[CCWG-ACCT] Fwd: Human Rights Transition Provision: Bylaws Section 27.3(a)
Matthew Shears
mshears at cdt.org
Mon May 2 21:09:57 UTC 2016
Thanks Greg - hopefully we can finalize this now.
On 5/2/2016 10:20 PM, Greg Shatan wrote:
> I am also referring to what we [said/wrote]* in the report, which is
> the following:
>
> "The proposed draft Bylaw also clarifies that no IRP challenges can be
> made on the grounds of this Bylaw until a Framework of Interpretation
> on Human Rights (FOI-HR) is developed and approved as part of Work
> Stream 2 activities. It further clarifies that *acceptance of the
> **FOI**-HR will require the same process as for Work Stream 1
> recommendations* (as agreed for all Work Stream 2 recommendations)."
>
> We said ... er sorry .. wrote this *_three_* times in the report, and
> we need to give this effect. The language in the draft circulated for
> comment is inconsistent with this statement, to the extent that it
> appears to require the positive approval of all Chartering
> Organizations, which would be a _different_ process than the one used
> for Work Stream 1 recommendations. As such, the draft needs to be
> corrected.
>
> I was on the calls and email exchanges when the parenthetical about
> the chartering organizations was inserted in the "bylaws" language in
> the Proposal. All that was meant by the insertion was to clarify that
> the FoI did not go straight from Working Group approval to the Board,
> but had to be reviewed by the Chartering Organizations first, just as
> the WS1 recommendations were reviewed. There was never any discussion
> or intent to imply that a higher standard of approval was needed for
> the FoI vs. all other CCWG recommendations.
>
> If anyone can find a clear and unequivocal statement that shows the
> CCWG meant to have a heightened standard for the FoI, I'll reconsider
> my view. However, I'm confident there is no such statement. We spent
> many, many hours of discussing and drafting sections on levels of
> approval for the Empowered Community and relating to levels of
> approval within the GAC. As such, it defies logic to claim that the
> simple insertion of a parenthetical, without any specific discussion
> or explanation of a heightened standard, created a requirement for
> unanimous and/or positive approval.
>
> Greg
>
> ______
> * You are inventing a dichotomy where there is none. In either case,
> I was referring to the report, not to some verbal utterance. I'm
> sorry if my somewhat colloquial use of "said" confused you. It's
> perfectly acceptable to use "said" to refer to a written document, at
> least in everyday usage.
>
> On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 11:10 AM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com
> <mailto:seun.ojedeji at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> Depends on how you are interpreting the word "bundle"; the WS1 was
> presented as a single document, while some COs decided to
> approve/respond recommendation by recommendation, others approved
> the document as a whole. Perhaps a simple application of the
> report(if you want to avoid round trips proposed in the report
> without distorting the intent) will be to highlight FoI as a
> single recommendation in WS2 which gives the COs the option to
> approve/reject it out rightly and then the CCWG can determine what
> to do with the FoI based on the outcome of the COs approval process.
>
> On your second point, at this juncture I am not talking about what
> we said but rather about what we WROTE in the report, which is
> what anyone who have not followed the process would rely upon. So
> do you want to reflect "what we said" or "what we wrote" either of
> them is fine by me but we should be clear on the path we have
> chosen, knowing it's implications as well.
>
> Regards
>
> Sent from my LG G4
> Kindly excuse brevity and typos
>
> On 2 May 2016 3:51 p.m., "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc at gmail.com
> <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> At no point did we say that the FoI would be bundled with
> other WS2 recommendations as a complete package. Indeed,
> we've never said that any of the WS2 projects had to be
> bundled with others.
>
> At no point did we say that there would be a special process
> for approving the FoI. It should be the same as WS1, which
> contemplates a review by the Chartering Organizations, and
> then allows the CCWG to forward recommendation to the Board
> even if less than all of the COs approve of the recommendation.
>
> As long as we can find ways to reflect that clearly, we will
> be carrying out the intent of the Proposal.
>
> Greg
>
> On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 10:43 AM, Seun Ojedeji
> <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com <mailto:seun.ojedeji at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> Hello Thomas,
>
> If I process this correctly, it implies approval of the
> FoI will be done based on ratification process in the CCWG
> charter, which is different from approval of the whole WS2
> package as per the charter.
>
> If that is it, then I will say it's somewhat closer to
> what was proposed in the report (even though the report
> did not mention that CO ratification of FoI is based on
> the charter).
>
> Regards
> Sent from my LG G4
> Kindly excuse brevity and typos
>
> On 2 May 2016 3:24 p.m., "Thomas Rickert"
> <thomas at rickert.net <mailto:thomas at rickert.net>> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
> Tijani has proposed a solution at the end of his
> latest e-mail:
>
> I understand that the first proposal made the approval
> of all the chartering organizations necessary, The
> modification should keep the reference to the
> ratification of the chartering organizations and add
> "as defined in the CCWG charter“.
>
> Would that be a way forward?
>
> Best,
> Thomas
>
>
>
>> Am 02.05.2016 um 16:19 schrieb Seun Ojedeji
>> <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com <mailto:seun.ojedeji at gmail.com>>:
>>
>> Hello Niels,
>>
>> I think we may just be playing around with words
>> here, definitely you understand Tijani's concern ;-).
>> Let me attempt to spell out(even though I have done
>> this before) my understanding of the report which I
>> must say is obvious:
>>
>> 1. The report clearly used the phrase "...*including*
>> approval of chartering organisations"
>>
>> 2. Equating that to mean that it's equivalent to the
>> CO approval within CCWG may be out of order because
>> as per the charter irrespective of number of support
>> from CO, the package goes to board for approval.
>>
>> 3. The intent of item 2 above is not the same thing
>> as item 1; What I understand is that the FoI as a
>> critical document it is needs to be developed during
>> WS2, approved by the CO and incoporated into the WS2
>> proposal which is then sent to COs for approval as a
>> complete package.
>>
>> That said, i will again say that if the goal is to
>> reflect what was written in the report then we are
>> out of order. However we may just agree that what we
>> have done is correcting a *mistake* in the report
>> through the bylaw. In that case, we should present it
>> as such and not on claims that the report did not say
>> approval of CO is required.
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> Sent from my LG G4
>> Kindly excuse brevity and typos
>>
>> On 2 May 2016 9:40 a.m., "Niels ten Oever"
>> <lists at nielstenoever.net
>> <mailto:lists at nielstenoever.net>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Tijani,
>>
>> But the chartering organizations are mentioned in
>> the charter of the
>> CCWG, so am not sure if I understand your concern.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Niels
>>
>> On 05/02/2016 10:22 AM, Tijani BEN JEMAA wrote:
>> > Hi Niels,
>> >
>> > The last modification of the bylaws proposed by
>> the lawyers didn’t make
>> > any reference to the chartering organizations
>> approval while it is
>> > clearly mentioned in the CCWG last proposal
>> ratified by the chartering
>> > organizations.
>> >
>> > Have a nice day
>> >
>> >
>> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > *Tijani BEN JEMAA*
>> > Executive Director
>> > Mediterranean Federation of Internet
>> Associations (*FMAI*)
>> > Phone: +216 98 330 114
>> <tel:%2B216%2098%20330%20114>
>> > +216 52 385 114 <tel:%2B216%2052%20385%20114>
>> >
>> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >
>> >
>> >> Le 2 mai 2016 à 09:11, Niels ten Oever
>> <lists at nielstenoever.net
>> <mailto:lists at nielstenoever.net>
>> >> <mailto:lists at nielstenoever.net
>> <mailto:lists at nielstenoever.net>>> a écrit :
>> >>
>> >> Dear Tijani and Kavouss,
>> >>
>> >> Could you please indicate where the proposed
>> text is not consistent with
>> >> the report? Concrete references would be
>> helpful for me to better
>> >> understand your point.
>> >>
>> >> Thanks in advance,
>> >>
>> >> Niels
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On 05/02/2016 09:38 AM, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:
>> >>> Tijani +1
>> >>> I fully agree with Tijani
>> >>> People misuse the opportunity to make
>> modifications that were not agreed
>> >>> during the lkast 16 months
>> >>> NO CHANGE NO MODIFICATIONS.
>> >>> During the WSIS I WILL tell everybody that
>> there is no supervision nor
>> >>> control on what we have agreed and the people
>> will make whatever change
>> >>> they wish without the agreements of the others
>> >>>
>> >>> KAVOUSS
>> >>>
>> >>> 2016-05-02 8:14 GMT+02:00 Tijani BEN JEMAA
>> <tijani.benjemaa at topnet.tn
>> <mailto:tijani.benjemaa at topnet.tn>
>> >>> <mailto:tijani.benjemaa at topnet.tn
>> <mailto:tijani.benjemaa at topnet.tn>>
>> >>> <mailto:tijani.benjemaa at topnet.tn
>> <mailto:tijani.benjemaa at topnet.tn>>>:
>> >>>
>> >>> Mathieu and all,
>> >>>
>> >>> The modification proposed doesn’t reflect
>> the CCWG last proposal
>> >>> approved by the chartering organization. I
>> don’t think we are
>> >>> allowed to write bylaws that are not the
>> exact interpretation of the
>> >>> approved document that had the CCWG consensus
>> and the charting
>> >>> organizations ratification.
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >>> *Tijani BEN JEMAA*
>> >>> Executive Director
>> >>> Mediterranean Federation of Internet
>> Associations (*FMAI*)
>> >>> Phone: +216 98 330 114
>> <tel:%2B216%2098%20330%20114>
>> >>> +216 52 385 114 <tel:%2B216%2052%20385%20114>
>> >>>
>> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>> Le 2 mai 2016 à 04:23, Kavouss Arasteh
>> <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com
>> <mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>
>> >>>> <mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com
>> <mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>>
>> >>>> <mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com
>> <mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>>> a écrit :
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Mathieu,
>> >>>> Tks
>> >>>> Pls NOTE MY SERIOUS OBJECTIONS to:
>> >>>> 1.NOT MENTIONING REFERNCE TO THE APPROVAL OF
>> CHARTERING
>> >>>> ORGANIZATIONBS in HR
>> >>>> 2. GIVE GIVE A BLANKET AGREEMENT TO THE
>> DOCUMENTS WHICH YET TO BE
>> >>>> DRAFTED.
>> >>>> 3. Making so many changes to the Third
>> proposals . We must avoid
>> >>>> having a new proposal
>> >>>> Kavouss
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> 2016-05-01 22:42 GMT+02:00 Mathieu Weill
>> <mathieu.weill at afnic.fr
>> <mailto:mathieu.weill at afnic.fr>
>> >>>> <mailto:mathieu.weill at afnic.fr
>> <mailto:mathieu.weill at afnic.fr>>
>> >>>> <mailto:mathieu.weill at afnic.fr
>> <mailto:mathieu.weill at afnic.fr>>>:
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Dear colleagues,
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Please find below for your consideration
>> some suggestions from
>> >>>> our lawyers for clarification of the bylaw
>> language regarding
>> >>>> the Human rights FoI. This follows our
>> request during the
>> >>>> previous call.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Best,
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Mathieu Weill
>> >>>> ---------------
>> >>>> Depuis mon mobile, désolé pour le style
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Début du message transféré :
>> >>>>
>> >>>>> *Expéditeur:* "Gregory, Holly"
>> <holly.gregory at sidley.com
>> <mailto:holly.gregory at sidley.com>
>> >>>>> <mailto:holly.gregory at sidley.com
>> <mailto:holly.gregory at sidley.com>>
>> >>>>> <mailto:holly.gregory at sidley.com
>> <mailto:holly.gregory at sidley.com>>>
>> >>>>> *Date:* 1 mai 2016 19:10:53 UTC+2
>> >>>>> *Destinataire:* "'Mathieu Weill'"
>> <mathieu.weill at afnic.fr
>> <mailto:mathieu.weill at afnic.fr>
>> >>>>> <mailto:mathieu.weill at afnic.fr
>> <mailto: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
>> <mailto: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
>> <mailto:leonfelipe at sanchez.mx>>
>> >>>>> <mailto:leonfelipe at sanchez.mx
>> <mailto:leonfelipe at sanchez.mx>>>,
>> "bylaws-coord at icann.org
>> <mailto:bylaws-coord at icann.org>
>> >>>>> <mailto:bylaws-coord at icann.org
>> <mailto:bylaws-coord at icann.org>>
>> >>>>> <mailto:bylaws-coord at icann.org
>> <mailto:bylaws-coord at icann.org>>"
>> <bylaws-coord at icann.org
>> <mailto:bylaws-coord at icann.org>
>> >>>>> <mailto:bylaws-coord at icann.org
>> <mailto:bylaws-coord at icann.org>>
>> >>>>> <mailto:bylaws-coord at icann.org
>> <mailto:bylaws-coord at icann.org>>>
>> >>>>> *Cc:* ACCT-Staff
>> <acct-staff at icann.org <mailto:acct-staff at icann.org>
>> >>>>> <mailto:acct-staff at icann.org
>> <mailto:acct-staff at icann.org>>
>> >>>>> <mailto:acct-staff at icann.org
>> <mailto:acct-staff at icann.org>>>, "Rosemary E. Fei"
>> >>>>> <rfei at adlercolvin.com
>> <mailto:rfei at adlercolvin.com>
>> >>>>> <mailto:rfei at adlercolvin.com
>> <mailto:rfei at adlercolvin.com>>
>> <mailto:rfei at adlercolvin.com
>> <mailto:rfei at adlercolvin.com>>>,
>> >>>>> "ICANN at adlercolvin.com
>> <mailto:ICANN at adlercolvin.com>
>> >>>>> <mailto:ICANN at adlercolvin.com
>> <mailto:ICANN at adlercolvin.com>>
>> <mailto:ICANN at adlercolvin.com
>> <mailto:ICANN at adlercolvin.com>>"
>> >>>>> <ICANN at adlercolvin.com
>> <mailto:ICANN at adlercolvin.com>
>> >>>>> <mailto:ICANN at adlercolvin.com
>> <mailto:ICANN at adlercolvin.com>>
>> <mailto:ICANN at adlercolvin.com
>> <mailto:ICANN at adlercolvin.com>>>,
>> >>>>> Sidley ICANN CCWG
>> <sidleyicannccwg at sidley.com
>> <mailto:sidleyicannccwg at sidley.com>
>> >>>>> <mailto:sidleyicannccwg at sidley.com
>> <mailto:sidleyicannccwg at sidley.com>>
>> >>>>> <mailto:sidleyicannccwg at sidley.com
>> <mailto:sidleyicannccwg at sidley.com>>>,
>> >>>>> "Samantha.Eisner at icann.org
>> <mailto:Samantha.Eisner at icann.org>
>> <mailto:Samantha.Eisner at icann.org
>> <mailto:Samantha.Eisner at icann.org>>
>> >>>>> <mailto:Samantha.Eisner at icann.org
>> <mailto:Samantha.Eisner at icann.org>>"
>> >>>>> <Samantha.Eisner at icann.org
>> <mailto:Samantha.Eisner at icann.org>
>> >>>>> <mailto:Samantha.Eisner at icann.org
>> <mailto:Samantha.Eisner at icann.org>>
>> <mailto:Samantha.Eisner at icann.org
>> <mailto:Samantha.Eisner at icann.org>>>
>> >>>>> *Objet:* *Human Rights Transition
>> Provision: Bylaws Section
>> >>>>> 27.3(a)*
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Dear Co-Chairs and Bylaws
>> Coordinating Group:
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> On the CCWG call last week, there was
>> a discussion of the
>> >>>>> Bylaws language regarding the
>> transition provision on Human
>> >>>>> Rights*//*[27.3(a)] and it was suggested
>> that the language be
>> >>>>> clarified to ensure that the same
>> approval process used for
>> >>>>> Work Stream 1 would apply. We
>> propose the following
>> >>>>> clarifying edits. We suggest that
>> you share this with the
>> >>>>> CCWG and if there is agreement, the
>> following proposed edit
>> >>>>> should be included in the CCWG’s
>> public comment:____
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Redline:____
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> *Section 27.3. HUMAN RIGHTS____*
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> __ __
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> (a) The Core Value set forth in
>> Section 1.2(b)(viii) shall
>> >>>>> have no force or effect unless and
>> until a framework of
>> >>>>> interpretation for human rights
>> (“*FOI-HR*”) is approved by
>> >>>>> (i) approved for submission to the
>> Board by the
>> >>>>> CCWG-Accountability as a consensus
>> recommendation in Work
>> >>>>> Stream 2, and (ii) approved by each
>> of the
>> >>>>> CCWG-Accountability’s chartering
>> organizations and (iii) the
>> >>>>> Board, (in each thecase of the Board,
>> using the same process
>> >>>>> and criteria used by the Boardto
>> consider the as for Work
>> >>>>> Stream 1 Recommendations).____
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> __ __
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> (b) No person or entity shall be
>> entitled to invoke the
>> >>>>> reconsideration process provided in
>> Section 4.2, or the
>> >>>>> independent review process provided
>> in Section 4.3, based
>> >>>>> solely on the inclusion of the Core
>> Value set forth in
>> >>>>> Section 1.2(b)(viii) (i) until after
>> the FOI-HR contemplated
>> >>>>> by Section 27.3(a) is in place or
>> (ii) for actions of ICANN
>> >>>>> or the Board that occurred prior to
>> the____
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> effectiveness of the FOI-HR.____
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Clean:____
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> *Section 27.3. HUMAN RIGHTS____*
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> __ __
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> (a) The Core Value set forth in
>> Section 1.2(b)(viii) shall
>> >>>>> have no force or effect unless and
>> until a framework of
>> >>>>> interpretation for human rights
>> (“*FOI-HR*”) is (i) approved
>> >>>>> for submission to the Board by the
>> CCWG-Accountability as a
>> >>>>> consensus recommendation in Work
>> Stream 2 and (ii) approved
>> >>>>> by the Board, in each case, using the
>> same process and
>> >>>>> criteria as for Work Stream 1
>> Recommendations.____
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> __ __
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> (b) No person or entity shall be
>> entitled to invoke the
>> >>>>> reconsideration process provided in
>> Section 4.2, or the
>> >>>>> independent review process provided
>> in Section 4.3, based
>> >>>>> solely on the inclusion of the Core
>> Value set forth in
>> >>>>> Section 1.2(b)(viii) (i) until after
>> the FOI-HR contemplated
>> >>>>> by Section 27.3(a) is in place or
>> (ii) for actions of ICANN
>> >>>>> or the Board that occurred prior to
>> the____
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> effectiveness of the FOI-HR.____
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Kind regards, ____
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> __ __
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Holly and Rosemary____
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> __ __
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> __ __
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> *HOLLY* *J. GREGORY*
>> >>>>> Partner and Co-Chair
>> >>>>> Corporate Governance & Executive
>> Compensation Practice Group____
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> *Sidley Austin LLP*
>> >>>>> 787 Seventh Avenue
>> >>>>> New York, NY 10019
>> >>>>> +1 212 839 5853 <tel:%2B1%20212%20839%205853>
>> >>>>> holly.gregory at sidley.com
>> <mailto:holly.gregory at sidley.com>
>> >>>>> <mailto:holly.gregory at sidley.com
>> <mailto:holly.gregory at sidley.com>>
>> <mailto:holly.gregory at sidley.com
>> <mailto:holly.gregory at sidley.com>>
>> >>>>> www.sidley.com <http://www.sidley.com/>
>> >>>>> <http://www.sidley.com/>
>> <http://www.sidley.com/>____
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> http://www.sidley.com/files/upload/signatures/SA-autosig.png
>> >>>>> <http://www.sidley.com/> *SIDLEY
>> AUSTIN LLP*____
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> __ __
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> ****************************************************************************************************
>> >>>>> This e-mail is sent by a law firm and
>> may contain information
>> >>>>> that is privileged or confidential.
>> >>>>> If you are not the intended
>> recipient, please delete the
>> >>>>> e-mail and any attachments and notify us
>> >>>>> immediately.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> ****************************************************************************************************
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> _______________________________________________
>> >>>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>> >>>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
>> >>>>
>> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>>
>> >>>>
>> <mailto: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>
>> >>>>
>> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>>
>> >>>>
>> <mailto: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>
>> >>>
>> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>>
>> >>>
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Niels ten Oever
>> >> Head of Digital
>> >>
>> >> Article 19
>> >> www.article19.org <http://www.article19.org/>
>> <http://www.article19.org/>
>> >>
>> >> PGP fingerprint 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4
>> >> 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>> >> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
>> >>
>> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>>
>> >>
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>> >
>>
>> --
>> Niels ten Oever
>> Head of Digital
>>
>> Article 19
>> www.article19.org <http://www.article19.org/>
>>
>> PGP fingerprint 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4
>> 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
> <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
--
Matthew Shears | Director, Global Internet Policy & Human Rights Project
Center for Democracy & Technology | cdt.org
E: mshears at cdt.org | T: +44.771.247.2987
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20160502/43fb629a/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community
mailing list