[CCWG-ACCT] Board comments on the Mission statement

Burr, Becky Becky.Burr at neustar.biz
Mon Nov 23 22:28:16 UTC 2015


So, take a look at the picket fence (RA Spec 1 and RAA Spec 4) that I just circulated in side by side.  (attached again) That is the most comprehensive statement of ICANN’s mission with respect to names.  Can we agree to that as the basis for reaching closure on the meaning of the words in the second draft proposal.



J. Beckwith Burr
Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer
1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006
Office: +1.202.533.2932  Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / neustar.biz<http://www.neustar.biz>

From: <Mueller>, Milton L <milton at gatech.edu<mailto:milton at gatech.edu>>
Date: Monday, November 23, 2015 at 5:19 PM
To: Becky Burr <becky.burr at neustar.biz<mailto:becky.burr at neustar.biz>>, Steven Metalitz <met at msk.com<mailto:met at msk.com>>, "'Silver, Bradley'" <Bradley.Silver at timewarner.com<mailto:Bradley.Silver at timewarner.com>>, David Post <david.g.post at gmail.com<mailto:david.g.post at gmail.com>>
Cc: Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>>
Subject: RE: [CCWG-ACCT] Board comments on the Mission statement

It should be evident from everything that has been written by David, myself, Malcolm and many others that the target of the mission limitation is not the UDRP or domain name – trademark conflicts. In the UDRP the object of policy and enforcement is the domain name registration. Our goal is to limit ICANN to policies related to the domain name itself, and to prevent that power from being extended to web site content or other services or activities that might be associated with a domain.

--MM

From: accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Burr, Becky
Sent: Monday, November 23, 2015 4:40 PM
To: Metalitz, Steven; 'Silver, Bradley'; David Post
Cc: Accountability Cross Community
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Board comments on the Mission statement

I think we agree that the UDRP policy takes into account the use of a registered string to infringe a third party’s rights – either demonstrated by use of the domain, efforts to extort, or a pattern of offending conduct.  That falls within the picket fence provision that  (Spec 4 in the 2013 RAA) permits ICANN to enforce policies regarding resolution of disputes regarding the registration of domain names (as opposed to the use of such domain names, but including where such policies take into account use of the domain names.)




J. Beckwith Burr
Neustar, Inc./Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer
1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006
Office:+1.202.533.2932  Mobile:+1.202.352.6367 /neustar.biz<http://www.neustar.biz>

From: <Metalitz>, Steven Metalitz <met at msk.com<mailto:met at msk.com>>
Date: Monday, November 23, 2015 at 2:50 PM
To: "'Silver, Bradley'" <Bradley.Silver at timewarner.com<mailto:Bradley.Silver at timewarner.com>>, Becky Burr <becky.burr at neustar.biz<mailto:becky.burr at neustar.biz>>, David Post <david.g.post at gmail.com<mailto:david.g.post at gmail.com>>
Cc: Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>>
Subject: RE: [CCWG-ACCT] Board comments on the Mission statement

A successful UDRP case requires proof of bad faith registration AND USE of a domain name.  Others are far more expert than I am on UDRP jurisprudence ( as contrasted with its genesis and development), but I thought that jurisprudence clearly established that the activities that take place on (e.g.) a website to which that domain name resolves is highly relevant (indeed, sometimes probative) of whether the domain name has been USED in bad faith.  It would be anomalous if, in the provision that is now 3.7.7.9 of the RAA, which as Becky has demonstrated was first included in the RAA almost contemporaneously with the adoption of the UDRP, the phrase “use of a registered name” meant something markedly different than it means in the UDRP, and even odder if it meant something much narrower, especially considering that the RAA provision(in contrast to UDRP) refers to “direct or indirect” use.   Finally, as Bradley points out, this is a contract provision, one that has been in place (in the case of 3.7.7.9 at least) ever since there were contracts between ICANN and accredited registrars; so the notion that we would now seek to place the enforcement of that provision off-limits to ICANN under the banner of “enhancing ICANN accountability” suggests to me that we have gone seriously off track here.

Steve Metalitz

From:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Silver, Bradley
Sent: Monday, November 23, 2015 2:38 PM
To: Burr, Becky; David Post
Cc: Accountability Cross Community
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Board comments on the Mission statement

Thanks Becky,

The question is not whether ICANN’s authority to enforce policies regarding resolutions of domain name disputes can be stretched to websites, the question is whether under the RAA, ICANN can validly require registrars to maintain an abuse contact and take certain steps in response to reports of Illegal Activity – which is defined to include conduct involving use of a Registered Name.   Putting aside the issue of defamation and infringement etc, let’s assume for a moment that the Illegal Activity in question is not inherent in the domain name itself but rather involves the use of the name, either directly or indirectly.  And let’s further assume that such use is something that a reasonable person might argue impacts ICANN’s ability to ensure the stable and secure operation of the Internet's unique identifier systems.  I had thought that the language we were searching for would permit ICANN to act in those circumstances.  Unless you are you taking the position that we know all we need to know today about what those circumstances might be, and whether ICANN’s activity could be impinged by the language we have been discussing, then you must acknowledge that we are doing brain surgery in the dark here by trying to constrain ICANN’s mission with language that has imprecise meaning.

Bradley



From: Burr, Becky [mailto:Becky.Burr at neustar.biz]
Sent: Monday, November 23, 2015 1:38 PM
To: Silver, Bradley; David Post
Cc: Alan Greenberg; Greg Shatan; Mueller, Milton L; Accountability Cross Community
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Board comments on the Mission statement

Bradley,

3.7.7.9 speaks about the registration and use of a “Registered Name.”  A "Registered Name" refers to a domain name within the domain of a gTLD…about which a gTLD Registry Operator (or an Affiliate or subcontractor thereof engaged in providing Registry Services) maintains data in a Registry Database, arranges for such maintenance, or derives revenue from such maintenance.”  To me, that refers to registration and use of a string, and not a web site.

That is also consistent with the registrar form of the “picket fence," which allows ICANN to unilaterally obligate registrars to comply with policies (a) covering specific topics and (b) developed in accordance with specified procedures designed to ensure that they are supported by consensus.  The RAA spec (Section 4 of the 2001 RAA and Spec 4 in the 2013 RAA) covers policies regarding resolution of disputes regarding the registration of domain names (as opposed to the use of such domain names, but including where such policies take into account use of the domain names.)   So, under the Registrar’s form of picket fence, if ICANN has developed a Consensus Policy that covers resolution of disputes about registrations (e.g., the UDRP, the Rapid Suspension policy, etc.), and that policy takes use into account (I.e, in the case of the UDRP for example, registration of a name “in bad faith” as defined in the UDRP), it is within ICANN’s authority.

The question is, could ICANN’s authority to enforce policies regarding resolution of disputes regarding the registration of domain names be stretched to construe use of a web site (as opposed to the string itself) for defamation?  I agree with David, I "don't think they have that power at present, I don't think they have had that since the beginning of (ICANN) time, and I sure as heck don't want to them to have it once they are in control of the root and USG oversight is removed.”

Becky

J. Beckwith Burr
Neustar, Inc./Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer
1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006
Office:+1.202.533.2932  Mobile:+1.202.352.6367 /neustar.biz<http://www.neustar.biz>

From: <Silver>, Bradley <Bradley.Silver at timewarner.com<mailto:Bradley.Silver at timewarner.com>>
Date: Monday, November 23, 2015 at 11:47 AM
To: David Post <david.g.post at gmail.com<mailto:david.g.post at gmail.com>>
Cc: Becky Burr <becky.burr at neustar.biz<mailto:becky.burr at neustar.biz>>, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>>, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>>, "Mueller, Milton L" <milton at gatech.edu<mailto:milton at gatech.edu>>, Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>>
Subject: RE: [CCWG-ACCT] Board comments on the Mission statement

There is a difference between ICANN having power to “enforce local laws”, as you put it, and ICANN’s ability to enforce its agreements, which have as a reference point, the conduct of “illegal activity” via an indirect use of a domain name.    Let’s be very clear – we are talking about the latter; the question of whether the enforcement of specific provisions on their face, would amount to the kind of regulation you and others would like to see prohibited.  There are a number of forms that enforcement could take which don’t make ICANN a proxy for local law enforcement.   For example, one manifestation of this concept is in RAA 3.18.1, which talks about the maintenance of an abuse contact for reports of illegal activity, which will trigger an obligation to investigate and respond appropriately.   RAA 3.7.7.9 is a logical companion to this provision, since it ensures that registrars are able, in accordance with their own terms of service, to address abuse complaints involving illegal activity, as between them and the registrant involved.   We know there is a broader discussion about what that should entail, but I am concerned that the language being proposed to prohibit any “direct or indirect” regulation will be used to argue that these contractual provisions are outside ICANN’s mission on their face.

From: David Post [mailto:david.g.post at gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, November 23, 2015 11:22 AM
To: Silver, Bradley
Cc: Burr, Becky; Alan Greenberg; Greg Shatan; Mueller, Milton L; Accountability Cross Community
Subject: RE: [CCWG-ACCT] Board comments on the Mission statement


Well, this is illuminating ...

I take it that at least you and Greg (and perhaps others) think that it is within ICANN's power to enforce, via its power over the DNS entries, local pornography laws, or consumer protection laws, or defamation laws, or ... on the grounds that registrants have to promise not to infringe any rights of any third parties in any activity they undertake "on the website to which the domain points."  So ICANN can set up a Pornography Dispute Resolution Procedure, a Consumer Protection Dispute Resolution Procedure, a Defamation Dispute Resolution Procedure, to enforce these promises that registrants have supposedly made and to take down violators.

My response is:  I don't think they have that power at present, I don't think they have had that since the beginning of (ICANN) time, and I sure as heck don't want to them to have it once they are in control of the root and USG oversight is removed.

David


At 10:51 AM 11/23/2015, Silver, Bradley wrote:


David,

That’s an overly narrow reading of RAA 3.7.7.9  - its not only that the registration of the Registered Name infringes or its “direct use”, but also that the manner in which is indirectly is used.  I can’t see how the “indirect” use of the domain cannot also be attributed to infringing uses on the website to which the domain points.  If that’s not at least an “indirect” use, I don’t know what is.   While I agree with your conclusion, I don’t agree with the reasoning, and I expect there are others (like Milton) who would like to see the clear meaning of the language of 3.7.7.9 changed through the application of the “no regulation” sentence.Â

Bradley

From: David Post [ mailto:david.g.post at gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, November 23, 2015 10:37 AM
To: Burr, Becky
Cc: Alan Greenberg; Silver, Bradley; Greg Shatan; Mueller, Milton L; Accountability Cross Community
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Board comments on the Mission statement

At 10:03 AM 11/23/2015, Burr, Becky wrote:


Are we seriously arguing that RAA 3.7.7.9 is outside the picket fence?

No, I don't think this was out of scope, because it concerns the "registration" of the name and the manner in which THE NAME is used.  3.7.7.9 does not say, in my opnion, that the registrant has to promise that it is not doing anything at a website that is infringing; the promise is that the name is not being used in an infringing manner.

D

At 10:03 AM 11/23/2015, Burr, Becky wrote:


Are we seriously arguing that RAA 3.7.7.9 is outside the picket fence?

Section 3.7.7.9 of the RAA has been in place from the beginning of time.  Here is the language from the 2001 RAA:
3.7.7.9 The Registered Name Holder shall represent that, to the best of the Registered Name Holder's knowledge and belief, neither the registration of the Registered Name nor the manner in which it is directly or indirectly used infringes the legal rights of any third party.
Here it is in the 1999 RAA:
7. g. The SLD holder shall represent that, to the best of the SLD holder's knowledge and belief, neither the registration of the SLD name nor the manner in which it is directly or indirectly used infringes the legal rights of a third party.

As someone who was part of the team drafting and negotiating the 1999 RAA, I can assure you that the inclusion of this requirement in the RAA was intended to be within the scope of ICANN̢۪s Mission.


J. Beckwith Burr
Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer
1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006
Office: +1.202.533.2932  Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / neustar.biz<http://www.neustar.biz>

From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca> >
Date: Sunday, November 22, 2015 at 10:06 PM
To: "Silver, Bradley" < Bradley.Silver at timewarner.com<mailto:Bradley.Silver at timewarner.com>>, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com> >, "Mueller, Milton L" <milton at gatech.edu<mailto:milton at gatech.edu>>
Cc: Accountability Community < accountability-cross-community at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>>
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Board comments on the Mission statement

I rarely fill people's mailboxes just to do this, but in this case;

+1

Alan


At 22/11/2015 08:31 PM, Silver, Bradley wrote:


I want to echo and support Greg’s resposposponse below.  Milton’s position that an en existinting provision of the RAA is out of the scope of ICANNâ€Ã¢Ã¢„¢s mission is illuminating. sp; I had been operating on the (hopeful) presumption that what we were attempting to do was find a way to describe ICANN’s missionion in a manner that refleflects its current activities, and avoid drafting anything that could adversely impact its continued ability to do so while clearly preventing any undue expansion.   If those who support the language in the second sentence are seeking a way to attack the validity or enforceability of existing contractual provisions, then the concerns of the board are not only well founded, they are grossly understated.

From: accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org> [ mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan
Sent: Sunday, November 22, 2015 3:01 AM
To: Mueller, Milton L
Cc: Accountability Cross Community
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Board comments on the Mission statement

Milton,

I strongly disagree that 3.7.7 is out of scope of ICANN's mission.  I also don't think it's useless, nor is it an uncommon provision in many terms of service and similar agreements.  3.7.7 only asks for the registrant's "knowledge and belief" -- so they are not required to know whether they are infringing anywhere under any jurisdiction.  They are only required to make reference to what they already know -- an entirely reasonable and ordinary requirement.

Is it your intent that the new provision we are discussing places 3.7.7 out of scope, and thus serves as a basis for an IRP or other challenge seeking to nullify 3.7.7?  Since 3.7.7 is only an "example," what other sections are you trying to place out of scope?

Thanks.

Greg

On Sat, Nov 21, 2015 at 5:56 PM, Mueller, Milton L <milton at gatech.edu<mailto:milton at gatech.edu>> wrote:


> -----Original Message-----
>
> See section 3.7.7 of the registrar accreditation agreement (RAA):
> https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/approved-with-specs-2013-09-17-en<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_resources_pages_approved-2Dwith-2Dspecs-2D2013-2D09-2D17-2Den&d=CwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=11R4XkcvGwOIsQkhhyE47Z7B829g9E2Cip1amJSBQu0&s=5ThaiusaRSYwZuxG3vlUf8hTsMh251yjw_-T7i4DOFg&e=>
>
> 3.7.7.9 The Registered Name Holder shall represent that, to the best of the
> Registered Name Holder's knowledge and belief, neither the registration of
> the Registered Name nor the manner in which it is directly or indirectly used
> infringes the legal rights of any third party.

Bruce: this is a good example of how the RAA is currently out of scope. To begin with, it is a completely useless element of the RAA. This statement does not stop anyone from doing anything, and it does not require ICANN to determine whether a registrant is infringing someone's rights. And how is anyone supposed to know whether the way they use a domain infringes the legal rights of a third party - anywhere in the world, under any jurisdiction?  They cannot know this until and  unless someone asserts those rights against them in a legal system which has jurisdiction and can make a legal determination. Or do we want ICANN to be making this determination? Most would agree that we do not. So what is the purpose, other than to invite ICANN to impose controls or regulations on virtually anything that happens on the internet?

_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwMGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=q0We23gB15IOvlVyCxS70PlyFWr7jiJPtk5hUAwJ4-o&s=oykS2Q8NLF_xKkxVSVRyI426vsXT3JE3oEnkpHCKpZs&e=>


=================================================================
Reminder: Any email that requests your login credentials or that asks you to click on a link could be a phishing attack.  If you have any questions regarding the authenticity of this email or its sender, please contact the IT Service Desk at 212.484.6000 or via email at ITServices at timewarner.com<mailto:ITServices at timewarner.com>


=================================================================

=================================================================
This message is the property of Time Warner Inc. and is intended only for the use of the
addressee(s) and may be legally privileged and/or confidential. If the reader of this message
is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended
recipient, he or she is hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, printing, forwarding,
or any method of copying of this information, and/or the taking of any action in reliance on
the information herein is strictly prohibited except by the intended recipient or those to whom
he or she intentionally distributes this message. If you have received this communication in
error, please immediately notify the sender, and delete the original message and any copies
from your computer or storage system. Thank you.
=================================================================
_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwMGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=q0We23gB15IOvlVyCxS70PlyFWr7jiJPtk5hUAwJ4-o&s=oykS2Q8NLF_xKkxVSVRyI426vsXT3JE3oEnkpHCKpZs&e=>
_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwMGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=q0We23gB15IOvlVyCxS70PlyFWr7jiJPtk5hUAwJ4-o&s=oykS2Q8NLF_xKkxVSVRyI426vsXT3JE3oEnkpHCKpZs&e=>

*******************************
David G Post - Senior Fellow, Open Technology Institute/New America Foundation
blog (Volokh Conspiracy) http://www.washingtonpost.com/people/david-post
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.washingtonpost.com_people_david-2Dpost&d=CwMGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=q0We23gB15IOvlVyCxS70PlyFWr7jiJPtk5hUAwJ4-o&s=sFIVEVRa4d2-50iBD-equxjw7XvbBhYdWLFew_7kOTA&e=>book (Jefferson's Moose)  http://tinyurl.com/c327w2n       <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__tinyurl.com_c327w2n-25A0-25A0-25A0-25A0-25A0-25A0-25A0&d=CwMGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=q0We23gB15IOvlVyCxS70PlyFWr7jiJPtk5hUAwJ4-o&s=ywg8uVPfTYGqvglA4unTV31GGxchC7v0aAGWrgZkGwI&e=>
music http://tinyurl.com/davidpostmusic <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__tinyurl.com_davidpostmusic-25A0&d=CwMGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=q0We23gB15IOvlVyCxS70PlyFWr7jiJPtk5hUAwJ4-o&s=-Riw1v0au2L-2i3gFKAtEkYl56nN9CXxfpAuLQLoMGo&e=> publications etc.  http://www.davidpost.com         <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.davidpost.com-26nbsp-3B-26nbsp-3B-26nbsp-3B-26nbsp-3B-26nbsp-3B-26nbsp-3B-26nbsp-3B-26nbsp-3B-2520_&d=CwMGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=q0We23gB15IOvlVyCxS70PlyFWr7jiJPtk5hUAwJ4-o&s=C0EhJhpDbLpEFEZrabNoThQ_PqYnGoH9H9Ov6mccnu8&e=>
*******************************

=================================================================
Reminder: Any email that requests your login credentials or that asks you to click on a link could be a phishing attack.  If you have any questions regarding the authenticity of this email or its sender, please contact the IT Service Desk at 212.484.6000 or via email at ITServices at timewarner.com<mailto:ITServices at timewarner.com>


=================================================================

=================================================================This message is the property of Time Warner Inc. and is intended only for the use of theaddressee(s) and may be legally privileged and/or confidential. If the reader of this messageis not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intendedrecipient, he or she is hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, printing, forwarding,or any method of copying of this information, and/or the taking of any action in reliance onthe information herein is strictly prohibited except by the intended recipient or those to whomhe or she intentionally distributes this message. If you have received this communication inerror, please immediately notify the sender, and delete the original message and any copiesfrom your computer or storage system. Thank you.=================================================================

*******************************
David G Post - Senior Fellow, Open Technology Institute/New America Foundation
blog (Volokh Conspiracy) http://www.washingtonpost.com/people/david-post
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.washingtonpost.com_people_david-2Dpost&d=CwMGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=q0We23gB15IOvlVyCxS70PlyFWr7jiJPtk5hUAwJ4-o&s=sFIVEVRa4d2-50iBD-equxjw7XvbBhYdWLFew_7kOTA&e=>book (Jefferson's Moose)  http://tinyurl.com/c327w2n       <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__tinyurl.com_c327w2n-25A0-25A0-25A0-25A0-25A0-25A0-25A0&d=CwMGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=q0We23gB15IOvlVyCxS70PlyFWr7jiJPtk5hUAwJ4-o&s=ywg8uVPfTYGqvglA4unTV31GGxchC7v0aAGWrgZkGwI&e=>
music http://tinyurl.com/davidpostmusic <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__tinyurl.com_davidpostmusic-25A0&d=CwMGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=q0We23gB15IOvlVyCxS70PlyFWr7jiJPtk5hUAwJ4-o&s=-Riw1v0au2L-2i3gFKAtEkYl56nN9CXxfpAuLQLoMGo&e=> publications etc.  http://www.davidpost.com         <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.davidpost.com-26nbsp-3B-26nbsp-3B-26nbsp-3B-26nbsp-3B-26nbsp-3B-26nbsp-3B-26nbsp-3B-26nbsp-3B-26nbsp-3B_&d=CwMGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=q0We23gB15IOvlVyCxS70PlyFWr7jiJPtk5hUAwJ4-o&s=lr-1bErJrSUdw4bKPYQHlyQJnyZmCN5O3BLA8oN7OPY&e=>
*******************************

=================================================================
Reminder: Any email that requests your login credentials or that asks you to click on a link could be a phishing attack.  If you have any questions regarding the authenticity of this email or its sender, please contact the IT Service Desk at 212.484.6000 or via email at ITServices at timewarner.com<mailto:ITServices at timewarner.com>

=================================================================

=================================================================
Reminder: Any email that requests your login credentials or that asks you to click on a link could be a phishing attack.  If you have any questions regarding the authenticity of this email or its sender, please contact the IT Service Desk at 212.484.6000 or via email at ITServices at timewarner.com<mailto:ITServices at timewarner.com>

=================================================================
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20151123/f89b7202/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Picket Fence RAA-RA.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 77079 bytes
Desc: Picket Fence RAA-RA.pdf
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20151123/f89b7202/PicketFenceRAA-RA-0001.pdf>


More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list