<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
Dear Colleagues, Dear Parminder,<br>
<br>
Noting that Parminder's feedback on external accountability reflects
a discussion that takes place regularly when reaching out of the
Icann community to discuss about the current transition process, I
think it's worth our time reflecting on how our group discussions
took it into account. <br>
<br>
First, the term "external accountability", while frequently used,
may have different meanings for different stakeholders. I concur
with Becky who suggested that you clarify your meaning. <br>
<br>
If external accountability means "Icann is accountable to an
overseeing body outside of Icann", then we should note that we had
this very discussion several times in the requirement phase, and
tended to conclude that, because of the "who guards the guardian"
issue, our group's preferred option was to find an internal option
which would introduce better checks and balances ("mutual
accountability"). <br>
<br>
If external accountability means accountability to stakeholders
outside of the regular Icann participants, then I think our current
proposals introduce significant enhancements :<br>
- the IRP is accessible to any materially affected party, made more
accessible and, above all, becomes binding on the Board. <br>
- the current discussions on SO/AC accountability, diversity within
the community and the accountability mechanisms, are all related to
this issue of accountability to external stakeholders. <br>
<br>
It is perfectly fair and welcome to challenge these options, which
does not mean that have not been considered. Our role as a group
will be respond to such concern properly, but also to identify
associated requirements. I am confident we'll find some in the
public comments, as well as in further discussions of our group. <br>
<br>
Best,<br>
Mathieu <br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Le 14/06/2015 07:46, parminder a
écrit :<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:557D154B.6010502@itforchange.net" type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On Saturday 13 June 2015 12:40 PM,
Avri Doria wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:557BD757.30807@acm.org" type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Hi,
We have a difference in perception on this.</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
I agree, and can understand that. What however I cannot understand
is why the perspective that I present - seeking external
accountability mechanism - has not been given adequate
consideration by the CCWG. And questions arising from this
perspective have never been responded to properly. Does that not
put in question the fairness of the process, especially when the
perspective that you hold and which is overwhelming dominant in
the process, to the complete exclusion of the other one, is in
favour of giving ultimate power to the SO/ACs (or the ICANN
community) whose reps also happen to fully dominate the process.
Do you not find something problematic here?<br>
<br>
But perhaps one may want to argue that my perspective is a fringe
view with little or no support. Before I (once again) argue the
rationale of this perspective, let me present some empirical
points. <br>
<br>
The public submission by Roberto Bissio who serves as an advisor
to the CCWG process says that the two issues of jurisdiction and
external accountability were raised in the advisory group meetings
but "were not taken into account or properly responded to in the
draft recommendations".<br>
<br>
Further, in the last few weeks I have been at two meetings
organised in India on the IANA transition issue, organised by
groups that clearly have no unfriendliness towards ICANN. Both
meetings were attended by a full range of stakeholders. In both
the meetings there was clearly a preponderance of view that (1)
jurisdiction and (2) even more, 'external accountability' are the
key issues that should be focussed on. The organisers of one of
these meetings did a extensive survey of views of different
stakeholders and the report that was presented at the meeting
again focussed on external accountability. <br>
<br>
These are the only two meetings that I know to have taken place in
India in the last many weeks, and which included a full range of
stakeholders. If the general outcomes of both these meetings (plus
the survey) tend towards seekinfg focus on 'external
accountability' than I think it means that this perhaps is what
the overwhelming number of people in India want. India has about a
7th of the world's population. I dont think China with about one
sixth would be thinking any differently. In fact, I am convinced
that all developing countries will be thinking quite similarly.
Among US allied developed countries there may be slightly greater
ambiguity, but I still think a very big majority which if asked
would be inclined towards external accountability. Not sure about
people in the US though bec they do have considerable leverage
over ICANN through various institutions of the US state, though I
think most people understand the need for clear mechanisms of
external accountability for such institutions like ICANN. <br>
<br>
Many governments' current submissions, including India's and
Brazil's, seek mechanisms of external accountability, and I am
sure their reps would have said things to that effect during the
process.<br>
<br>
Very interestingly, the NetMundial statement, much respected and
celebrated by the ICANN community, says that “it is expected that
the process of globalization of ICANN speeds up leading to a truly
international and global organization serving the public interest
with clearly implementable and verifiable accountability and
transparency mechanisms that *<i><b>satisfy requirements from both
internal stakeholders and the global community</b></i>*”
<title></title>
<meta name="GENERATOR" content="LibreOffice 3.5 (Linux)">
<style type="text/css">
<!--
@page { margin: 2cm }
P { margin-bottom: 0.21cm }
-->
</style>(emphasis added).<br>
<br>
So, no, my perspective is not fringe, and it can be empirically
shown that it is not fringe. I would rather think that the view
presented and pressed by the ICANN community (AO/SCs) is largely
just the view of the ICANN community, with has little support
outside it. And when this view is in fact for ICANN community
retaining or taking up full and final power in all ICANN affairs,
for the CWCG process, itself made up mostly of the ICANN
community, to unilaterally proceed with it as a kind of received
wisdom, to the complete exclusion of the other perspective
(calling for 'external accountability'), really throws up
extremely troubling questions. <br>
<br>
Someone must explain why the other perspective was not taken
seriously by the CCWG, and its all requirements and possibilities
not fully explored. Why did it just got shut up, when there has
been so much support for it. <br>
<br>
It is extremely clear that *at least* a very large number, if not
a very large majority of people (which is in fact the case), *do
not* consider ICANN community as being adequately representative
of the global community which is why they are asking for 'external
accountability'. This is empirically provable, and this proof
provides enough basis why this perspective should have been fully
and thoroughly considered, which did not happen. The further fact
that such a partisan take actually benefits the same community
that dominates the process in my view fully vitiates it. <br>
<br>
As for the arguments by Avri, supported by Wolfgang, that the
ICANN community does in fact adequately represent the global
community, or is adequately inclusive of it - just by the fact of
formal openness of its design, I strongly disagree with it and but
will respond to it in a separate email. I do not want to mix a
logical argument with one based on empirical facts that are
immediately verifiable, about (1) there being a very large
support for instituting 'external accountability' mechanisms and
(2) it having not been considered or responded to properly .<br>
<br>
<br>
parminder <br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:557BD757.30807@acm.org" type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Whereas I believe you think of ICANN as a closed community that
excludes, I see the ICANN community as an open community that reaches
out to all participants and is always reaching towards the global
multistakeholder community. There is an ICANN subgroup ready to welcome
and include anyone interested. And if some set of people approaches the
ICANN community and says there is no place for them, and indeed we find
there there isn't, then something will be done accommodate that new need.
Even though it is an open community that welcomes everyone who wants to
get involved, it recognizes that not all can or would join in this open
community. To make sure they are not left out of the processes, they
are always open to those others who do not wish to associate with the
ICANN community, but want to participate nonetheless. Nt only can they
participate fully in building the consensus in the working groups, they
can stand on the outside, follow the process and submit comments.
Comments that a taken quite seriously by the working group.
Between these two elements, I see the process as indeed inclusive of the
global multistakeholder community. I can think of no better existing
process for doing so, though readily acknowledge that of course the
process needs to do ever better at outreach and ever better at inclusion.
avri
On 13-Jun-15 01:52, parminder wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">On Friday 12 June 2015 09:35 PM, Drazek, Keith wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Thanks Becky,
I think you highlight a key point.
Currently, NTIA and the California Attorney General are the only
enforcement bodies ensuring ICANN remains committed to its bylaws.
The membership structure would give some of that authority to the
ICANN community through its existing structures -- the SOs and ACs.
Isn’t that the definition of transitioning the United States
government (in its various forms) out of its unique role?
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">Being at definitional matters; in my understanding, the definition of
'transitioning the US government (in its various forms) out if its
unique role' is that the US government, and its agencies, have no role
that is not equivalent to that of any other government and its
agencies. That has always been the intent and purpose of the long
standing global demand for getting rid of US's unilateral oversight
over ICANN.
A wrong definition of the problem obviously leads to wrong solutions,
as is happening currently with the 'transition process'.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">After NTIA disengages, don’t we want the community to have shared
authority for enforcement,
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">As you mention in an earlier part of your email, with community you of
course mean 'ICANN community'. Whatever be the intention of the 'ICANN
community', even NTIA's announcement asked for the oversight to pass
to 'global multistakeholder community' and not to the 'ICANN
community'. Now if the 'ICANN community' being in charge of running
the transition process appropriates that new (partly) transitioned
oversight role to itself, it is perhaps an understandable human
failing, but that would normally be called as an illegitimate capture.
parminder
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">rather than leaving it to the California Attorney General alone?
Regards,
Keith
*From:*accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org
[<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org">mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org</a>] *On Behalf
Of *Burr, Becky
*Sent:* Friday, June 12, 2015 11:07 AM
*To:* Roelof Meijer; Accountability Cross Community
*Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] FW: [Acct-Legal] Memo - Revised Powers
Chart, Voluntary Model
Roelof,
shi
As I understand it, Courts view the bylaws as a contract between a
corporation and its members/shareholders. If ICANN has no members,
the bylaws are not a contract with anyone, so the only party with
authority to enforce would be the Attorney General. (As discussed
elsewhere, this is extremely unlikely to happen outside of a
fraud/corruption situation.)
The fact that members of SO’s are legal entities doesn’t change this.
Unless they are members of ICANN, they are not a party to the bylaws
“contract.”
B
J. Beckwith Burr
*Neustar, Inc. /* Deputy General Counsel and Chief Privacy Officer
1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20006
Office: + 1.202.533.2932 Mobile:
+1.202.352.6367 / <a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz">becky.burr@neustar.biz</a>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz"><mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz></a> / <a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.neustar.biz">www.neustar.biz</a>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://www.neustar.biz"><http://www.neustar.biz></a>
*From: *Roelof Meijer <<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Roelof.Meijer@sidn.nl">Roelof.Meijer@sidn.nl</a>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:Roelof.Meijer@sidn.nl"><mailto:Roelof.Meijer@sidn.nl></a>>
*Date: *Friday, June 12, 2015 at 8:18 AM
*To: *Accountability Community
<<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org">accountability-cross-community@icann.org</a>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org"><mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org></a>>
*Subject: *[CCWG-ACCT] FW: [Acct-Legal] Memo - Revised Powers Chart,
Voluntary Model
Dear all, and especially dear legal colleagues,
The memo states:
"If there were a dispute between ICANN and an SO/AC, the parties
could agree to an IRP and binding arbitration, but there would be no
mechanism to restrain ICANN from acting contrary to these decisions,
nor would there be a mechanism to challenge an arbitration decision
that exceeded the scope of authority of the arbitration panel,
outside an unlikely, independent intervention by the California
Attorney General. "
I understand that the SO/AC’s, not being legal entities, cannot take
legal action to enforce. However, does that really equal "no
mechanism to restrain ICANN from acting contrary to these decisions”?
Most members of SO’s are legal entities, many members of AC’s are
too, couldn’t those members, being affected parties, individually or
collectively take legal action?
Alternatively, I would assume that before the ultimate step of
talking legal action against ICANN, the community will have escalated
through its powers and thus has completed the procedure to recall the
entire board. The power to recall the entire board will have to be
combined with the power to in one way or another appoint an interim
board. So, the community, through due process, recalls the board. The
board, in contradiction with the bylaws, refuses “to go”. The
community has recalled the board and thus, through the defined
process (also in the bylaws), appoints an interim board. According to
the bylaws, this interim board is now the legal representative of
ICANN. And can take the required legal action (if necessary) to force
the “old” board to go away and get lost.
Would one of these two work?
Best,
Roelof Meijer
*From: *<Hofheimer>, "Joshua T." <<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:jhofheimer@sidley.com">jhofheimer@sidley.com</a>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:jhofheimer@sidley.com"><mailto:jhofheimer@sidley.com></a>>
*Date: *donderdag 11 juni 2015 06:09
*To: *"<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:ccwg-accountability5@icann.org">ccwg-accountability5@icann.org</a>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:ccwg-accountability5@icann.org"><mailto:ccwg-accountability5@icann.org></a>"
<<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:ccwg-accountability5@icann.org">ccwg-accountability5@icann.org</a> <a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:ccwg-accountability5@icann.org"><mailto:ccwg-accountability5@icann.org></a>>
*Cc: *Sidley ICANN CCWG <<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:sidleyicannccwg@sidley.com">sidleyicannccwg@sidley.com</a>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:sidleyicannccwg@sidley.com"><mailto:sidleyicannccwg@sidley.com></a>>, ICANN-Adler
<<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:ICANN@adlercolvin.com">ICANN@adlercolvin.com</a> <a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:ICANN@adlercolvin.com"><mailto:ICANN@adlercolvin.com></a>>
*Subject: *[Acct-Legal] Memo - Revised Powers Chart, Voluntary Model
Dear Legal Sub-Team,
Further to the CCWG request on the call last Friday, attached is a
memo revising the summary chart describing the viability of the
enumerated powers under the three models – Member model, Designator
Model and Voluntary Model. We also explore the impact of not having
the SO/ACs organized legal persons to represent their interests.
Cheers,
Josh
*JOSHUA* *HOFHEIMER *
Sidley Austin LLP
+1.213.896.6061 (LA direct)
+1.650.565.7561 (PA direct)
+1.323.708.2405 (cell)
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:jhofheimer@sidley.com">jhofheimer@sidley.com</a> <a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:jhofheimer@sidley.com"><mailto:jhofheimer@sidley.com></a>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.sidley.com">www.sidley.com</a>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.sidley.com_&d=AwMF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=QOhQjQwFElYq1-xAGs6TVUWxpVd3OZaCVRq9bV-0pUg&s=8g0nj7XBKequ4xTeqTLzy3EvyRZsOpZlGqNG7PIfFS4&e="><https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.sidley.com_&d=AwMF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=QOhQjQwFElYq1-xAGs6TVUWxpVd3OZaCVRq9bV-0pUg&s=8g0nj7XBKequ4xTeqTLzy3EvyRZsOpZlGqNG7PIfFS4&e=></a>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.sidley.com/files/upload/signatures/SA-autosig.png">http://www.sidley.com/files/upload/signatures/SA-autosig.png</a>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.sidley.com_&d=AwMF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=QOhQjQwFElYq1-xAGs6TVUWxpVd3OZaCVRq9bV-0pUg&s=8g0nj7XBKequ4xTeqTLzy3EvyRZsOpZlGqNG7PIfFS4&e="><https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.sidley.com_&d=AwMF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=QOhQjQwFElYq1-xAGs6TVUWxpVd3OZaCVRq9bV-0pUg&s=8g0nj7XBKequ4xTeqTLzy3EvyRZsOpZlGqNG7PIfFS4&e=></a> *SIDLEY
AUSTIN LLP*
*From:*ccwg-accountability5-bounces@icann.org
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:ccwg-accountability5-bounces@icann.org"><mailto:ccwg-accountability5-bounces@icann.org></a>
[<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:ccwg-accountability5-bounces@icann.org">mailto:ccwg-accountability5-bounces@icann.org</a>] *On Behalf Of
*Hilton, Tyler
*Sent:* Monday, June 08, 2015 8:29 PM
*To:* <a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:ccwg-accountability5@icann.org">ccwg-accountability5@icann.org</a>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:ccwg-accountability5@icann.org"><mailto:ccwg-accountability5@icann.org></a>
*Subject:* [Acct-Legal] Memo - Responses to CCWG GAC Questions
Dear Legal Sub-team,
Attached please find a memo responding to the list of questions from
the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) provided to us on June 5, 2015.
Best,
*TYLER* *HILTON*
Associate
Sidley Austin LLP
555 West Fifth Street
Los Angeles, CA 90013
+1.213.896.6130
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:thilton@sidley.com">thilton@sidley.com</a> <a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:thilton@sidley.com"><mailto:thilton@sidley.com></a>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.sidley.com">www.sidley.com</a>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.sidley.com&d=AwMF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=QOhQjQwFElYq1-xAGs6TVUWxpVd3OZaCVRq9bV-0pUg&s=RZAttuK9gIR-rWhgnzzBCJwmd-AX6TvLB6W-cfwGyV4&e="><https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.sidley.com&d=AwMF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=QOhQjQwFElYq1-xAGs6TVUWxpVd3OZaCVRq9bV-0pUg&s=RZAttuK9gIR-rWhgnzzBCJwmd-AX6TvLB6W-cfwGyV4&e=></a>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.sidley.com/files/upload/signatures/SA-autosig.png">http://www.sidley.com/files/upload/signatures/SA-autosig.png</a>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.sidley.com_&d=AwMF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=QOhQjQwFElYq1-xAGs6TVUWxpVd3OZaCVRq9bV-0pUg&s=8g0nj7XBKequ4xTeqTLzy3EvyRZsOpZlGqNG7PIfFS4&e="><https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.sidley.com_&d=AwMF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=QOhQjQwFElYq1-xAGs6TVUWxpVd3OZaCVRq9bV-0pUg&s=8g0nj7XBKequ4xTeqTLzy3EvyRZsOpZlGqNG7PIfFS4&e=></a> *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
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus">https://www.avast.com/antivirus</a>
_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
*****************************
Mathieu WEILL
AFNIC - directeur général
Tél: +33 1 39 30 83 06
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr">mathieu.weill@afnic.fr</a>
Twitter : @mathieuweill
*****************************
</pre>
</body>
</html>