[CCWG-ACCT] RES: Cochairs Statement - Istanbul (23-24March 2015)
Seun Ojedeji
seun.ojedeji at gmail.com
Fri Mar 27 21:08:01 UTC 2015
I absolutely agree with Greg.
Cheers!
sent from Google nexus 4
kindly excuse brevity and typos.
On 27 Mar 2015 10:51, "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc at gmail.com> wrote:
> Bylaws are typically rules and regulations, not aspirational statements.
> I don't think a general statement about choosing a future jurisdiction (or
> confirming the current one) at some later date is appropriate for a set of
> Bylaws. On the other hand, it is likely to cause no end of problems in the
> IANA transition.
>
> We should resist thinking of Work Stream 1 as the "one bite at the apple."
> If we go down that road, we will back to stuffing everything into Work
> Stream 1.
>
> In sum, and without diminishing the validity of the issue, the bylaws are
> not the right place and now is not the right time for this type of
> statement.
>
> Greg Shatan
>
> On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 5:32 AM, Perez Galindo, Rafael <
> RPEREZGA at minetur.es> wrote:
>
>> Dear All
>>
>> Thank you for this very constructive exchange.
>>
>> I fully concur with the views expressed by Pedro.
>>
>> It is pretty clear that we need a stable and predictable legal and
>> jurisdictional environment, and those requirements could certainly be
>> included in the Bylaws as a way to ensure the compliance with the
>> accountability measures designed. But I see no point in setting in stone
>> what exact jurisdiction must that be now or in the future, as we would be
>> in practical terms precluding other jurisdictions that could perfectly fit
>> and comply with these requirements (in and out the USA) to host the
>> organization in the long run. To put it bluntly, we ought to set the legal
>> needs and conditions in the Bylaws, but not rigidly set or determine only
>> one of the several possible solutions in those Bylaws.
>>
>> The abovementioned is consistent with the GAC input into the process
>> regarding this issue (“*Likewise, the GAC is of the view that the CCWG
>> elaborate on the implications for ICANN’s mission and its accountability
>> associated with jurisdictional differences among the actors involved and
>> legal jurisdictional aspects applicable to ICANN*”). In this regard, I
>> would like as well to second as well the wording put forward by Pedro: “The
>> CCWG will identify eventual gaps in the California State law with respect
>> to the implementation of recommended accountability powers and, in a
>> subsequent phase, examine alternative jurisdictions where those
>> requirements could be implemented to a larger extent".
>>
>> Best regards
>>
>> Rafa
>>
>> GAC_SPAIN
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *De:* accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org [mailto:
>> accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] *En nombre de *Phil
>> Corwin
>> *Enviado el:* jueves, 26 de marzo de 2015 17:19
>> *Para:* Pedro Ivo Ferraz da Silva; Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez
>> *CC:* Accountability Cross Community
>>
>> *Asunto:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] RES: Cochairs Statement - Istanbul (23-24March
>> 2015)
>>
>>
>>
>> Pedro and Carlos:
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks very much for the complimentary statements regarding my comment.
>>
>>
>>
>> It’s not for me to say what will ultimately be acceptable to NTIA and
>> Congress. As this is an issue to be resolved I will continue to contribute
>> to the CCWG’s consideration of it.
>>
>>
>>
>> Very best, Philip
>>
>>
>>
>> *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:* Pedro Ivo Ferraz da Silva [mailto:pedro.ivo at itamaraty.gov.br
>> <pedro.ivo at itamaraty.gov.br>]
>> *Sent:* Thursday, March 26, 2015 12:04 PM
>> *To:* Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez; Phil Corwin
>> *Cc:* Accountability Cross Community
>> *Subject:* RES: [CCWG-ACCT] RES: Cochairs Statement - Istanbul (23-24
>> March 2015)
>>
>>
>>
>> Dear Phil,
>>
>>
>>
>> Also my gratitude for your comments.
>>
>>
>>
>> You said "A commitment to US/CA jurisdiction [...] simply provides a
>> predictable and stable legal environment for the foreseeable future for an
>> organization that operates in large part via contracts and their
>> enforcement, and ensures that the legal jurisdiction is the one that the
>> accountability measures were designed to operate effectively within".
>> This is probably true, but instead of singling out a specific national
>> jurisdiction and thereby "seal for all time" this aspect, why not define
>> some requirements for the jurisdiction (e.g. stable legal environment,
>> predicable regime, etc) and include those in the bylaws? Would that not be
>> sufficient and a viable compromise between the multistakeholder community
>> and the government of the United States?
>>
>>
>>
>> Roelof,
>>
>>
>>
>> With respect to what we tried to agree in the meeting, I would rephrase
>> your suggestion to something like: "The CCWG will identify eventual gaps in
>> the California State law with respect to the implementation of recommended
>> accountability powers and, in a subsequent phase, examine alternative
>> jurisdictions where those requirements could be implemented to a larger
>> extent".
>>
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Pedro
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> *De:* accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org [
>> accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] em nome de Carlos Raúl
>> Gutiérrez [crg at isoc-cr.org]
>> *Enviado:* quinta-feira, 26 de março de 2015 12:15
>> *Para:* Phil Corwin
>> *Cc:* Accountability Cross Community
>> *Assunto:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] RES: Cochairs Statement - Istanbul (23-24
>> March 2015)
>>
>> Dear Phil,
>>
>>
>>
>> thank you for the clarity of your comments from the point of view the
>> non-legally-trained observers. It makes a lot of sense to me.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez
>> _____________________
>>
>> email: crg at isoc-cr.org
>> Skype: carlos.raul
>> +506 8335 2487 (cel)
>> +506 4000 2000 (home)
>> +506 2290 3678 (fax)
>> _____________________
>> Apartado 1571-1000
>>
>> San Jose, COSTA RICA
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mar 26, 2015, at 9:02 AM, Phil Corwin <psc at vlaw-dc.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks to Jordan and Greg for their feedback on this issue of ICANN
>> jurisdiction.
>>
>>
>>
>> Of course nothing in this world can ever be “sealed for all time”. We are
>> talking about something to be settled for the foreseeable future and,
>> perhaps even more important, accepted by consensus within the
>> multistakeholder community and thereby not constituting the new
>> “irritation” replacing NTIA’s counterparty role for disgruntled parties.
>>
>>
>>
>> A commitment to US/CA jurisdiction does not provide the US government
>> with any special control over ICANN. It simply provides a predictable and
>> stable legal environment for the foreseeable future for an organization
>> that operates in large part via contracts and their enforcement, and
>> ensures that the legal jurisdiction is the one that the accountability
>> measures were designed to operate effectively within. I concur that “the
>> California jurisdiction works just fine for everything we need to do now,
>> and can foresee for the future”.
>>
>>
>>
>> Cherry-picking the AOC in regard to which bits wind up in the Bylaws will
>> certainly raise questions about the parts left behind, especially given the
>> likelihood that the current bilateral AOC will be dissolved once the
>> transition is completed. This issue is not yet a “breakdown point” but it
>> is quite important as both as a matter of accountability measure
>> effectiveness and, yes, as a political matter.
>>
>>
>>
>> *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:* Jordan Carter [mailto:jordan at internetnz.net.nz
>> <jordan at internetnz.net.nz>]
>> *Sent:* Thursday, March 26, 2015 10:38 AM
>> *To:* Greg Shatan
>> *Cc:* Phil Corwin; 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 *
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> 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
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> 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
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150327/c3d93f5d/attachment.html>
More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community
mailing list