[CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues

Fri Feb 5 16:03:06 UTC 2016

What about your following sentence:?

In other words, the GAC  would not be counted in the “no more than two SO/ACs objecting” threshold to a community IRP challenge to the Board’s implementation of GAC Advice alleged to exceed the scope of ICANN’s Mission.

seems clear that it refers the carve-out to the community IRP

best

Jorge

Von meinem iPhone gesendet

Am 05.02.2016 um 16:54 schrieb Burr, Becky <Becky.Burr at neustar.biz<mailto:Becky.Burr at neustar.biz>>:

Sorry guys - I did not change my proposal - which has always been that the
"GAC cannot act in a decision-making role with respect to an exercise of
community power designed to challenge the Board¹s implementation of GAC
Advice.²  That is clearly stated in the note Jorge copied below.  I see no
principled basis for further restricting my proposed compromise to limit
this to the IRP.

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://neustar.biz>
<http://www.neustar.biz>

On 2/5/16, 10:18 AM, "Olga Cavalli" <olgacavalli at gmail.com<mailto:olgacavalli at gmail.com>> wrote:

Brett
there was no vote on the call yesteday
best
Olga

El 5 feb 2016, a las 11:43 a.m., Schaefer, Brett
<Brett.Schaefer at heritage.org<mailto:Brett.Schaefer at heritage.org>> escribió:

Kavouss,

Becky responded to this yesterday:

Julia  I inadvertently narrowed the proposal that was on the table
when I typed this up.  My proposal from the beginning related to Board
action on GAC Advice.  I will resend my original email demonstrating
this.

I expect she will follow up soon.

Speaking for myself, I do not support language the restricts the GAC
carve out to IRP.

I am willing to support the compromise, including the 60 percent, but
it has to be as a package including the most recent version of Becky's
text which we discussed and "voted" on in the call yesterday.

If we are opening the package back up, I doubt we would resolve this by
Tuesday or the next Tuesday or the one after that. We have arrived at a
tentative agreement, I suggest we not abandon it.

Best,

Brett

On Feb 5, 2016, at 3:41 AM, Kavouss Arasteh
<kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com><mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>> wrote:

Dear Beckie
As I mentioned in my earlier message, my GAC colleagues have serious
concerns about your revised text as currently contained in the Package,
Jorge has kindly picked up your initial proposal and send it to us
May I request you to kindly replace your current text with your initial
one as reproduced by Jorge and PUT A REVISED TEXT for the package on the
mailing list for our Monday discussion.
As far as I understand, at least those GAC members spoken could be more
comfortable to your initial text due to the fact the yr revised text
went much beyond your the objectives of your initial text the concept if
which if combined with 60% was acceptable to many people.
Awaiting your action , I remain
Regards
Kavousd

Sent from my iPhone

On 5 Feb 2016, at 12:10,
<Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>>
<Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>> wrote:

Dear Kavouss, Julia and Becky

This is the original proposal by Becky we were referring to (highlights
are mine, but text is unchanged):

==

Von:
accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org><mailto:accountability-cr
oss-community-bounces at icann.org<mailto:oss-community-bounces at icann.org>>
[mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] Im Auftrag von
Burr, Becky
Gesendet: Freitag, 29. Januar 2016 21:05
An: Greg Shatan
<gregshatanipc at gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com><mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>>; Mueller,
Milton L <milton at gatech.edu<mailto:milton at gatech.edu><mailto:milton at gatech.edu>>
Cc:
accountability-cross-community at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-comm
unity at icann.org<mailto:unity at icann.org>>
Betreff: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Recommendation 11, 2/3 board threshold, GAC
consensus, and finishing

I have a proposal for discussion.

Start from the premise that ICANN may implement GAC Advice only
consistent with the Bylaws, including the Mission.  What if we accept
the 2/3rd rejection language but also provide that the GAC cannot act in
a decision-making role with respect to an exercise of community power
designed to challenge the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice.  In
other words, the GAC  would not be counted in the ³no more than two
SO/ACs objecting² threshold to a community IRP challenge to the Board¹s
implementation of GAC Advice alleged to exceed the scope of ICANN¹s
Mission.

I think this addresses the two bites at the apple problem we might
otherwise have, and provides a safety valve to counter balance the
2/3rds rejection threshold.

Just a thought -

===

Regards

Jorge

________________________________
Brett Schaefer
Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs
Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis Institute for National
Security and Foreign Policy
The Heritage Foundation
214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE
Washington, DC 20002
202-608-6097

heritage.org<http://heritage.org><https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__heritage
.org_&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYa
hOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2HozbeOZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=08yolhJ2mGNu
8PN0GVUckj832KfhW8hnHwzonGIi4pw&e= >
Von: Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com]
Gesendet: Freitag, 5. Februar 2016 11:41
An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM
<Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>>
Cc: <jukacz at erst.dk<mailto:jukacz at erst.dk><mailto:jukacz at erst.dk>>
<jukacz at erst.dk<mailto:jukacz at erst.dk><mailto:jukacz at erst.dk>>;
<accountability-cross-community at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-com
munity at icann.org<mailto:munity at icann.org>>>
<accountability-cross-community at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-com
munity at icann.org<mailto:munity at icann.org>>>; Becky Burr
<Becky.Burr at neustar.biz<mailto:Becky.Burr at neustar.biz><mailto:Becky.Burr at neustar.biz>>; Thomas Rickert
<thomas at rickert.net<mailto:thomas at rickert.net><mailto:thomas at rickert.net>>; Mathieu Weill
<Mathieu.Weill at afnic.fr<mailto:Mathieu.Weill at afnic.fr><mailto:Mathieu.Weill at afnic.fr>>; León Felipe
Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe at sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe at sanchez.mx><mailto:leonfelipe at sanchez.mx>>;
Schneider Thomas BAKOM
<Thomas.Schneider at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Thomas.Schneider at bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Thomas.Schneider at bakom.admin.ch>>
Betreff: Re: AW: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation
1 and 11 issues

Dear Beckie,
Pls note several concerns and questions raised by some GAC member
requesting to replace your text in the "package" with your initial Text
. This may help GAC colleagues to favourably review the"page deal" if
includes your original text.
Regards
Kavouss

Sent from my iPhone

On 5 Feb 2016, at 11:26,
<Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>>
<Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>> wrote:
Dear Kavouss

In fact, that (constraining the carve-out to the exercise of community
IRP) would be a very sensible starting point and would avoid many
concerns which are being raised (at least) in my national consultations.

Regards

Jorge

Von: Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com]
Gesendet: Freitag, 5. Februar 2016 11:25
An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM
<Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>>
Cc: <jukacz at erst.dk<mailto:jukacz at erst.dk><mailto:jukacz at erst.dk>>
<jukacz at erst.dk<mailto:jukacz at erst.dk><mailto:jukacz at erst.dk>>;
<accountability-cross-community at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-com
munity at icann.org<mailto:munity at icann.org>>>
<accountability-cross-community at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-com
munity at icann.org<mailto:munity at icann.org>>>
Betreff: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1
and 11 issues

Dear All,
Why Not taking initial Beckie,s
Proposal , as I mentioned in the call and do not  get into other
questions resulted from het revised text.
Julia realised this and raised it before our devoted call
Regards
Kavousd

Sent from my iPhone

On 5 Feb 2016, at 10:58,
<Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>>
<Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>> wrote:
Dear all

I agree that Julia raises a very significant point here, which probably
did not get enough attention due to the other discussions we were having
yesterday.

A carve-out that excludes the GAC from the exercise of any community
decisions related to Board implementation seems overbroad and mean a
complete exclusion of the GAC from any community decisions which are
relevant to it.

This change in Becky¹s initial proposal (where the carve-out was
directly linked to the community IRP) is very significant.

Regards

Jorge

Von:
accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org><mailto:accountability-cr
oss-community-bounces at icann.org<mailto:oss-community-bounces at icann.org>>
[mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] Im Auftrag von
Julia Katja Wolman
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 4. Februar 2016 10:34
An: 'CCWG Accountability'
<accountability-cross-community at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-com
munity at icann.org<mailto:munity at icann.org>>>
Betreff: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1
and 11 issues

Dear Co-Chairs, Kavouss, Becky, all

Thank you for putting together the different pieces of text in order to
develop a compromise. It is our understanding that the proposed text
for modification of rec 1 was the one proposed by Becky (email of 2
February) and is the text, which has been the focus of our discussion:

³
Burr Proposal:

?         Modify Rec #1/Annex 1:  Add the following to the end of
Paragraph 23.

The GAC may not, however, participate as a decision maker in the
Empowered Community¹s consideration of the exercise a community power
for the purpose of challenging or blocking the Board¹s implementation of
GAC Advice in a manner alleged to violate the Bylaws. In such cases, the
GAC remains free to participate in community deliberations in an
advisory capacity, but its views will not count towards or against
otherwise agreed thresholds needed to initiate a conference call,
convene a Community Forum, or exercise a specific Community Power.  This
carve out preserves the ICANN Board¹s unique obligation to work with the
GAC try to find a mutually acceptable solution to implementation of GAC
Advice supported by consensus (as defined in Rec. #11) while protecting
the community¹s power to challenge Board decisions that would cause
ICANN to violate its Bylaws.²

However, the latest text proposal in the email below uses the text
suggested by Brett  (email of 2 February). Our understanding is that the
above initial text from Becky refers to a Board decision based on GAC
advice, which would violate ICANN¹s Bylaws and that it refers to the
community IRP to challenge such a Board decision based on GAC advice. As
such, Becky¹s initial text proposal (above) should be the text to be
considered at today¹s call.

Best regards,

Finn and Julia

Julia Katja Wolman

DANISH BUSINESS AUTHORITY

Dahlerups Pakhus
Langelinie Allé 17
DK-2100 København Ø
Telephone: +45 3529 1000
Direct: +45 35291308
E-mail: jukacz at erst.dk<mailto:jukacz at erst.dk><mailto:jukacz at erst.dk>

www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk<http://www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk><https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-
3A__www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOif
zm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2HozbeOZXYoAVUioSUB1PWw
WVyBult8&s=EjeWDl2T5TA3BJzYGL6fNcerDy-BOaHwVO2GfVt0NJE&e= >

MINISTRY FOR BUSINESS AND GROWTH

P Please consider the environment before printing this email.

Fra:
accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org><mailto:accountability-cr
oss-community-bounces at icann.org<mailto:oss-community-bounces at icann.org>>
[mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] På vegne af
Burr, Becky
Sendt: 4. februar 2016 00:19
Til: Kavouss Arasteh;
accountability-cross-community at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-comm
unity at icann.org<mailto:unity at icann.org>>; Mathieu Weill; Thomas Rickert; León Felipe Sánchez
Ambía
Emne: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11
issues

Thank you Kavouss for this suggested approach.  We have all been
working very hard and in good faith for over a year to develop a
consensus proposal.  My understanding is that this is designed to
resolve all open issues in Recommendation 1 and 11.  I am supportive of
this package deal, as described below (the description below was also
included in Kavouss¹ email).  I appreciate the collaborative spirit we
have brought to the table and hope we can use our Dedicated Rec. 11 call
tomorrow to reach consensus!

1. Modify Rec #1/Annex 1 and Rec #2/Annex 2
·      Add the following to the end of Paragraph 23 in Rec #1/Annex 1:

The GAC may not, however, participate as a decision maker in the
Empowered Community¹s consideration of the exercise a community power
for the purpose of challenging or blocking the Board¹s implementation of
GAC Advice. In such cases, the GAC remains free to participate in
community deliberations in an advisory capacity, but its views will not
count towards or against otherwise agreed thresholds needed to initiate
a conference call, convene a Community Forum, or exercise a specific
Community Power.  This carve out preserves the ICANN Board¹s unique
obligation to work with the GAC try to find a mutually acceptable
solution to implementation of GAC Advice supported by consensus (as
defined in Rec. #11) while protecting the community¹s power to challenge
such Board decisions.
·      Modify the Table in Rec. #2/Annex 2 to reflect this carve out
and add the following language to cover situations that would otherwise
require the support of four SOs or ACs:

The CCWG-Accountability also recommends that in a situation where the
GAC may not participate as a Decisional AC because the community power
is proposed to be used to challenge the Board¹s implementation of GAC
Advice and the threshold is set at four in support, the power will still
be validly exercised if three are in support and no more than one
objects.
2.   Modify Recommendation 11 to reflect 60% threshold for rejection of
GAC advice by Board, with note to drafters that supermajority
requirement is not intended to create any presumption or modify the
standard applied by the Board in reviewing GAC Advice.
   3. During dedicated Recommendation 11 meetings (4 February and 8
February)

*    Discuss and accept Recommendation 1 with change described above
as first final reading;
*    Discuss and accept Recommendation 2 with change described above
as first final reading; and
*   Discuss and accept Recommendation 11 with changes described above
as first final reading.
4.   Submit the package deal to the CCWG for final consideration (2nd
final reading) at its conference call scheduled for 9 February, noting
delicate balance requiring compromise on all sides to reach consensus
and recommending adoption ³as is² (assuming consensus on Dedicated
Recommendation 11 calls).

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://neustar.biz><http://www.neustar.biz>

From: Kavouss Arasteh
<kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com><mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>>
Date: Wednesday, February 3, 2016 at 4:56 PM
To: Accountability Community
<accountability-cross-community at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-com
munity at icann.org<mailto:munity at icann.org>>>, Becky Burr
<becky.burr at neustar.biz<mailto:becky.burr at neustar.biz><mailto:becky.burr at neustar.biz>>, Mathieu Weill
<Mathieu.Weill at afnic.fr<mailto:Mathieu.Weill at afnic.fr><mailto:Mathieu.Weill at afnic.fr>>, Thomas Rickert
<thomas at rickert.net<mailto:thomas at rickert.net><mailto:thomas at rickert.net>>, León Felipe Sánchez
Ambía <leonfelipe at sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe at sanchez.mx><mailto:leonfelipe at sanchez.mx>>
Subject: <no subject>

Dear Esteemed and respectful  CCWG Colleagues

First of all, allow me to share the following thought with you:
We are in a crucial time for the CCWG requiring to act in a coordinated
manner  on the upcoming Devoted Calls with the aim of assisting the
CCWG  in finalizing Recommendation 11,including some adjustments in
Recommendation 1  which enable CCWG to assemble the Supplementary
Report. This Report needs to be  issued  well in advance of the
Marrakech meeting if the overall timeline for IANA stewardship
transition is to be maintained. Given that the CCWG is working hard to
agree a compromise in the current round of virtual meetings,

I wish to reiterate what I mentioned at various occasions that we need
to be pragmatic and tolerable, to be more open to any possible set of
solution with a view to find a compromise and not merely insist on the
wishes, requirements and expectations of every single SO and AC but on
the contrary make utmost efforts to satisfy ,to the extent practiceable
and possible  the entire community.

We are aware of the sensitive elements of Recommendation 1 as well as
those of Recommendation 11

We have made considerable progress to almost bring the views of the
interested parties together.

However, there are some more bits to be done. In ICT network
connection, the Last kilometer or perhaps last hundred meters of the
connection  are sometimes more complex to  compared with the entire
network to provide an overall inclusive connection.

We have succeeded to find workable solutions for many of these last
kilometers in various area .It remains to finish that last kilometer
which located in a rocky and mountainous area

We need to also make out utmost effort to move forward from our current
position which is different from each other and not rule out compromise
as a backward step. Our role  is to make concession towards each other
position  .We need to take every possible initiative to move forward to
timely complete this proposal on enhanced accountability.

Frankly speaking and from a professional view point, and as a
participant of CCWG and Liaison of ICG to CCWG, I think we should really
be more open, constructively, objectively and efficiently

To this effect , I wish to suggest a package deal which needs to be
accepted or rejected as a whole without being disintegrated/ decomposed .

The Pack Deal is simple straightforward and practical

1.  Modify Recommendation 1 to add the language as proposed  by Beckie
2.  Maintain the rest of Recommendation 1 Unchanged
3.  Accept the 60% threshold for GAC advice ,if to be rejected by the
Board
4.  Maintain the rest of Recommendation  11 Unchanged
5.  No other  discussion ,what so ever, on these two Recommendation
6.  Submit the Package Deal to the forthcoming CCWG scheduled to be
held on 09 February with a note from Beckie indicating that this is a
delicate balance ,a sensitive compromise and recommend to the CCWG to
take it as it is

I have no intention of being presumptuous about this, and you are of
course entirely free to reject my suggestions.  Please note that my
proposal requires a change to Recommendation 1 and a conforming change
to Recommendation 2.  To be consistent with our standard procedures, I
suggest we conduct 1rst final readings of the compromise during our
Dedicated Rec 11 calls (scheduled for 4 Feb and 8 Feb) and the 2nd final
reading during our regular call on 9 Feb.  Please note that I have also
included Malcolm¹s requested clarification regarding no changes with
respect to presumptions or standard of review.  I do not believe that
this text is strictly necessary, but in the interests of getting
everyone on board I think it makes sense to include it.

Package Deal

1. Modify Rec #1/Annex 1 and Rec #2/Annex 2

·      Add the following to the end of Paragraph 23 in Rec #1/Annex 1:

The GAC may not, however, participate as a decision maker in the
Empowered Community¹s consideration of the exercise a community power
for the purpose of challenging or blocking the Board¹s implementation of
GAC Advice. In such cases, the GAC remains free to participate in
community deliberations in an advisory capacity, but its views will not
count towards or against otherwise agreed thresholds needed to initiate
a conference call, convene a Community Forum, or exercise a specific
Community Power.  This carve out preserves the ICANN Board¹s unique
obligation to work with the GAC try to find a mutually acceptable
solution to implementation of GAC Advice supported by consensus (as
defined in Rec. #11) while protecting the community¹s power to challenge
such Board decisions.

·      Modify the Table in Rec. #2/Annex 2 to reflect this carve out
and add the following language to cover situations that would otherwise
require the support of four SOs or ACs:

The CCWG-Accountability also recommends that in a situation where the
GAC may not participate as a Decisional AC because the community power
is proposed to be used to challenge the Board¹s implementation of GAC
Advice and the threshold is set at four in support, the power will still
be validly exercised if three are in support and no more than one
objects.

2.   Modify Recommendation 11 to reflect 60% threshold for rejection of
GAC advice by Board, with note to drafters that supermajority
requirement is not intended to create any presumption or modify the
standard applied by the Board in reviewing GAC Advice.

3. During dedicated Recommendation 11 meetings (4 February and 8
February)

·      Discuss and accept Recommendation 1 with change described above
as first final reading;

·      Discuss and accept Recommendation 2 with change described above
as first final reading; and

·      Discuss and accept Recommendation 11 with changes described
above as first final reading.

4.   Submit the package deal to the CCWG for final consideration (2nd
final reading) at its conference call scheduled for 9 February, noting
delicate balance requiring compromise on all sides to reach consensus
and recommending adoption ³as is² (assuming consensus on Dedicated
Recommendation 11 calls).

Kavouss
_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list

Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org><mailto:Accountability-Cross-Comm
unity at icann.org<mailto:unity at icann.org>>

https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman
_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_
lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2HozbeO
ZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-wC7M&e=

<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailma
n_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC
_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2Hozbe
OZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-wC7M&e
= >
_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list

Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org><mailto:Accountability-Cross-Comm
unity at icann.org<mailto:unity at icann.org>>

https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman
_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_
lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2HozbeO
ZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-wC7M&e=

_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>

https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman
_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_
lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2HozbeO
ZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-wC7M&e=

_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_
listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lU
Lrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2HozbeOZXY
oAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-wC7M&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