[CCWG-ACCT] RES: Jurisdiction Proposed Questions and Poll Results

Mon Dec 26 18:41:51 UTC 2016

Hello,

I also don't see the logic in sending two questionnaires. There may be some
logic in treating the responses to questions 1 to 3 separate from question
4, but we are not yet at that stage. It will be better the question is not
added at all than to send it as a separate questionnaire.

Overall I am indifferent about adding or not adding but since there is
seemingly a lot of support to add, I don't see the significant harm it will
cause by doing that[1]. Based on the response of the Co-Chairs to my
question, I would suggest that it's better to let all the 4 questions be
presented and let's see what issues emerge from their responses. Then we
can start to do a few round trips to legal and hopefully remind ourselves
the possible consequences of addressing certain issues in a particular way.
Some of which has already been echoed during WS1.

Regards
1. Nevermind that it could generate some political news/headlines but am
sure this group is already used to that by now ;-)
Sent from my LG G4
Kindly excuse brevity and typos

On 26 Dec 2016 19:19, "avri doria" <avri at acm.org> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Where we differ is on the idea of separating the questions into 2
> questionnaires.
>
> I think it is going to be hard enough to get people to pay attention to
> one questionnaire, asking them to do two is daunting. A fourth question
> will not test their patience in the same way another questionnaire would.
>
> So with Kavouss I say:
>
> > Allow all 4 questions go out and then wait what will happens  .
>
> avri
>
>
> On 26-Dec-16 11:42, Mueller, Milton L wrote:
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> At the same time, let us all try to return to a constructive and
> step-by-step
> >> approach, building on the progress made so far, in order to make
> progress on
> >> our mandate, established by the whole multistakeholder community back in
> >> Marrakech.
> > I agree, and I think both Pedro's and Phil's position are based on some
> confusion of issues. It we calm down a bit and look at this more carefully
> we can make progress.
> >
> > Pedro may be confusing the inclusion or exclusion of Question 4 in our
> initial request with the question of whether we explore issues in US
> jurisdiction at all.  But excluding Question 4 from our initial request for
> information is not the same as a refusal to explore the questions it
> raises. I have proposed _separating_ Q4 from the other 3 questions, not
> eliminating it entirely. I proposed this not because I want to avoid the
> questions Q4 poses, but because I want those questions to be developed
> better and I want to avoid conflating it with the narrower questions about
> dispute resolution that Q's 1-3 were designed to address. It is a mistake
> to put those two things together. The information we gather from Q's 1-3
> will suffer from their attachment to the potentially more controversial
> issues raised by Q4. Let me also add that the divisive insistence that this
> is a matter of US citizens vs non-US citizens needs to be dropped. Avri and
> myself, e.g., are both US citizens/residents and have serious concerns
> about possible intrusions of US foreign policy and other nationalistic and
> governmental concerns into ICANN matters. At the same time we are both
> staunch supporters of a nongovernmental model in this space and have no
> inherent objection to California law as ICANN's basis.
> >
> > Phil Corwin on the other hand is confusing the issue of whether ICANN's
> corporate HQ is in California with the question of whether ICANN will be an
> intergovernmental entity. These questions have very little to do with each
> other. It is of course true that there are still a few people out there who
> would like for ICANN to become intergovernmental, but they are a tiny
> minority and the weight of history is totally against them. Put more
> bluntly, it ain't gonna happen. Supporters of the MS model and opponents of
> intergovernmentalism have legitimate reasons to investigate the impact of
> US jurisdiction, because the US is a global power with very specific
> foreign policy and military interests. US jurisdiction thus may have the
> potential to create opportunities for one government -  the US - to have an
> inappropriate level of influence over ICANN's transnational, nonstate actor
> based governance processes. One can consider those issues without implying
> that ICANN's corporate HQ needs to move.
> >
> > So let's stop making the status of Q4 a proxy for a long-settled war
> over whether ICANN is private or governmental, and let's stop pretending
> that those who want to separate the issues raised by Q4 from the narrower
> more focused issues in Q1-3 are trying to avoid legitimate issues.
> >
> > As for creating a separate CCWG, are you kidding? This is the CCWG
> subgroup created specifically for jurisdictional issues and we don't make
> difficult issues easier to resolve by creating additional structures.
> >
> > Dr. Milton L. Mueller
> > Professor, School of Public Policy
> > Georgia Institute of Technology
> >
> >
> >
> >> In this vein, and consistent with our conversation in Hyderabad, let us
> >> continue with the line directed to requesting input from the wider
> community.
> >>
> >> The four questions developed so far will allow us to gather much needed
> input
> >> on facts, examples and well-founded opinions on the influence of ICANNs
> >> jurisdiction, taking into account its multiple layers, on its
> operations and
> >> accountability.
> >>
> >> If we all are constructive and accept esch others' views as worthy of
> further
> >> discussion and study, we will be able to get this important step
> further.
> >>
> >> Hence, let us please stay on the right track and finalize formulations
> of all four
> >> questions, and keep up the good spirit of cooperation.
> >>
> >> with my best wishes for you all during the festivities
> >>
> >> kind regards
> >>
> >> Jorge
> >>
> >>
> >> ________________________________
> >>
> >> Von: Pedro Ivo Ferraz da Silva <pedro.ivo at itamaraty.gov.br>
> >> Datum: 24. Dezember 2016 um 15:53:55 MEZ
> >> An: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>, parminder
> >> <parminder at itforchange.net>, Kavouss Arasteh
> >> <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>
> >> Cc: accountability-cross-community at icann.org <accountability-cross-
> >> community at icann.org>
> >> Betreff: [CCWG-ACCT] RES: Jurisdiction Proposed Questions and Poll
> Results
> >>
> >> Dear CCWG-colleagues,
> >>
> >> After reading some comments in this email thread, I must admit to be
> really
> >> disappointed.
> >>
> >> Some of our colleagues in the CCWG seem to have forgotten - perhaps on
> >> purpose - that the topic of jurisdiction was allocated to WS2 as a
> result of a
> >> postponement, since the majority of this group thought it was not
> appropriate
> >> to deal with it in the pre-transition period due to time constraints. My
> >> government  was not in favor of postponing the discussion on
> jurisdiction, as
> >> we consider it was - and remains - a fundamental aspect of a new ICANN
> truly
> >> governed by the multistakeholder community without any pre-conditions,
> >> but in respect to the viewpoint of the other colleagues, we agreed to
> move it
> >> to WS2.
> >>
> >> Now that time has come to properly deal with this topic, it is quite
> frustrating
> >> to notice that some participants  insist on limiting and/or
> procrastinating this
> >> debate, including by using the absurd argument that any discussion
> around
> >> jurisdiction cannot put into question any aspect already decided in WS1,
> >> which is embedded in the California law. We cannot see good faith in
> that kind
> >> of circular argument.
> >>  In our view, the  discussion around the inclusion or exclusion of Q.4
> shows
> >> quite clearly that some of those who have fiercely objected to any
> jurisdiction
> >> debate during WS1 are  maintaining their objection in WS2 as well. On
> that
> >> particular topic (Q.4) we concur with the view that upon deciding on
> >> institutional arrangements we should not only consider already occurred
> >> cases but also take into account logically strong possibilities. The
> responses to
> >> the questionnaire should thus help us to deal with all possibilities
> associate to
> >> jurisdiction. In case any unsubstantiated opinion will be received, it
> should be
> >> summarily discarded.
> >> From the various jurisdiction calls it became quite evident that a
> substantial
> >> part of the subgroup - mainly non-US - has great interest in examining
> and
> >> debating ways through which we can make sure that any issue associated
> to
> >> jurisdiction  be addressed in a way compatible  with the company's
> >> international remit of coordinating Internet public identifiers. In
> that context, I
> >> would like to highlight my government´s understanding that although the
> >> proposed questionnaire under discussion may provide us with some
> relevant
> >> factual information, it does not in any way cover all aspects of
> interest. We
> >> would like to refer, for example, to the list of issues compiled by
> Kavouss
> >> Arasteh as per his 13 December 2016 e-mail. We would also refer to
> >> questions that have continuously been asked by Parminder, apparently
> >> without any satisfactory answer. Those issues and questions include, for
> >> example, dispute settlement related topics, which demonstrates, in our
> view,
> >> that jurisdiction cannot be seen purely from businesses´ viewpoint. As
> >> someone has stated, we also need to look at the relationship between
> ICANN
> >> and third parties and adequately consider non-contracted Parties that
> might
> >> be affected by ICANN´s acts and/or omissions.
> >> From the perspective of the Brazilian government, the topics raised by
> >> Kavouss, Parminder and others are issues of particular interest  which,
> >> needless to say, will not be adequately addressed through the mere
> analysis
> >> of the answers provided to the questionnaire, whether it includes Q.4
> or not.
> >>  My government has  expressed its interest in pursuing discussion on
> >> jurisdiction through those angles  many times - both  during the IANA
> >> transition process and  well before that. Other governments have done
> the
> >> same, as well as a sound number of civil society organizations around
> the
> >> globe. The "NETmundial Multistakeholder Statement", while calling for
> the
> >> internationalization of ICANN, clearly expresses this as well. Let me
> >> emphasize, by the way, that the NETmundial Statement calls for ICANN´s
> >> internationalization and not for it to become an intergovernmental
> >> organization. Those are two different notions that should not be
> confounded.
> >>
> >> If this subgroup fails to deal with the multidimensional issues
> associated to
> >> jurisdiction  properly , it may be applauded by some segments , but it
> will not
> >> contribute to putting in place a framework that will ensure the shared
> goal of
> >> making ICANN a legitimate  entity in the eyes of all stakeholders,
> including
> >> governments. To achieve that, no issues should be discarded as "non
> >> important" or "not yet verified". While preserving the essence of what
> was
> >> achieved in WS1, innovative thinking, including on the part of persons
> with
> >> legal expertise, will be needed. Is it worth to wipe an important
> debate under
> >> the carpet just to comfort one or a few stakeholder groups while
> >> discontenting others? What kind of legitimacy is such a biased and
> limited
> >> exercise likely to have within the international community? .
> >>
> >> It is time the subgroup - including the coChairs - make a honest
> assessment of
> >> the various viewpoints related to  ICANN's jurisdiction and conduct the
> debate
> >> as openly as possible in order to address all the concerns and
> interests behind
> >> it.
> >>
> >> Kind regards,
> >>
> >> Sec. Pedro Ivo Ferraz da Silva
> >> Division of Information Society
> >> Ministry of Foreign Affairs - Brazil
> >> T: +55 61 2030-6609
> >>
> >> ________________________________
> >> De: accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org [accountability-
> >> cross-community-bounces at icann.org] em nome de parminder
> >> [parminder at itforchange.net]
> >> Enviado: quinta-feira, 22 de dezembro de 2016 14:01
> >> Para: Kavouss Arasteh; Greg Shatan
> >> Cc: accountability-cross-community at icann.org
> >> Assunto: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Jurisdiction Proposed Questions and Poll
> Results
> >>
> >>
> >> Dear Kavouss
> >>
> >> You are right, we should first deal with the issue of the questionnaire.
> >>
> >> I agree, as do many others, that there is no justification to remove the
> >> proposed Q 4 from the questionnaire. The question must go out along with
> >> others.
> >>
> >> A question seeking information is only a question seeking information.
> People
> >> may chose to not respond to it, or give different responses, likely in
> >> opposition to one another. That is all very fine, and quite expected.
> But such
> >> forceful arguments to not ask for certain kinds of information is very
> >> disturbing, even alarming. (I have issues with how the other questions
> are
> >> framed, but I am fine to let them go out because some people want them
> to
> >> be posed.)
> >>
> >> Ordinarily, if a good number of participants here wanted a question,
> that
> >> should be enough to include it. Here, a majority of those who voted on
> the
> >> issue of this particular question wanted the question included. That
> should
> >> have conclusively stopped the debate. But no, not so. There is
> persistent effort
> >> to censor this question. And this in a process that is advertised as
> open,
> >> transparent, collaborative, and what not. There is something very
> basically
> >> wrong here.
> >>
> >> parminder
> >>
> >> On Thursday 22 December 2016 07:20 PM, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:
> >> Dear John.
> >> Dear Parminder,
> >> It is difficult for me to conclude on any solution between the lines of
> your
> >> discussion.
> >> Could any of you kindly give a resume of the  exchanged views.
> >> We need to look for some compromise solution knowing that some hard
> >> liners like x and y insist to impose their objections to send Q4.I
> continue to
> >> object to all questions until all 4 are agreed Nothing is agreed untill
> everything
> >> is agreed this is a  Global multistakholder Group discussion and NOT
> North
> >> American Sub-Region multistakholder Group dominated by certain
> individuals
> >> Regards Kavouss
> >>
> >> 2016-12-22 13:06 GMT+01:00 parminder
> >> <parminder at itforchange.net<mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>>:
> >>
> >>
> >> On Tuesday 20 December 2016 08:37 PM, John Laprise wrote:
> >> "To turn ones face away and say, nothing can be done here, to evolve our
> >> democratic international systems, is to vote for a status quo which
> serves
> >> some, but not others."
> >>
> >> Rather, it is an acknowledgement of reality.
> >>
> >> Apologies for appearing to be flippant, but isnt that what every status
> quo-ist
> >> says.
> >> Rule of law is neither globally strong nor evenly distributed. I can
> imagine a
> >> world in which the way forward you describe is plausible but,
> regrettably, it is
> >> not the one we live in. Other systems need strengthening and in some
> cases
> >> even existence before the way forward is open. It's not a vote for the
> status
> >> quo but a recognition of path dependency.
> >>
> >> I am not asking for a violent deviation from the path - both options
> that I
> >> propose, a new international law and immunity under existing US Act
> carries
> >> forward the path-dependency, and completely safeguard the existing
> >> structures and processes of ICANN, the system I think you allude to as
> >> requiring strengthening. What I propose in fact further strengthens it,
> to a
> >> considerable extent. The ICANN system's current jurisdictional
> oversight by a
> >> single country is its biggest weak point in terms of international
> legitimacy. ( A
> >> point, unfortunately USians here seem not able to see and sympathise
> with.)
> >> Imagine an ICANN with immunity from US jurisdiction; how much
> legitimacy,
> >> and thus strength, it adds to the system.
> >>
> >>
> >> Thanks for the back rounder Parminder. It was, along with some parallel
> >> research, quite helpful.
> >>
> >> Thanks John, you are welcome.
> >>
> >> The problem remains however that there is no analogous organization to
> >> ICANN merely in terms of its contractual authority.
> >>
> >> Firstly, if we are hoping that a fully-developed, well-rounded
> solution, with
> >> everything fully covered by enough exact precedents, to this complex
> but very
> >> genuine problem, will simply one day drop in our laps, I assure you
> that this is
> >> not going to happen. We have to work for it, join the dots, take risks,
> make
> >> innovations, and so on. The point is, who is losing and gaining what
> from the
> >> present dispensation, and who is willing to do what is required to do.
> >>
> >> Next, I see that organisations like International Fertilizer and
> Development
> >> Centre, which we cited as an example of an NPO given jurisdictional
> >> immunity, also does run many projects worldwide. Any such project would
> >> require use of a legal status, entering contracts, and so on.... We
> just need to
> >> look into it. But if we close our eyes, and simply refuse to explore
> options, we
> >> are not going to get anywhere. I am not saying this example will be an
> exact fit
> >> for our requirement, but we need to see what is possible, and innovate
> and
> >> evolve over it.
> >>
> >> I'd also add that many of the benefits of the act are at the discretion
> of the US
> >> Secretary of State and can be revoked.
> >>
> >> Yes, which is why immunity under US Act is less sustainable option than
> >> international law based immunity. But still better than the present
> condition.
> >> In the recent civil society statement on
> >> jurisdiction<http://www.itforchange.net/sites/default/
> files/Jurisdiction%20of
> >> %20ICANN.pdf>, we also suggested a method whereby any such withdrawal of
> >> immunity can be made difficult/ ineffectual (see option 3 in the end).
> >>
> >> The proposed jurisdictional immunity would also require all governments
> to
> >> sign off on such status, given ICANN's reach.
> >>
> >> I dont see why so. Only US gov needs to agree.
> >>
> >> I know that there is a significant literature on international compacts
> and law.
> >> Given the often decades long time frames for the passage and acceptance
> of
> >> such law, the Internet as we know it is unlikely to exist by the time
> it comes
> >> into force.
> >>
> >> These are weak excuses. It can be done in 6 months. But in any case, if
> it
> >> satisfies those who want to move towards international jurisdiction,
> what do
> >> you lose in allowing to set in motion the process, esp if you think it
> would take
> >> forever to do anything. Let those who want have it. In the interim,
> status quo
> >> would stay.
> >>
> >>
> >> To your question about why we do not discuss jurisdictional immunity
> under
> >> US law: it is because the domestic political reality of the situation
> makes such
> >> an eventuality so remote as to be hypothetical.
> >>
> >> The same domestic situation makes the continuation of ICANN under US
> >> jurisdiction even less tenable.
> >>
> >> This brings me to a very important point: the job of CCWG, working on
> behalf
> >> of the global community, is not to second guess what US gov will accept
> or
> >> not (unfortunately, that is what it has mostly done). If this was its
> real task, we
> >> as well may let US gov do what it may, instead of providing them the
> cover of
> >> legitimacy of the supposed will of the so called 'global community'
> which is
> >> what this process does. Our job is to recommend what we think in is best
> >> global interest, and is ordinarily plausible to do. This is what our
> job is, and we
> >> must just do that. Let US gov do its job - accept our recs or not. That
> burden is
> >> upon them - let s not take up their burden. This aspect of the work of
> the
> >> "community" groups involved in the transition process has always greatly
> >> bothered me. We must have clarity about - on whose behalf are we
> working (i
> >> think, for the global community, but you can clarify) and what our recs
> must
> >> be based on (I think, on our understanding of what is best for the
> global
> >> community, and not what we think US gov likes and would agree to, and
> what
> >> not, but again you can clarify)
> >>
> >>
> >> The described quest is admirable but IMO is a non-starter. Conditions
> do not
> >> exist presently to make it a possible.
> >>
> >> We are part of once in decades constitutional process about ICANN's
> >> structures. If it is not now, it is never.
> >>
> >> parminder
> >>
> >> Best regards,
> >>
> >> John Laprise, Ph.D.
> >> Consulting Scholar
> >>
> >> <http://www.linkedin.com/in/jplaprise/><http://www.
> linkedin.com/in/jplapri
> >> se/>http://www.linkedin.com/in/jplaprise/
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> From: parminder
> >> [<mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>mailto:parminder at itforchange.net]
> >> Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2016 2:57 AM
> >> To: John Laprise <mailto:jlaprise at gmail.com>
> >> <jlaprise at gmail.com><mailto:jlaprise at gmail.com>; accountability-cross-
> >> community at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
> >> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Jurisdiction Proposed Questions and Poll
> Results
> >>
> >> On Monday 19 December 2016 08:14 PM, John Laprise wrote:
> >>
> >> Possibilities of jurisdictional immunity? Could you please provide
> examples of
> >> organizations that enjoy such.
> >>
> >> John
> >> The most well known case of jurisdictional immunity is of course for
> >> organisations incorporated under international law. Unlike what has been
> >> argued here variously, although international law has to be made by
> >> governments through treaties etc that says nothing about the actual
> >> governance structure of the concerned organisation, ICANN in this case.
> >> International law can, to take an extreme case, hand over complete
> >> governance of a body created/ incorporated under international law to
> you
> >> and me... Nothing circumscribes how international law is written as
> long as all
> >> countries agree to it. It is entirely possible, and I think extremely
> plausible,
> >> that they would agree to write in such law the exact governance
> structure of
> >> ICANN as it is at present. Right now too, ICANN exists by and under the
> >> strength of its law of incorporation which is US law. In the scenario I
> present,
> >> it would just be international law instead of US law. Yes, there are
> matters to
> >> worked out in this regard, but if democracy and self-determination of
> all
> >> people, equally, is of any importance at all, we can go through the
> process,
> >> including doing the needed innovations as needed. The current
> international
> >> system was not handed over to us by God, it was evolved by people like
> us,
> >> who responded appropriately to newer and newer global challenges, as the
> >> one that faces us now. To turn ones face away and say, nothing can be
> done
> >> here, to evolve our democratic international systems, is to vote for a
> status
> >> quo which serves some, but not others. And these are the others that are
> >> protesting here, and seeking appropriate change. It is a political
> issue, lets not
> >> treat it as a technical issue, of what is argued to be difficult or too
> >> "troublesome" to pursue.
> >>
> >> Next, even without going the international law route, as has been said
> many
> >> times earlier here, US law allows even non profits to be given
> jurisdictional
> >> immunity. The concerned law is the United States International
> Organisations
> >> Immunities Act<https://archive.icann.org/en/psc/annex9.pdf> . And an
> >> example of a US non-profit being given jurisdiction immunity under it is
> >> International Fertilizer and Development Center. This has been
> discussed in a
> >> report commissioned by ICANN itself which can be found at
> >> https://archive.icann.org/en/psc/corell-24aug06.html .
> >>
> >> I have been unable to understand why can we not agree to even
> jurisdictional
> >> immunity under existing US law, which keeps ICANN in the US, preserves
> its
> >> existing structures, and does go considerable way to address the
> concerns
> >> about those who are concerned about application of US public law on
> ICANN,
> >> and what it may mean for its global governance work.
> >>
> >> The argument is advanced that this may affect the operation of the newly
> >> instituted community accountability mechanism. I dont think this is not
> true.
> >> This mechanism is a matter of internal ICANN governance system, which
> is a
> >> 'private' arrangement with choice of law available to it. It simply has
> to be put
> >> in ICANN bylaws that ICANN governance processes will be subject to
> >> adjudication by Californian courts as present. That should do. Of
> course the
> >> mentioned International Fertilizer and Development Centre also must be
> >> existing with some governance systems, that admit of external
> adjudication,
> >> even as it enjoys the benefit of jurisdictional immunity from US public
> laws.
> >> Such immunity always only pertains to the policy and such international
> core
> >> activities of the concerned organisation, and associated matters. It
> would not,
> >> for instance, extend to actual crime being committed by its personnel
> on its
> >> premises. All such matters of various distinctions get taken care of
> when we
> >> enter the actual processes of such immunities etc. Right now, the issue
> is only
> >> to decide to go down the route, or not.
> >>
> >> parminder
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Best regards,
> >>
> >> John Laprise, Ph.D.
> >> Consulting Scholar
> >>
> >> http://www.linkedin.com/in/jplaprise/
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> 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 parminder
> >> Sent: Monday, December 19, 2016 7:10 AM
> >> To: accountability-cross-community at icann.org<mailto:acc
> ountability-cross-
> >> community at icann.org>
> >> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Jurisdiction Proposed Questions and Poll
> Results
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Saturday 17 December 2016 12:40 AM, Mueller, Milton L wrote:
> >>
> >> SNIP
> >>
> >> John Laprise's wording was much, much better:
> >>
> >> "What are the advantages or disadvantages, if any, relating to changing
> >> ICANN's jurisdiction*, particularly with regard to the actual operation
> of
> >> ICANN's policies and accountability mechanisms?"
> >>
> >> This formulation does not include possibilities of jurisdictional
> immunity.
> >>
> >> Something like
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> "What are the advantages or disadvantages, if any, relating to changing
> >> ICANN's jurisdiction*, or providing possible jurisdictional immunity,
> >> particularly with regard to the actual operation of ICANN's policies and
> >> accountability mechanisms?"
> >>
> >> would be better.
> >>
> >> parminder
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >>
> >> 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
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________ 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
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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
> >
>
>
>
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20161226/2cb72f3b/attachment-0001.html>