[CCWG-ACCT] RES: Cochairs Statement - Istanbul (23-24 March 2015)

Carrie Devorah carriedev at gmail.com
Fri Mar 27 01:07:05 UTC 2015


I think ICANN should go under the FTC and that all employees must sign
non-compete clauses

Putting IANA in Virginia puts IANA under a registrar whose territory
includes the Caymans which is there the problem .sucks is based

Carrie Devorah
www.centerforcopyrightintegrity.com

On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 7:42 PM, Kieren McCarthy <kierenmccarthy at gmail.com>
wrote:

> I do get the sense that a jurisdictional discussion is going to be a waste
> of valuable time at this point, especially when it comes to ICANN.
>
> There may be good sense in moving an IANA Contract Co. to Geneva at some
> future point (if that's the way this all goes) but to try to do so now when
> a transition requires U.S. Government sign off seems reckless and/ or
> pointless.
>
> It may be worth shifting to the other coast (Virginia would be pro ICANN)
> as a way to stop ICANN monkeying around with California law arguments, but
> with independent legal advice that blocking effort should also disappear.
>
> But realistically we are going to end up with a U.S. solution. Why bother
> pretending otherwise?
>
> I recall the previous two times the community looked at this whole issue.
> In fact I recall flying around the world and chewing up inordinate amounts
> of time on it (Geneva, Montevideo, can't remember where else). No one ever
> believed it would really happen and no one really cared that much either,
> except maybe the Russians.
>
> It's navel gazing frankly and I'd rather see more time spent on real
> accountability measures.
>
> Kieren
>
>
> -
> [sent through phone]
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 11:24 AM, Jacob Malthouse <jacob at bigroom.ca>
> wrote:
>
>> I'm no lawyer, but as a layperson thinking about whether ICANN should
>> stay based in California or another jurisdiction, it strikes me that the
>> only way to think about this is by considering California law (or attorney
>> general's office) as a final accountability mechanism, and by then
>> exploring that via a stress test and/or then comparing it to other
>> jurisdictions. It makes me wonder if the attorney general of California
>> involved in this effort at all? Could they be? Perhaps as part of the
>> stress-testing.
>>
>> Along those lines, even if you made an IRP binding on all parties, you'd
>> still have to explore what happens if an entity to tried to go to court
>> regardless, and then where that ends up via the courts.
>>
>> I don't have a sense of cost/benefit here, other than California seems to
>> have a reputation for having a lot of lawsuits (for better or worse) and
>> those lawsuits tend to be expensive - though maybe not more so than
>> anywhere else in the USA - so it gets back to the question of whether we
>> have an accessible redress mechanism if ICANN is based in California vs
>> elsewhere in the USA vs elsewhere.
>>
>> Looking at the litigation documents page, it looks like ICANN has been
>> sued pretty much all over the USA (
>> https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/litigation-en), which
>> might be seen as a reason to keep it based in the US, as over time the
>> precedents should help provide an additional layer of security against
>> improper lawsuits, whereas if you move it you'd be starting from scratch
>> presumably.
>>
>> Best, Jacob.
>>
>>
>> Jacob Malthouse
>> Co-founder & Director, Big Room Inc.
>> 778-960-6527
>>  www.bigroom.ca
>>
>> On 26 March 2015 at 09:48, Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco at netchoice.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>   Phil,
>>>
>>> That is not old ground, but rather ground we are now working diligently.
>>>
>>> The CCWG discussed how to bring all 4 AoC reviews into the bylaws this
>>> week in Istanbul.   The 5th draft proposal is here
>>> <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/52888421/Draft%201-%20AoC%20Accountability%20Mechanisms%20%5BSteve%20v5%5D.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1425509039000&api=v2>,
>>> and I will update soon with suggestions that surfaced this week.
>>>
>>> The AoC is presently in full effect, so Review 9.3 will begin this year
>>> and staff is planning for it.  You should count on that review beginning
>>> soon.
>>>
>>> As for registries disclosing wholesale prices, I think you know that an
>>> independent group would compile that data *without* identifying the
>>> registry.
>>>
>>>>>>  Steve
>>>
>>>  From: Phil Buckingham
>>> Date: Thursday, March 26, 2015 at 12:35 PM
>>> To: Steve DelBianco, 'Jordan Carter', 'Greg Shatan'
>>> Cc: 'Accountability Cross Community'
>>> Subject: RE: [CCWG-ACCT] RES: Cochairs Statement - Istanbul (23-24
>>> March 2015)
>>>
>>>   Steve,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I am sorry I’m playing catch up, having not been in Istanbul.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> So what is the status on the AOC requirements, particular regarding 9.3
>>> ( I think) – the review of Round 1 of the gTLD programme.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> As I am sure you are aware, as a fellow partipicant on the
>>> Implementation Advisory Group , Consumer Choice , Consumer Trust and
>>> Competition ,  that yesterday  ICANN announced  that a company had been
>>> selected  to conduct (two) economic studies, to start immediately.
>>>
>>> The implications are huge for the new TLD Registries as they will have
>>> to disclose internal pricing of registrations and, quite frankly, most are
>>> not operationally ready.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> One assumes that 9.3 would be an automatic transfer into the expanded
>>>  ICANN bylaws.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Sorry, if I am going over old ground, already agreed in Istanbul.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Phil
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Phil Buckingham
>>>
>>> CEO, Dot Advice Limited
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From:* accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org [
>>> mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org
>>> <accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Steve
>>> DelBianco
>>> *Sent:* 26 March 2015 15:13
>>> *To:* Jordan Carter; Greg Shatan
>>> *Cc:* Accountability Cross Community
>>> *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] RES: Cochairs Statement - Istanbul (23-24
>>> March 2015)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Keep in mind that either ICANN or NTIA may cancel the AoC
>>> <https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/affirmation-of-commitments-2009-09-30-en?routing_type=path>
>>> with just 120 days notice.   That’s why we created Stress Test #14, which
>>> suggests the need to bring AoC commitments and Reviews into ICANN Bylaws.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *Stress Test #14: *ICANN or NTIA choose to terminate the Affirmation of
>>> Commitments.  (AoC)  ICANN would no longer be held to its Affirmation
>>> commitments, including the conduct of community reviews and required
>>> implementation of review team recommendations.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *Existing Accountability Measures:*
>>>
>>>  The AoC can be terminated by either ICANN or NTIA with 120 days
>>> notice.
>>>
>>> As long as NTIA controls the IANA contract, ICANN feels pressure to
>>> maintain the AoC.
>>>
>>> But as a result of IANA stewardship transition, ICANN would no longer
>>> have the IANA contract as external pressure from NTIA to maintain the AoC .
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>  *Proposed Accountability Measures:*
>>>
>>>  One proposed mechanism is community challenge to a board decision,
>>> such as referral to an Independent Review Panel (IRP) with the power to
>>> issue a binding decision.    If ICANN canceled the AoC, the IRP mechanism
>>> could enable reversal of that decision.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Another proposed measure is to import AoC provisions into the ICANN
>>> bylaws, and dispense with the bilateral AoC with NTIA.  Bylaws would be
>>> amended to include AoC commitments 3, 4, 7, and 8, plus the 4 periodic
>>> reviews required in paragraph 9, or other provisions that are deemed
>>> essential by the community.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> If ICANN’s board proposed to amend the AoC provisions added to the
>>> bylaws, another proposed measure would empower the community to veto that
>>> proposed bylaws change.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>  See all stress tests here
>>> <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/52232556/Applying%20Stress%20Tests%20%5BDraft%20v8%5D.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1426877855000&api=v2>
>>> .
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>
>>> Steve DelBianco
>>>
>>> Executive Director
>>>
>>> NetChoice
>>>
>>> http://www.NetChoice.org <http://www.netchoice.org/> and
>>> http://blog.netchoice.org
>>>
>>> +1.703.615.6206
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From: *Jordan Carter
>>> *Date: *Thursday, March 26, 2015 at 10:37 AM
>>> *To: *Greg Shatan
>>> *Cc: *Accountability Cross Community
>>> *Subject: *Re: [CCWG-ACCT] RES: Cochairs Statement - Istanbul (23-24
>>> March 2015)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks Greg, Phil.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I am confident we are aware in the CCWG that we can't unilaterally amend
>>> the AOC. However, it is also clear that we can choose which bits we propose
>>> to incorporate in the ICANN Bylaws. Not incorporating some bits has no
>>> effect on the existing agreement between ICANN and the United States
>>> government.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I would note that in respect of the jurisdiction conversation, we have a
>>> multistakeholder process at work in designing this transition.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> If the question of a "sealed for all time" jurisdiction question derails
>>> the transition - either by meaning the community can't accept ICANN being
>>> locked in California forever and thus declines to agree a transition, or
>>> the United States not accepting a transition that doesn't include that lock
>>> - then that will be the outcome of the multistakeholder process. The NTIA
>>> did not define perpetual U.S. presence as a requirement for the transition,
>>> after all.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Certainly I hope that this dilemma does not prove to be a breakdown
>>> point.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I say all the above as an individual who thinks the California
>>> jurisdiction works just fine for everything we need to do now, and can
>>> foresee for the future.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> best,
>>>
>>> Jordan
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 26 March 2015 at 16:26, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> I second Phil's email and hope that some clarity can be brought to those
>>> unable to participate in the entire CCWG meeting.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I also want to remind the CCWG that ICANN cannot unilaterally amend the
>>> Affirmation of Commitments.  The AoC can only be amended by mutual consent
>>> of the parties.  The U.S. jurisdictional requirement will be there until
>>> amended by the parties, or the AoC is terminated.  If we want to get into
>>> discussing terminating the AoC, that is a whole other discussion, and an
>>> immense step to consider.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Greg Shatan
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 10:08 AM, Phil Corwin <psc at vlaw-dc.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> I see from the post below  that this issue of ICANN’s future
>>> jurisdiction has become “a most delicate matter” and remains unresolved and
>>> subject to further discussion within the CCWG.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> This is a pivotal and very important issue, as the accountability
>>> mechanisms are being designed (with the assistance of two outside law
>>> firms) to be consistent with California law and may not operate effectively
>>> within another legal jurisdiction context. Further, if there is not a
>>> commitment to remain within US jurisdiction for the foreseeable future (as
>>> CEO Chehade pledged in Congressional testimony last month) it will raise
>>> significant political barriers to NTIA approval of and Congressional
>>> acquiescence to a final transition and accountability package.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> For those of us unable to participate remotely in all the CCWG
>>> discussions earlier this week, it would be most appreciated if more
>>> specificity could be provided as soon as possible as to what the various
>>> perspectives are on this matter and how it is proposed to resolve them,
>>> since the final determination would seem to be a rather binary decision –
>>> either the AOC provision committing to US jurisdiction is incorporated
>>> within the Bylaws, or it is not.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal*
>>>
>>> *Virtualaw LLC*
>>>
>>> *1155 F Street, NW*
>>>
>>> *Suite 1050*
>>>
>>> *Washington, DC 20004*
>>>
>>> *202-559-8597 <202-559-8597>/Direct*
>>>
>>> *202-559-8750 <202-559-8750>/Fax*
>>>
>>> *202-255-6172 <202-255-6172>/cell*
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *Twitter: @VlawDC*
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey*
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From:* accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org [mailto:
>>> accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Thomas
>>> Rickert
>>> *Sent:* Thursday, March 26, 2015 6:22 AM
>>> *To:* Pedro Ivo Ferraz da Silva
>>> *Cc:* Accountability Cross Community
>>> *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] RES: Cochairs Statement - Istanbul (23-24
>>> March 2015)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Dear Pedro,
>>>
>>> you are correct. We should have mentioned that we discussed it. As this
>>> is a most delicate matter and since we agree we would suggest language to
>>> frame the next steps (you will remember we had not agreed on concrete
>>> language), I suggest we use the next upcoming opportunity to share the
>>> progress with the community when we have an agreed language on the matter.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks for your understanding and for your thoughtful contributions
>>> during the meeting.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Best,
>>>
>>> Thomas
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>  Am 26.03.2015 um 11:17 schrieb Pedro Ivo Ferraz da Silva <
>>> pedro.ivo at itamaraty.gov.br>:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Dear Alice, CCWG-colleagues,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks for the links. I just regret the fact that the CoChairs have
>>> missed to refer to the important debate the CCWG has held with respect to
>>> the way moving forward on the issue of jurisdiction. As Mathieu Weill
>>> mentioned during the second day, this is one of the main issues of concern
>>> of individuals outside this group and I believe the community deserved at
>>> least to be briefly informed about this subject.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Pedro
>>>
>>>
>>>   ------------------------------
>>>
>>> *De:* accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org [
>>> accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] em nome de Alice
>>> Jansen [alice.jansen at icann.org]
>>> *Enviado:* quarta-feira, 25 de março de 2015 12:13
>>> *Para:* accountability-cross-community at icann.org
>>> *Assunto:* [CCWG-ACCT] Cochairs Statement - Istanbul (23-24 March 2015)
>>>    Dear all,
>>>
>>>   This is to inform you that the CoChairs statement (pasted below) may
>>> be found at: https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-03-25-en
>>>
>>>   A video interview with CoChair Thomas Rickert is also available -
>>> see:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vVof6v0MguE
>>>
>>>   These links will be added to your wiki pages.
>>>
>>>   Thanks,
>>>
>>>   Best regards
>>>
>>>   Alice
>>>
>>>
>>>   CCWG-Accountability Co-Chairs Statement Istanbul, 25 March 2015 |
>>> Thomas Rickert, León Sánchez & Mathieu Weill
>>>
>>> Members and participants of the Cross Community Working Group on
>>> Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG-Accountability)
>>> <https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/CCWG+on+Enhancing+ICANN+Accountability> met
>>> in Istanbul, Turkey, on 23-24 March 2015.
>>>
>>> The meeting
>>> <https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=52890276> was
>>> attended in-person by 42 members and participants. A number of participants
>>> and observers joined the meeting remotely using the virtual meeting room.
>>> Three Advisors
>>> <https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Advisors> also
>>> participated.
>>>
>>> Guided by the four basic building blocks
>>> <https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Building+Blocks> identified
>>> at ICANN 52 in Singapore, the group further discussed and refined
>>> accountability mechanisms that need to be either implemented or, at least,
>>> committed to before the transition of the IANA stewardship can take place.
>>>
>>> The meeting made progress on three main areas:
>>>
>>> ·         Enhancing ICANN's Mission and Core Values;
>>>
>>> ·         Strengthening the existing independent review process;
>>>
>>> ·         Mechanisms for community empowerment.
>>>
>>> Specifically, the group discussed changes that should be made to the
>>> Mission and Core Values inICANN's Bylaws. For example, the group discussed
>>> how key provisions of the Affirmation of Commitments
>>> <https://www.icann.org/en/about/agreements/aoc/affirmation-of-commitments-30sep09-en.htm> (AoC)
>>> could be reflected into the Bylaws.
>>>
>>> Additionally, the group worked on strengthening the existing independent
>>> review process suggesting improvements to its accessibility and
>>> affordability, and discussed process design including establishment of a
>>> standing panel with binding outcomes and panel composition (diversity
>>> etc.). The IRP panel decisions would be guided by ICANN's Mission and Core
>>> Values.
>>>
>>> With regards to mechanisms for community empowerment, the group
>>> identified powers and associated mechanisms including the ability to:
>>>
>>> ·         recall the ICANN Board of Directors;
>>>
>>> ·         approve or prevent changes to the ICANN Bylaws, Mission and
>>> Core Values;
>>>
>>> ·         reject Board decisions on Strategic Plan and budget, where
>>> the Board has failed to appropriately consider community input.
>>>
>>> The CCWG-Accountability supported the concept of a Fundamental Bylaw
>>> that would provide additional robustness to key provisions. The Fundamental
>>> Bylaw would apply to:
>>>
>>> ·         the mission;
>>>
>>> ·         the independent review process;
>>>
>>> ·         the power to veto Bylaw changes;
>>>
>>> ·         new community powers such as recall of the Board and the
>>> right of the community to veto certain Board actions.
>>>
>>> Changes to the Fundamental Bylaws would require high standards for
>>> approval by the community.
>>>
>>> The notion of an empowered community involved discussion of community
>>> representation, i.e. who constitutes the community.  The
>>> CCWG-Accountability is also aware that to wield these new powers, the
>>> community, however it is constituted, must itself meet high standards of
>>> accountability. ICANN's accountability would also be enhanced by ensuring
>>> its operations and processes are more globally inclusive.
>>>
>>> The group has engaged two law firms to provide independent legal advice
>>> and confirm feasibility of the suggested frameworks. The firms are Adler &
>>> Colvin and Sidley & Austin.
>>>
>>> As work progresses, all recommendations will be subject to the stress
>>> tests against contingencies already identified. The stress test methodology
>>> has been successfully tested against the draft accountability mechanisms.
>>>
>>> The CCWG-Accountability is confident that their proposed mechanisms will
>>> satisfy the needs of the CWG-Stewardship1
>>> <https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-03-25-en#_ftn1> as they
>>> look to stronger accountability protections. The CCWG-Accountability and
>>> CWG-Stewardship Co-Chairs met to update and fully brief each other on the
>>> progress made so far. They outlined key areas of accountability that the
>>> CCWG-Accountability Co-Chairs considered are most relevant for the current
>>> and ongoing work of the CWG-Stewardship. The CCWG-Accountability Co-Chairs
>>> will brief the CWG-Stewardship in the opening part of their face-to-face
>>> meeting on Thursday, 26 March.
>>>
>>> *Next Steps:*
>>>
>>> The CCWG-Accountability will continue refining its recommendations. The
>>> community is expected to provide feedback during a public comment period to
>>> be held before ICANN 53, Buenos Aires meeting.  The results of the public
>>> comment period will inform further deliberations during that meeting.
>>>
>>> The group is developing an engagement plan to ensure its proposals are
>>> widely known and understood, and to encourage comprehensive response to
>>> proposals during the public comment period.
>>>
>>> The CCWG-Accountability Co-Chairs recognize the outstanding volunteer
>>> work that has produced these substantive proposals in a very short period
>>> of time.  The community's effort has been exceptional.
>>>
>>> *About the CCWG-Accountability*
>>>
>>> The CCWG-Accountability was established to ensure that ICANN's
>>> accountability and transparency commitments to the global Internet
>>> community are maintained and enhanced in the absence of the historical
>>> relationship with the U.S. Government.
>>>
>>> The group has divided its work into two work streams (WS):
>>>
>>> ·         WS1 is focused on identifying mechanisms
>>> enhancing ICANN accountability that must be in place or committed to within
>>> the timeframe of the IANA Stewardship Transition;
>>>
>>> ·         WS2 is focused on addressing accountability topics for which
>>> a timeline for developing solutions and full implementation may extend
>>> beyond the IANA Stewardship Transition.
>>>
>>> The CCWG-Accountability consists of 177 people
>>> <https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=50823970>,
>>> organized as 26 members
>>> <https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=50823968>,
>>> appointed by and accountable to chartering organizations, 151
>>> participants
>>> <https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=50823968>,
>>> who participate as individuals, and 46 mailing list observers
>>> <https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Mailing+List+Observers>.
>>> The group also includes one ICANN Board liaison, one ICANN staff
>>> representative, and one former ATRT member who serves as a liaison. In
>>> addition, there are 4 ICG members who participate in the
>>> CCWG-Accountability, including two who serve as liaisons between the two
>>> groups.
>>> Seven Advisors <https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2014-12-17-en> have
>>> also been appointed to contribute research and advice, and to bring
>>> perspectives on global best practices to enrich the CCWG-Accountability
>>> discussion.
>>> The CCWG-Accountability is an open group: anyone interested in the work
>>> of the CCWG-Accountability, can join as a participant or observers.
>>> Participants or observers may be from a chartering organization, from a
>>> stakeholder group or organization not represented in the
>>> CCWG-Accountability or currently active within ICANN, or self-appointed.
>>>
>>> For more information on the CCWG-Accountability or to view meeting
>>> archives and draft documents, please refer to their dedicated wiki
>>> <https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/CCWG+on+Enhancing+ICANN+Accountability>
>>> .
>>>
>>> A video interview with CCWG-Accountability Co-Chair Thomas Rickert can
>>> be seen here <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vVof6v0MguE>.
>>>   ------------------------------
>>>
>>> 1 <https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-03-25-en#_ftnref1> Cross
>>> Community Working Group (CWG) to Develop an IANA Stewardship Transition
>>> Proposal on Naming Related Functions
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>>>
>>>
>>>   ------------------------------
>>>
>>> No virus found in this message.
>>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>>> Version: 2015.0.5751 / Virus Database: 4306/9294 - Release Date: 03/13/15
>>> Internal Virus Database is out of date.
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> Jordan Carter
>>>
>>> Chief Executive
>>> *InternetNZ*
>>>
>>> 04 495 2118 (office) | +64 21 442 649 (mob)
>>> 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://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>>>
>>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>
>


-- 
Sincerely
CARRIE Devorah
 562 688 2883



DISCLAIMER :
With the continuing crossing and interfacing of platforms both on & off
line both with & without our knowledge nor approval to note nothing sent
over the Internet anymore is ever private nor should be presumed to be so.
If it is that much of a secret, say nothing. If you must? Take a lesson
from our military- hand write the note, chew then swallow
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150326/ad3f2eb0/attachment.html>


More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list