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
>>> > <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com
>>> <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>>> <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com
>>> <mailto: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
>>> <mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de>>
>>> > >
>>> > <mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de
>>> <mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
>>> > <mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de
>>> <mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de>>>
>>> > >
>>> > <mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de
>>> <mailto: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
>>> <mailto: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
>>> <mailto: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
>>> <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
>>> <mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>>
>>> > >
>>> > <mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org
>>> <mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
>>> > <mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org
>>> <mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>>>
>>> > >
>>> > <mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org
>>> <mailto: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
>>> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>>
>>> > >
>>> > <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>>> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
>>> > <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>>> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>>>
>>> > >
>>> > <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>>> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
>>> > <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>>> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>>>
>>> > >
>>> >
>>>
>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman
>>> _listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=AwIF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_
>>> lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=WFn00v80Cv5VwEgmjVc
>>> gIGrVjb75abO-S6JrONX7jKM&s=DC5pn-5lpgvzOQxAsZqlWqzOlPswPciKtm5wFUyXD0M&e=
>>>
>>> > >
>>> >
>>>
>>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailma
>>> n_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=AwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC
>>> _lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=rX8zWSdUbF0XJ6RQyX
>>> 5HABE7NaQIgAXHj6WfvEXkLh8&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
>>> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>>
>>> > >
>>> > <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>>> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
>>> > <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>>> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>>>
>>> > >
>>> > <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>>> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
>>> > <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>>> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>>>
>>> > >
>>> >
>>>
>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman
>>> _listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=AwIF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_
>>> lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=WFn00v80Cv5VwEgmjVc
>>> gIGrVjb75abO-S6JrONX7jKM&s=DC5pn-5lpgvzOQxAsZqlWqzOlPswPciKtm5wFUyXD0M&e=
>>>
>>> > >
>>> >
>>>
>>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailma
>>> n_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=AwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC
>>> _lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=rX8zWSdUbF0XJ6RQyX
>>> 5HABE7NaQIgAXHj6WfvEXkLh8&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
>>> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>>
>>> > >
>>> > <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>>> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
>>> > <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>>> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>>>
>>> > >
>>> > <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>>> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
>>> > <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>>> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>>>
>>> > >
>>> >
>>>
>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman
>>> _listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=AwIF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_
>>> lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=WFn00v80Cv5VwEgmjVc
>>> gIGrVjb75abO-S6JrONX7jKM&s=DC5pn-5lpgvzOQxAsZqlWqzOlPswPciKtm5wFUyXD0M&e=
>>>
>>> > >
>>> >
>>>
>>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailma
>>> n_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=AwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC
>>> _lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=rX8zWSdUbF0XJ6RQyX
>>> 5HABE7NaQIgAXHj6WfvEXkLh8&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
>>> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>>
>>> > >
>>> > <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>>> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
>>> > <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>>> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>>>
>>> > >
>>> >
>>>
>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman
>>> _listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=AwIF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_
>>> lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=WFn00v80Cv5VwEgmjVc
>>> gIGrVjb75abO-S6JrONX7jKM&s=DC5pn-5lpgvzOQxAsZqlWqzOlPswPciKtm5wFUyXD0M&e=
>>>
>>> > >
>>> >
>>>
>>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailma
>>> n_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=AwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC
>>> _lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=rX8zWSdUbF0XJ6RQyX
>>> 5HABE7NaQIgAXHj6WfvEXkLh8&s=Yqq66BmsF0-t9R7GjryZsv1k1c4OBxUhFvNoM2kB7g8&e
>>> =>
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > > ---
>>> > > This email has been checked for
>>> > viruses by
>>> > > Avast antivirus software.
>>> > >
>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.avast.com_antivi
>>> rus&d=AwIF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahO
>>> P8WDDkMr4k&m=WFn00v80Cv5VwEgmjVcgIGrVjb75abO-S6JrONX7jKM&s=Q-EfGqsIXHQHXx
>>> CJSGykpbyacYgkUcq9pi2aLeVDt5U&e=
>>> > >
>>> >
>>>
>>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.avast.com_antiv
>>> irus&d=AwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYah
>>> OP8WDDkMr4k&m=rX8zWSdUbF0XJ6RQyX5HABE7NaQIgAXHj6WfvEXkLh8&s=3Kl-xLZ-zsiAf
>>> E_l0c-D1OctY2CAccIpPM7a3Zt5pnw&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
>>> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>>
>>> > >
>>> > <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>>> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
>>> > <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>>> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>>>
>>> > >
>>> >
>>>
>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman
>>> _listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=AwIF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_
>>> lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=WFn00v80Cv5VwEgmjVc
>>> gIGrVjb75abO-S6JrONX7jKM&s=DC5pn-5lpgvzOQxAsZqlWqzOlPswPciKtm5wFUyXD0M&e=
>>>
>>> > >
>>> >
>>>
>>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailma
>>> n_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=AwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC
>>> _lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=rX8zWSdUbF0XJ6RQyX
>>> 5HABE7NaQIgAXHj6WfvEXkLh8&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
>>> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>>
>>> > >
>>> > <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>>> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
>>> > <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>>> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>>>
>>> > >
>>> >
>>>
>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman
>>> _listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=AwIF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_
>>> lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=WFn00v80Cv5VwEgmjVc
>>> gIGrVjb75abO-S6JrONX7jKM&s=DC5pn-5lpgvzOQxAsZqlWqzOlPswPciKtm5wFUyXD0M&e=
>>>
>>> > >
>>> >
>>>
>>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailma
>>> n_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=AwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC
>>> _lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=rX8zWSdUbF0XJ6RQyX
>>> 5HABE7NaQIgAXHj6WfvEXkLh8&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>
>>> > <mailto:jordan at internetnz.net.nz
>>> <mailto:jordan at internetnz.net.nz>>
>>> > > <mailto:jordan at internetnz.net.nz
>>> <mailto:jordan at internetnz.net.nz>
>>> > <mailto: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>
>>> > <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>>> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>>
>>> > >
>>> > <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>>> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
>>> > <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>>> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>>>
>>> > >
>>> >
>>>
>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman
>>> _listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=AwIF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_
>>> lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=WFn00v80Cv5VwEgmjVc
>>> gIGrVjb75abO-S6JrONX7jKM&s=DC5pn-5lpgvzOQxAsZqlWqzOlPswPciKtm5wFUyXD0M&e=
>>>
>>> > >
>>> >
>>>
>>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailma
>>> n_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=AwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC
>>> _lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=rX8zWSdUbF0XJ6RQyX
>>> 5HABE7NaQIgAXHj6WfvEXkLh8&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
>>> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>>
>>> > >
>>> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>>> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
>>> > <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>>> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>>>
>>> > >
>>> >
>>>
>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman
>>> _listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=AwIF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_
>>> lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=WFn00v80Cv5VwEgmjVc
>>> gIGrVjb75abO-S6JrONX7jKM&s=DC5pn-5lpgvzOQxAsZqlWqzOlPswPciKtm5wFUyXD0M&e=
>>>
>>> > >
>>> >
>>>
>>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailma
>>> n_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=AwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC
>>> _lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=rX8zWSdUbF0XJ6RQyX
>>> 5HABE7NaQIgAXHj6WfvEXkLh8&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
>>> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>>
>>> > >
>>> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>>> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
>>> > <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>>> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>>>
>>> > >
>>> >
>>>
>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman
>>> _listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=AwIF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_
>>> lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=WFn00v80Cv5VwEgmjVc
>>> gIGrVjb75abO-S6JrONX7jKM&s=DC5pn-5lpgvzOQxAsZqlWqzOlPswPciKtm5wFUyXD0M&e=
>>>
>>> > >
>>> >
>>>
>>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailma
>>> n_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=AwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC
>>> _lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=rX8zWSdUbF0XJ6RQyX
>>> 5HABE7NaQIgAXHj6WfvEXkLh8&s=Yqq66BmsF0-t9R7GjryZsv1k1c4OBxUhFvNoM2kB7g8&e
>>> =>
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > > --
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> >
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> > >
>>> > > /Seun Ojedeji,
>>> > > Federal University Oye-Ekiti
>>> > > web:
>>> //https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.fuoye.edu.ng&d=
>>> AwIF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDk
>>> Mr4k&m=WFn00v80Cv5VwEgmjVcgIGrVjb75abO-S6JrONX7jKM&s=0jeGeVlvL9OdHuagA8IF
>>> L55Qf0dISl0O2YMMYr2hgTc&e=
>>> > >
>>> >
>>>
>>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.fuoye.edu.ng&d=A
>>> wMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkM
>>> r4k&m=rX8zWSdUbF0XJ6RQyX5HABE7NaQIgAXHj6WfvEXkLh8&s=JO_X0eTa_TpfkJXFV8e7p
>>> 5fCVLDvN5atmTw0JvZra7w&e=>
>>> > > //Mobile: +2348035233535
>>> <tel:%2B2348035233535>//
>>> > > //alt email:seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng
>>> <mailto:email%3Aseun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng>
>>> > <mailto:email%3Aseun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng
>>> <mailto:email%253Aseun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng>>
>>> > > <mailto:seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng
>>> <mailto:seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng>
>>> > <mailto:seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng
>>> <mailto:seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng>>>/
>>> > >
>>> > > The key to understanding is humility - my
>>> view !
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > > _______________________________________________
>>> > > 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
>>> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>>
>>> > > <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>>> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
>>> > <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>>> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>>>
>>> > >
>>> >
>>>
>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman
>>> _listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=AwIF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_
>>> lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=WFn00v80Cv5VwEgmjVc
>>> gIGrVjb75abO-S6JrONX7jKM&s=DC5pn-5lpgvzOQxAsZqlWqzOlPswPciKtm5wFUyXD0M&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
>>> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>>
>>> > >
>>>
>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman
>>> _listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=AwIF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_
>>> lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=WFn00v80Cv5VwEgmjVc
>>> gIGrVjb75abO-S6JrONX7jKM&s=DC5pn-5lpgvzOQxAsZqlWqzOlPswPciKtm5wFUyXD0M&e=
>>>
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > ---
>>> > This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus
>>> software.
>>> >
>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.avast.com_antivi
>>> rus&d=AwIF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahO
>>> P8WDDkMr4k&m=WFn00v80Cv5VwEgmjVcgIGrVjb75abO-S6JrONX7jKM&s=Q-EfGqsIXHQHXx
>>> CJSGykpbyacYgkUcq9pi2aLeVDt5U&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
>>> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>>
>>> >
>>>
>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman
>>> _listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=AwIF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_
>>> lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=WFn00v80Cv5VwEgmjVc
>>> gIGrVjb75abO-S6JrONX7jKM&s=DC5pn-5lpgvzOQxAsZqlWqzOlPswPciKtm5wFUyXD0M&e=
>>>
>>> >
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>> ---
>>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>>>
>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.avast.com_antivi
>>> rus&d=AwIF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahO
>>> P8WDDkMr4k&m=WFn00v80Cv5VwEgmjVcgIGrVjb75abO-S6JrONX7jKM&s=Q-EfGqsIXHQHXx
>>> CJSGykpbyacYgkUcq9pi2aLeVDt5U&e=
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>>> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
>>>
>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman
>>> _listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=AwIF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_
>>> lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=WFn00v80Cv5VwEgmjVc
>>> gIGrVjb75abO-S6JrONX7jKM&s=DC5pn-5lpgvzOQxAsZqlWqzOlPswPciKtm5wFUyXD0M&e=
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Jordan Carter
>>>
>>> Chief Executive
>>> *InternetNZ*
>>>
>>> 04 495 2118 (office) | +64 21 442 649 (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
>>>
>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman
>>> _listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=AwIF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_
>>> lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=WFn00v80Cv5VwEgmjVc
>>> gIGrVjb75abO-S6JrONX7jKM&s=DC5pn-5lpgvzOQxAsZqlWqzOlPswPciKtm5wFUyXD0M&e=
>>>
>>
>> ---
>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.avast.com_antivir
>> us&d=AwIF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8
>> WDDkMr4k&m=WFn00v80Cv5VwEgmjVcgIGrVjb75abO-S6JrONX7jKM&s=Q-EfGqsIXHQHXxCJS
>> GykpbyacYgkUcq9pi2aLeVDt5U&e=
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_
>> listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=AwIF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lU
>> Lrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=WFn00v80Cv5VwEgmjVcgIG
>> rVjb75abO-S6JrONX7jKM&s=DC5pn-5lpgvzOQxAsZqlWqzOlPswPciKtm5wFUyXD0M&e=
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>
>
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community
mailing list