<html><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body dir="auto"><div>Dear Co-Chairs,</div><div><br></div><div>not only does the CCWG not operate under Roberts or Jeffersons rules, but I note that it is acceptable to have ulterior motives but not to talk about them. </div><div><br></div><div>In any case the question of discourse is addressed by the Charter and ICANN's Standards of Behaviour.</div><div><br></div><div>Never mind that I find the focus on the side show amusing if not unexpected. </div><div><br></div><div>What one does to avoid going into the merits...</div><div><br></div><div>greetings, el</div><div><br>-- <span class="Apple-style-span" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(26, 26, 26, 0.296875); -webkit-composition-fill-color: rgba(175, 192, 227, 0.230469); -webkit-composition-frame-color: rgba(77, 128, 180, 0.230469); "></span><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 13pt; -webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(26, 26, 26, 0.294118); -webkit-composition-fill-color: rgba(175, 192, 227, 0.231373);">Sent from </span><span style="font-size: 13pt;">Dr Lisse's iPhone 6</span></div><div><br></div></div><div><br>On Apr 24, 2015, at 01:46, Paul Rosenzweig <<a href="mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com">paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com</a>> wrote:<br><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div><span>Addressing remarks "through the chair" does not relieve the speaker of the</span><br><span>obligation to avoid impugning the motives of his or her colleagues. To the</span><br><span>contrary, Robert's Rules of Order address the question of decorum in debate</span><br><span>without regard for the modality by which the comment is made:</span><br><span></span><br><span>"43. Decorum in Debate. In debate a member must confine himself to the</span><br><span>question before the assembly, and avoid personalities. He cannot reflect</span><br><span>upon any act of the assembly, unless he intends to conclude his remarks with</span><br><span>a motion to rescind such action, or else while debating such a motion. In</span><br><span>referring to another member, he should, as much as possible, avoid using his</span><br><span>name, rather referring to him as "the member who spoke last," or in some</span><br><span>other way describing him. The officers of the assembly should always be</span><br><span>referred to by their official titles. It is not allowable to arraign the</span><br><span>motives of a member, but the nature or consequences of a measure may be</span><br><span>condemned in strong terms. It is not the man, but the measure, that is the</span><br><span>subject of debate."</span><br><span></span><br><span>Or consider this from Jefferson's Manual of Parliamentary Procedure:</span><br><span></span><br><span>"No person in speaking, is to mention a member then present by his name; but</span><br><span>to describe him by his seat in the House, or who spoke last, or on the other</span><br><span>side of the question, &c. Mem. in Hakew. 3 Smyth's Comw. L. 2. c. 3. nor to</span><br><span>digress from the matter to fall upon the person, Scob. 31. Hale Parl. 133. 2</span><br><span>Hats. 166. by speaking reviling, nipping, or unmannerly words against a</span><br><span>particular member. Smyth's Comw. L. 2. c. 3. The consequences of a measure</span><br><span>may be reprobated in strong terms; but to arraign the motives of those who</span><br><span>propose or advocate it, is a personality, and against order. Qui digreditur</span><br><span>a materia ad personam, Mr. Speaker ought to suppress. Ord. Com. 1604. Apr.</span><br><span>19."</span><br><span></span><br><span>Food for thought in an increasingly acrimonious discussion.</span><br><span></span><br><span>Paul</span><br><span></span><br><span>Paul Rosenzweig</span><br><span><a href="mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com">paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com</a> </span><br><span>O: +1 (202) 547-0660</span><br><span>M: +1 (202) 329-9650</span><br><span>VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739</span><br><span>Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066</span><br><span>Link to my PGP Key</span><br><span></span><br><span></span><br><span>-----Original Message-----</span><br><span>From: Edward Morris [<a href="mailto:egmorris1@toast.net">mailto:egmorris1@toast.net</a>] </span><br><span>Sent: Thursday, April 23, 2015 7:50 PM</span><br><span>To: Drazek, Keith</span><br><span>Cc: CCWG Accountability</span><br><span>Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] [Acct-Legal] Accountability questions to law firms</span><br><span></span><br><span>Amen Keith. Well put.</span><br><span></span><br><span>Ed</span><br><span></span><br><span>Sent from my iPhone</span><br><span></span><br><blockquote type="cite"><span>On Apr 24, 2015, at 12:12 AM, Drazek, Keith <<a href="mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com">kdrazek@verisign.com</a>> wrote:</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>Dear Co-Chairs,</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>I would note that every one of us has an interest in the outcome of these</span><br></blockquote><span>proceedings, or we wouldn't be participating and spending our precious time</span><br><span>and resources. </span><br><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>Some of us are here for personal interest, some professional, some on</span><br></blockquote><span>behalf of our employers or clients. Many of us are participating for a</span><br><span>combination of reasons. </span><br><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>Verisign unquestionably has a strong interest in an accountable ICANN. No</span><br></blockquote><span>one who has observed my engagement in this process for the last 12 months</span><br><span>could dispute that. For that I make no apologies. </span><br><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>In the same way, I do not expect our colleague to apologize for</span><br></blockquote><span>participating in this process to protect his own personal, property and</span><br><span>financial interests and to address concerns about a possible future</span><br><span>revocation of his ccTLD.</span><br><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>Neither are "ulterior motives" as our colleague characterized. I am</span><br></blockquote><span>employed by a corporation to ensure its goals are achieved. I am also</span><br><span>personally and professionally invested in the successful outcome of this</span><br><span>process for the ICANN community. Our colleague is self-employed and is</span><br><span>seeking to achieve his own goals for his own reasons. One is not more pure</span><br><span>than the other.</span><br><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>No one should be criticized or demonized for pursuing and promoting their</span><br></blockquote><span>interests in a collaborative endeavor. That's what the multi-stakeholder</span><br><span>model is all about.</span><br><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>Regards,</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>Keith</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>Sent from my iPhone</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>On Apr 23, 2015, at 5:29 PM, Dr Eberhard W Lisse <<a href="mailto:el@lisse.na">el@lisse.na</a>> wrote:</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>Dear Co-Chairs,</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>please express my admiration to the gentleman representing Verisign's</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><span>interests for his comprehensive contribution at this late hour. I am quite</span><br><span>impressed at the skills employed, right out of Tea Party negotiation school.</span><br><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>It just so happens that the economics of veracity are quite liberal. </span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>It was just the gentleman from the IPC who decided during a Legal SubTeam</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><span>call that this (addressing the fundamental question on which this all rests,</span><br><span>and which, come to think about it, happens to affect Verisign's business</span><br><span>model) was not to be done.</span><br><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>As the gentleman representing Verisign, which has just this tiniest bit</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><span>at stake here, has read the Charter he does in fact know, very well, that</span><br><span>(only) operational IANA issues are not for the CCWG Accountability, but for</span><br><span>the CWG. Where they of course have not addressed. </span><br><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>The accountability of the IANA Function Manager (currently ICANN) rests</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><span>squarely with the CCWG Accountability. The only issue is whether this is an</span><br><span>issue that must be in place before the transition (which it obviously is) or</span><br><span>whether it can wait until after the transition (which it obviously can not).</span><br><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>I have given up long ago wondering why gNSO representatives do not want</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><span>this issue addressed. But it is predominantly a ccTLD issue, anyway. </span><br><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>But I would like to look at being singled out as the lone dissenter. </span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>I could to point out to the gentleman representing Verisign's interests,</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><span>that objections to the process have been voiced by other appointed members</span><br><span>to the CCWG Accountability, though to a varying degree of intensity, but</span><br><span>that would spoil the fun.</span><br><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>Indeed I have not apologized for refusing to attend 6 unnecessary</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><span>unconstructive logorrhea sessions against which I have objected, do object</span><br><span>and will continue to object. </span><br><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>I for one am not employed by a huge Corporation (to ensure their goals</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><span>are achieved), I actually have to work for a living. And, I most certainly</span><br><span>do not carry risk insurance when I attend F2F meetings.</span><br><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>That said, I have never suggested any conspiracy. I am just a somewhat</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><span>experienced ccTLD Manager, and in 24 years uninterrupted service I have seen</span><br><span>enough revocations to last me a life time. And we are not addressing this,</span><br><span>the IANA Function Manager's accountability, and we are not even questioning</span><br><span>whether any of this even has a leg to stand on. </span><br><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>I appreciate any advice I can get, but as I have written in the first</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><span>week of this sordid mess, I say what I mean and I mean what I say. And that</span><br><span>means I post whatever I want. </span><br><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>And I would challenge anyone to prove I have ulterior motives.</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>el</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>--</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>On Apr 23, 2015, at 19:54, Drazek, Keith <<a href="mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com">kdrazek@verisign.com</a>> wrote:</span><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>Dear Co-Chairs,</span><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>Am I not remembering correctly that the question posed by our colleague</span><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><span>was previously determined to be out of scope for this CCWG? I believe I saw</span><br><span>an email on 15 April to that effect. I also don't believe I've seen anyone</span><br><span>else support the request, and certainly not prioritize it for WS1. Frankly,</span><br><span>it appears to be more of a CWG and not a CCWG issue, if it's a WG issue at</span><br><span>all.</span><br><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>If my above recollection is accurate, I respectfully suggest the</span><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><span>Co-Chairs advise our colleague that continued and repeated interventions on</span><br><span>this subject are not constructive and are becoming a distraction from the</span><br><span>otherwise good work of the CCWG. </span><br><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>Further, repeated objections to the pace and intensity of our work are</span><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><span>not necessary. The objection has been noted more than once. Yes...we have</span><br><span>noted our colleague is objecting to the frequency and intensity of work</span><br><span>sessions and therefore electing to not participate. He is not apologizing</span><br><span>for his inability to attend our work sessions. Noted.</span><br><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>Finally, our colleague's repeated references to alleged conspiracies and</span><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><span>consistently negative perspectives concerning our bottom-up, community-based</span><br><span>process are, in my view, inconsistent with the collegial and constructive</span><br><span>efforts of the CCWG as a whole as exhibited by every other member,</span><br><span>participant and observer. Frankly, I feel these suggestions are approaching</span><br><span>an insult to our multi-stakeholder process and to the dedication and hard</span><br><span>work of the rest of us.</span><br><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>I'm not sure anything can be done about this, but I wanted to express my</span><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><span>views through the Co-Chairs...since it is never wrong to do so.</span><br><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>Thanks and regards,</span><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>Keith</span><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>Sent from my iPhone</span><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>On Apr 23, 2015, at 1:54 AM, Dr Eberhard W Lisse <<a href="mailto:el@lisse.na">el@lisse.na</a>> wrote:</span><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>Dear Co-Chairs,</span><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>why is every question, no matter how trivial, assigned, but the </span><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>fundamental one(s), namely whether the USG in fact has any claim to </span><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>the root and how this would affect the Transition, if any, and</span><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>(indvidual) ccTLD Managers (in chronological batches), is not?</span><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>It's not only a rhetorical question. Though, I have an idea, which </span><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>I had voiced before the start of the actual work of the CCWG to </span><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>some colleagues, due to past experiences.</span><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>Please have a response ready in time so I can include it into my </span><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>minority viewpoints that you will have to attach the the Request </span><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>for Comments.</span><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>greetings, el</span><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>-- </span><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse \ / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar)</span><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span><a href="mailto:el@lisse.NA">el@lisse.NA</a> / * | Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 (cell)</span><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>PO Box 8421 \ /</span><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>Bachbrecht, Namibia ;____/</span><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>_______________________________________________</span><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list </span><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span><a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a></span><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span><a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-communit">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-communit</a></span><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>y</span><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>_______________________________________________</span><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list </span><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span><a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a></span><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span><a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a></span><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>_______________________________________________</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list </span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span><a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span><a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><span>_______________________________________________</span><br><span>Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list</span><br><span><a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a></span><br><span><a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a></span><br><span></span><br><span>_______________________________________________</span><br><span>Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list</span><br><span><a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a></span><br><span><a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a></span><br></div></blockquote></body></html>