<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=windows-1256">
<meta name="generator" content="Windows Mail 17.5.9600.20856">
<style type="text/css"><!--html { font-family: "Color Emoji", "Calibri", "Segoe UI", "Meiryo", "Microsoft YaHei UI", "Microsoft JhengHei UI", "Malgun Gothic", "sans-serif"; }--></style><style data-externalstyle="true"><!--
p.MsoListParagraph, li.MsoListParagraph, div.MsoListParagraph {
margin-top:0in;
margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:0in;
margin-left:.5in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
}
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
}
p.MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst, li.MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst, div.MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst,
p.MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle, li.MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle, div.MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle,
p.MsoListParagraphCxSpLast, li.MsoListParagraphCxSpLast, div.MsoListParagraphCxSpLast {
margin-top:0in;
margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:0in;
margin-left:.5in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
line-height:115%;
}
--></style>
</head>
<body dir="ltr">
<div data-externalstyle="false" dir="ltr" style="font-family: 'Calibri', 'Segoe UI', 'Meiryo', 'Microsoft YaHei UI', 'Microsoft JhengHei UI', 'Malgun Gothic', 'sans-serif';font-size:12pt;">
<div>I'm a huge fan of checking back to see if the recommended changes brought about the desired result. I'm less of a fan of constantly reconvening to find that the recommended changes never happened.<br>
</div>
<div data-signatureblock="true">
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Jonathan Zuck<br>
President<br>
ACT: The App Association<br>
Www.ACTonline.org<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
<div style="padding-top: 5px; border-top-color: rgb(229, 229, 229); border-top-width: 1px; border-top-style: solid;">
<div><font face=" 'Calibri', 'Segoe UI', 'Meiryo', 'Microsoft YaHei UI', 'Microsoft JhengHei UI', 'Malgun Gothic', 'sans-serif'" style="line-height: 15pt; letter-spacing: 0.02em; font-family: "Calibri", "Segoe UI", "Meiryo", "Microsoft YaHei UI", "Microsoft JhengHei UI", "Malgun Gothic", "sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;"><b>From:</b> <a href="mailto:avri@acm.org" target="_parent">avri</a><br>
<b>Sent:</b> ýFridayý, ýJuneý ý19ý, ý2015 ý1ý:ý34ý ýPM<br>
<b>To:</b> <a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org" target="_parent">Accountability CCWG</a></font></div>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div dir="">
<div id="readingPaneBodyContent">Hi,<br>
<br>
Well, With a continuation of Accountability and Transparency Review Team<br>
every 5 years, we actually to plan to come back every while to check on<br>
the health of the system and decide if something more needs to happen. <br>
The idea of future proofing ignores the fact that the future is<br>
unknown. We do out best today and keep coming back to check if<br>
something needs to be fixed.<br>
<br>
Oh course we need to do the best we can. But we don't need guarantees<br>
against futures we cannot know.<br>
<br>
So contrary to what James hope, I expect us to be back in 5 years to<br>
check and see what we got right and what we didn't get quite right.<br>
<br>
avri<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
On 19-Jun-15 11:06, James Gannon wrote:<br>
> Yes I agree, I think our mindset needs to be doing this once and doing<br>
> this well.<br>
> My fear is that with some models we may face ourselves being back in<br>
> 5/10 years doing Accountability version 2 as we had found that the<br>
> model we went with did not end up providing the full extent of needs<br>
> that the community required.<br>
><br>
> I would want a model that will give us the powers that we have<br>
> identified now, and caters for ones that we have not though of right<br>
> now, ones that may become apparent in 3/5/10 years from now so that we<br>
> don’t need to go through this process again. A model that caters to<br>
> the concepts and processes rather than just the exact powers that we<br>
> are working to at the moment, and a model that will survive the test<br>
> of time, and changes in the world of ICANN over the years to come.<br>
><br>
> -James<br>
><br>
> From: Matthew Shears<br>
> Date: Friday 19 June 2015 11:00<br>
> To: James Gannon, "Drazek, Keith", Roelof Meijer, Alan Greenberg,<br>
> Chris Disspain<br>
> Cc: "accountability-cross-community@icann.org<br>
> <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>"<br>
> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] [Acct-Legal] Memo - Revised Powers Chart,<br>
> Voluntary Model<br>
><br>
> Agree - we are building for 5, 10 + years from now and will see new<br>
> CEOs, new Boards, new community compositions, etc.<br>
><br>
> On 6/19/2015 2:51 PM, James Gannon wrote:<br>
>> Very well put Keith +1.<br>
>><br>
>> -James<br>
>><br>
>> From: <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<br>
>> <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf<br>
>> of "Drazek, Keith"<br>
>> Date: Friday 19 June 2015 10:11<br>
>> To: Roelof Meijer, Alan Greenberg, Chris Disspain<br>
>> Cc: "accountability-cross-community@icann.org<br>
>> <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>"<br>
>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] [Acct-Legal] Memo - Revised Powers Chart,<br>
>> Voluntary Model<br>
>><br>
>> Hi Roelof,<br>
>><br>
>> <br>
>><br>
>> You believe that a future Board would never reject the community’s<br>
>> will. I believe it’s a possibility we need to protect against.<br>
>><br>
>> <br>
>><br>
>> You’re willing to rely on trust in a future, unknown Board. I believe<br>
>> we need to ensure future communities have the tools to hold the Board<br>
>> accountable.<br>
>><br>
>> <br>
>><br>
>> You’re willing to leave ultimate authority with the Board. I believe<br>
>> ultimate authority must be with ICANN’s global multi-stakeholder<br>
>> community through its current and future SO-AC structures.<br>
>><br>
>> <br>
>><br>
>> In the spirit of consensus-building, I hope we’re able to find a way<br>
>> to bridge these gaps. I believe we can.<br>
>><br>
>> <br>
>><br>
>> Best,<br>
>><br>
>> Keith<br>
>><br>
>> <br>
>><br>
>> *From:*Roelof Meijer [mailto:Roelof.Meijer@sidn.nl]<br>
>> *Sent:* Friday, June 19, 2015 9:57 AM<br>
>> *To:* Alan Greenberg; Drazek, Keith; Chris Disspain<br>
>> *Cc:* accountability-cross-community@icann.org<br>
>> <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org><br>
>> *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] [Acct-Legal] Memo - Revised Powers Chart,<br>
>> Voluntary Model<br>
>><br>
>> <br>
>><br>
>> Keith,<br>
>><br>
>> <br>
>><br>
>> I would welcome a reaction to my email?<br>
>><br>
>> <br>
>><br>
>> Cheers,<br>
>><br>
>> <br>
>><br>
>> Roelof<br>
>><br>
>> <br>
>><br>
>> *From: *Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<br>
>> <mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>><br>
>> *Date: *dinsdag 16 juni 2015 04:09<br>
>> *To: *Roelof Meijer <roelof.meijer@sidn.nl<br>
>> <mailto:roelof.meijer@sidn.nl>>, Keith Drazek <kdrazek@verisign.com<br>
>> <mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com>>, Chris Disspain <ceo@auda.org.au<br>
>> <mailto:ceo@auda.org.au>><br>
>> *Cc: *"accountability-cross-community@icann.org<br>
>> <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>"<br>
>> <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<br>
>> <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>><br>
>> *Subject: *Re: [CCWG-ACCT] [Acct-Legal] Memo - Revised Powers Chart,<br>
>> Voluntary Model<br>
>><br>
>> <br>
>><br>
>> This tends to pretty well correlate with the position that most in<br>
>> the ALAC have supported.<br>
>><br>
>> Alan<br>
>><br>
>> At 15/06/2015 03:03 AM, Roelof Meijer wrote:<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> Keith,<br>
>><br>
>> I wonder if with "If a future ICANN Board were to jump the tracks,<br>
>> the community will no longer have the NTIA backstop. Without legal<br>
>> enforceability, the community would have to trust future ICANN Boards<br>
>> and trust future California Attorney Generals. “ you’re not<br>
>> oversimplifying or over-contrasting between the situation with legal<br>
>> enforceability and without.<br>
>><br>
>> I think that in a situation where the board “jump the track”, the<br>
>> community ultimately goes through its process to spill the board and<br>
>> the board refuses to go, that board would be paralyzed in all ways,<br>
>> face shame and defamation individually on a global scale and would<br>
>> ruin their personal careers completely.<br>
>> They would dimply not do that.<br>
>><br>
>> Best,<br>
>><br>
>> Roelof<br>
>><br>
>> From: <Drazek>, Keith Drazek <kdrazek@verisign.com<br>
>> <mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com>><br>
>> Date: zondag 14 juni 2015 03:52<br>
>> To: Chris Disspain <ceo@auda.org.au <mailto:ceo@auda.org.au>><br>
>> Cc: "accountability-cross-community@icann.org<br>
>> <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>"<br>
>> <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<br>
>> <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>><br>
>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] [Acct-Legal] Memo - Revised Powers Chart,<br>
>> Voluntary Model<br>
>><br>
>> Chris,<br>
>><br>
>> NTIA's current enforcement powers are indirect but very real. Through<br>
>> its existing ability to re-bid the IANA Functions contract, NTIA<br>
>> ensures that ICANN and its Board of Directors remain true to its<br>
>> bylaws. That unique role is set to change.<br>
>><br>
>> If a future ICANN Board were to jump the tracks, the community will<br>
>> no longer have the NTIA backstop. Without legal enforceability, the<br>
>> community would have to trust future ICANN Boards and trust future<br>
>> California Attorney Generals. Why shouldn't we instead trust the<br>
>> global multi-stakeholder community itself?<br>
>><br>
>> If a future ICANN community were to try to spill the board, wouldn't<br>
>> we want that consensus decision to be legally enforceable? Or do we<br>
>> want to allow a future Board to tell the community it was wrong and,<br>
>> claiming fiduciary responsibility to the corporation, reject the<br>
>> decision?<br>
>><br>
>> Ultimately, we're deciding whether authority should rest with the<br>
>> ICANN Board and the California AG, or with the ICANN community and<br>
>> the California AG.<br>
>><br>
>> I'm in favor of the latter.<br>
>><br>
>> Regards,<br>
>> Keith<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> On Jun 13, 2015, at 6:08 PM, Chris Disspain <ceo@auda.org.au<br>
>> <mailto:ceo@auda.org.au>> wrote:<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> Hi Paul,<br>
>><br>
>> I was specifically responding to Keith’s point so hardly a non-sequitur.<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> Cheers,<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> Chris<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> On 14 Jun 2015, at 02:29 , Paul Rosenzweig<br>
>> <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com<br>
>> <mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>> wrote:<br>
>><br>
>> Chris<br>
>><br>
>> We need more formal powers for the community because much of the<br>
>> power of the NTIA was informal. The only thing that could replace the<br>
>> NTIA precisely would be the NTIA. I get that you don't like the<br>
>> membership model. But asking why a non-governmental solution is<br>
>> different from a governmental one is just a non sequitur.<br>
>><br>
>> Paul<br>
>><br>
>> --<br>
>> Sent from myMail app for Android<br>
>> Friday, 12 June 2015, 11:12PM -04:00 from Chris Disspain<br>
>> <ceo@auda.org.au <mailto:ceo@auda.org.au>>:<br>
>><br>
>> Greetings All,<br>
>><br>
>> 1. on Becky’s comment below: if that is correct then surely the same<br>
>> applies to the relationship between the SO/AC and its Unincorporated<br>
>> Association. If a court cannot enforce a Board spill by the SOs/ACs<br>
>> then a court can also not make the UA do what the SO or AC wants. Can it?<br>
>><br>
>> 2. on Keith’s comment below: How does the NTIA currently have powers<br>
>> of enforcement over ICANN outside of matters covered in the IANA<br>
>> contract? If NTIA was/is prepared to enter into an Affirmation of<br>
>> Commitment with ICANN which can be terminated by either party and is<br>
>> not legally enforceable, why should we insist on a higher standard?<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> Cheers,<br>
>><br>
>> Chris<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> On 13 Jun 2015, at 02:05 , Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com<br>
>> <https://e-aj.my.com/x-msg:/e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3akdrazek@verisign.com>><br>
>> wrote:<br>
>><br>
>> Thanks Becky,<br>
>><br>
>> I think you highlight a key point.<br>
>><br>
>> Currently, NTIA and the California Attorney General are the only<br>
>> enforcement bodies ensuring ICANN remains committed to its bylaws.<br>
>><br>
>> The membership structure would give some of that authority to the<br>
>> ICANN community through its existing structures -- the SOs and ACs.<br>
>><br>
>> Isn’t that the definition of transitioning the United States<br>
>> government (in its various forms) out of its unique role?<br>
>><br>
>> After NTIA disengages, don’t we want the community to have shared<br>
>> authority for enforcement, rather than leaving it to the California<br>
>> Attorney General alone?<br>
>><br>
>> Regards,<br>
>><br>
>> Keith<br>
>><br>
>> From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<br>
>> <https://e-aj.my.com/x-msg:/e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3aaccountability%2dcross%2dcommunity%2dbounces@icann.org><br>
>> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<br>
>> <https://e-aj.my.com/x-msg:/e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3aaccountability%2dcross%2dcommunity%2dbounces@icann.org>]<br>
>> On Behalf Of Burr, Becky<br>
>><br>
>> Sent: Friday, June 12, 2015 11:07 AM<br>
>><br>
>> To: Roelof Meijer; Accountability Cross Community<br>
>><br>
>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] FW: [Acct-Legal] Memo - Revised Powers<br>
>> Chart, Voluntary Model<br>
>><br>
>> <br>
>><br>
>> Roelof,<br>
>><br>
>> shi<br>
>><br>
>> As I understand it, Courts view the bylaws as a contract between a<br>
>> corporation and its members/shareholders. If ICANN has no members,<br>
>> the bylaws are not a contract with anyone, so the only party with<br>
>> authority to enforce would be the Attorney General. (As discussed<br>
>> elsewhere, this is extremely unlikely to happen outside of a<br>
>> fraud/corruption situation.)<br>
>><br>
>> <br>
>><br>
>> The fact that members of SO’s are legal entities doesn’t change<br>
>> this. Unless they are members of ICANN, they are not a party to the<br>
>> bylaws “contract.”<br>
>><br>
>> <br>
>><br>
>> B<br>
>><br>
>> J. Beckwith Burr<br>
>><br>
>> Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel and Chief Privacy Officer<br>
>><br>
>> 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20006<br>
>><br>
>> Office: + 1.202.533.2932 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 /<br>
>> becky.burr@neustar.biz<br>
>> <https://e-aj.my.com/x-msg:/e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3abecky.burr@neustar.biz><br>
>> / http://www.neustar.biz <http://www.neustar.biz/><br>
>><br>
>> <br>
>><br>
>> From: Roelof Meijer <Roelof.Meijer@sidn.nl<br>
>> <https://e-aj.my.com/x-msg:/e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3aRoelof.Meijer@sidn.nl>><br>
>><br>
>> Date: Friday, June 12, 2015 at 8:18 AM<br>
>><br>
>> To: Accountability Community<br>
>> <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<br>
>> <https://e-aj.my.com/x-msg:/e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3aaccountability%2dcross%2dcommunity@icann.org>><br>
>><br>
>> Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] FW: [Acct-Legal] Memo - Revised Powers Chart,<br>
>> Voluntary Model<br>
>><br>
>> <br>
>><br>
>> Dear all, and especially dear legal colleagues,<br>
>><br>
>> <br>
>><br>
>> The memo states:<br>
>><br>
>> <br>
>><br>
>> "If there were a dispute between ICANN and an SO/AC, the parties<br>
>> could agree to an IRP and binding arbitration, but there would be no<br>
>> mechanism to restrain ICANN from acting contrary to these decisions,<br>
>> nor would there be a mechanism to challenge an arbitration decision<br>
>> that exceeded the scope of authority of the arbitration panel,<br>
>> outside an unlikely, independent intervention by the California<br>
>> Attorney General. "<br>
>><br>
>> <br>
>><br>
>> I understand that the SO/AC’s, not being legal entities, cannot take<br>
>> legal action to enforce. However, does that really equal "no<br>
>> mechanism to restrain ICANN from acting contrary to these decisions”?<br>
>><br>
>> <br>
>><br>
>> Most members of SO’s are legal entities, many members of AC’s are<br>
>> too, couldn’t those members, being affected parties, individually or<br>
>> collectively take legal action?<br>
>><br>
>> <br>
>><br>
>> Alternatively, I would assume that before the ultimate step of<br>
>> talking legal action against ICANN, the community will have escalated<br>
>> through its powers and thus has completed the procedure to recall the<br>
>> entire board. The power to recall the entire board will have to be<br>
>> combined with the power to in one way or another appoint an interim<br>
>> board. So, the community, through due process, recalls the board. The<br>
>> board, in contradiction with the bylaws, refuses “to go”. The<br>
>> community has recalled the board and thus, through the defined<br>
>> process (also in the bylaws), appoints an interim board. According to<br>
>> the bylaws, this interim board is now the legal representative of<br>
>> ICANN. And can take the required legal action (if necessary) to force<br>
>> the “old” board to go away and get lost.<br>
>><br>
>> <br>
>><br>
>> Would one of these two work?<br>
>><br>
>> <br>
>><br>
>> Best,<br>
>><br>
>> <br>
>><br>
>> Roelof Meijer<br>
>><br>
>> <br>
>><br>
>> From: <Hofheimer>, "Joshua T." <jhofheimer@sidley.com<br>
>> <https://e-aj.my.com/x-msg:/e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3ajhofheimer@sidley.com>><br>
>><br>
>> Date: donderdag 11 juni 2015 06:09<br>
>><br>
>> To: "ccwg-accountability5@icann.org<br>
>> <https://e-aj.my.com/x-msg:/e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3accwg%2daccountability5@icann.org>"<br>
>> <ccwg-accountability5@icann.org<br>
>> <https://e-aj.my.com/x-msg:/e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3accwg%2daccountability5@icann.org>><br>
>><br>
>> Cc: Sidley ICANN CCWG <sidleyicannccwg@sidley.com<br>
>> <https://e-aj.my.com/x-msg:/e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3asidleyicannccwg@sidley.com>>,<br>
>> ICANN-Adler <ICANN@adlercolvin.com<br>
>> <https://e-aj.my.com/x-msg:/e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3aICANN@adlercolvin.com>><br>
>><br>
>> Subject: [Acct-Legal] Memo - Revised Powers Chart, Voluntary Model<br>
>><br>
>> <br>
>><br>
>> Dear Legal Sub-Team,<br>
>><br>
>> <br>
>><br>
>> Further to the CCWG request on the call last Friday, attached is a<br>
>> memo revising the summary chart describing the viability of the<br>
>> enumerated powers under the three models – Member model, Designator<br>
>> Model and Voluntary Model. We also explore the impact of not having<br>
>> the SO/ACs organized legal persons to represent their interests.<br>
>><br>
>> <br>
>><br>
>> Cheers,<br>
>><br>
>> Josh<br>
>><br>
>> JOSHUA HOFHEIMER<br>
>><br>
>> Sidley Austin LLP<br>
>><br>
>> +1.213.896.6061 (LA direct)<br>
>><br>
>> +1.650.565.7561 (PA direct)<br>
>><br>
>> +1.323.708.2405 (cell)<br>
>><br>
>> jhofheimer@sidley.com<br>
>> <https://e-aj.my.com/x-msg:/e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3ajhofheimer@sidley.com><br>
>><br>
>> http://www.sidley.com <http://www.sidley.com/><br>
>><br>
>> <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=><br>
>><br>
>> SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP<br>
>><br>
>> <br>
>><br>
>> <br>
>><br>
>> From: ccwg-accountability5-bounces@icann.org<br>
>> <https://e-aj.my.com/x-msg:/e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3accwg%2daccountability5%2dbounces@icann.org><br>
>> [mailto:ccwg-accountability5-bounces@icann.org<br>
>> <https://e-aj.my.com/x-msg:/e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3accwg%2daccountability5%2dbounces@icann.org>]<br>
>> On Behalf Of Hilton, Tyler<br>
>><br>
>> Sent: Monday, June 08, 2015 8:29 PM<br>
>><br>
>> To: ccwg-accountability5@icann.org<br>
>> <https://e-aj.my.com/x-msg:/e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3accwg%2daccountability5@icann.org><br>
>><br>
>> Subject: [Acct-Legal] Memo - Responses to CCWG GAC Questions<br>
>><br>
>> <br>
>><br>
>> Dear Legal Sub-team,<br>
>><br>
>> <br>
>><br>
>> Attached please find a memo responding to the list of questions from<br>
>> the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) provided to us on June 5, 2015.<br>
>><br>
>> <br>
>><br>
>> Best,<br>
>><br>
>> <br>
>><br>
>> TYLER HILTON<br>
>><br>
>> Associate<br>
>><br>
>> Sidley Austin LLP<br>
>><br>
>> 555 West Fifth Street<br>
>><br>
>> Los Angeles, CA 90013<br>
>><br>
>> +1.213.896.6130<br>
>><br>
>> thilton@sidley.com<br>
>> <https://e-aj.my.com/x-msg:/e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3athilton@sidley.com><br>
>><br>
>> http://www.sidley.com <http://www.sidley.com/><br>
>><br>
>> <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=><br>
>><br>
>> SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP<br>
>><br>
>> <br>
>><br>
>> <br>
>><br>
>> ****************************************************************************************************<br>
>><br>
>> This e-mail is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is<br>
>> privileged or confidential.<br>
>><br>
>> If you are not the intended recipient, please delete the e-mail and<br>
>> any attachments and notify us<br>
>><br>
>> immediately.<br>
>><br>
>> ****************************************************************************************************<br>
>><br>
>> _______________________________________________<br>
>><br>
>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>
>><br>
>> Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<br>
>> <https://e-aj.my.com/x-msg:/e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3aAccountability%2dCross%2dCommunity@icann.org><br>
>><br>
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community<br>
>><br>
>> <br>
>><br>
>> _______________________________________________<br>
>><br>
>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>
>><br>
>> Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<br>
>> <https://e-aj.my.com/x-msg:/1/compose?To=Accountability%2dCross%2dCommunity@icann.org><br>
>><br>
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> _______________________________________________<br>
>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>
>> Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<br>
>> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org><br>
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community<br>
>><br>
>> _______________________________________________<br>
>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>
>> Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<br>
>> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org><br>
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> _______________________________________________<br>
>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>
>> Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community<br>
><br>
> -- <br>
> Matthew Shears<br>
> Global Internet Policy and Human Rights<br>
> Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)<br>
> + 44 (0)771 247 2987<br>
><br>
><br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>
> Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<br>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community<br>
<br>
<br>
---<br>
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.<br>
https://www.avast.com/antivirus<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<br>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>