<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
I agree, well put.<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 7/8/2015 4:27 PM, Burr, Becky wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:D1C2FFE1.3772A%25becky.burr@neustar.biz"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=windows-1252">
<div>
<div>
<div>+1</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: 11pt;"><span
style="font-size: 9pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">J.
Beckwith Burr<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: 11pt;"><b><span
style="font-size: 9pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;
color: rgb(6, 134, 88);">Neustar, Inc. /</span></b><span
style="font-size: 9pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;"> Deputy
General Counsel and Chief Privacy Officer<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: 11pt;"><span
style="font-size: 9pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">1775
Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20006<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: 11pt;"><span
style="font-size: 9pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;
color: rgb(6, 134, 88);">Office</span><span
style="font-size: 9pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">:
+ 1.202.533.2932 <span style="color: rgb(6, 134, 88); "> Mobile</span>:
+1.202.352.6367 <span style="color: rgb(6, 134, 88); ">/ <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz">becky.burr@neustar.biz</a></a> /
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.neustar.biz">www.neustar.biz</a></span></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<span id="OLK_SRC_BODY_SECTION">
<div style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt;
text-align:left; color:black; BORDER-BOTTOM: medium none;
BORDER-LEFT: medium none; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0in; PADDING-LEFT:
0in; PADDING-RIGHT: 0in; BORDER-TOP: #b5c4df 1pt solid;
BORDER-RIGHT: medium none; PADDING-TOP: 3pt">
<span style="font-weight:bold">From: </span><Drazek>,
Keith Drazek <<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com">kdrazek@verisign.com</a>><br>
<span style="font-weight:bold">Date: </span>Wednesday, July
8, 2015 at 8:08 AM<br>
<span style="font-weight:bold">To: </span>"<a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr">Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr</a></a>"
<<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr">Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr</a>>,
"<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:cherine.chalaby@icann.org">cherine.chalaby@icann.org</a>"
<<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:cherine.chalaby@icann.org">cherine.chalaby@icann.org</a>><br>
<span style="font-weight:bold">Cc: </span>Accountability
Community <<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org">accountability-cross-community@icann.org</a>><br>
<span style="font-weight:bold">Subject: </span>Re:
[CCWG-ACCT] Unintended Consequences of the CCWG proposal<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml"
xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office"
xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word"
xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml"
xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 14 (filtered
medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Consolas;
panose-1:2 11 6 9 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";
color:black;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
pre
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted Char";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";
color:black;}
p.MsoListParagraph, li.MsoListParagraph, div.MsoListParagraph
{mso-style-priority:34;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";
color:black;}
span.HTMLPreformattedChar
{mso-style-name:"HTML Preformatted Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted";
font-family:Consolas;
color:black;}
span.EmailStyle20
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
<div bgcolor="white" link="blue" vlink="purple" lang="EN-US">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11pt;
font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73,
125);">I fully support Mathieu’s points.
Exceptionally well said.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11pt;
font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73,
125);"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11pt;
font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73,
125);">Regards,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11pt;
font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73,
125);">Keith<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11pt;
font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73,
125);"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF
1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size: 10pt;
font-family: Tahoma, sans-serif; color:
windowtext;">From:</span></b><span
style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Tahoma,
sans-serif; color: windowtext;">
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org">accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org</a>
[<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org">mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org</a>]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Mathieu Weill<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, July 08, 2015 7:41 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> Cherine Chalaby<br>
<b>Cc:</b> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org">accountability-cross-community@icann.org</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Unintended
Consequences of the CCWG proposal<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt">Dear
Cherine, <br>
<br>
Thank you very much for taking the time to articulate
your concerns and share them openly on this list. This
is very useful to achieve what we called for in Buenos
Aires : a fruitful dialogue with mutual respect. Your
points are very useful to highlight what we need to keep
in mind and improve, including the communication about
our proposals.
<br>
<br>
The comments I make below are not CCWG comments, but
rather personal thoughts about the purpose of Enhancing
Icann's Accountability. Sometimes we get lost in the
details of the mechanisms and tend to lose track of the
reasons why we go through this process. That is why this
note is not much about the mechanisms but rather the
vision our group is developing.
<br>
<br>
If you find it appropriate, feel free to share these
comments with the rest of the Board. I am certain that
the concerns you raise are shared by other Board
members, and it is certainly valuable to have this
dialogue with the whole Board.
<br>
<br>
Unintended Consequence 1: Weakening ICANN's Governance
model ?<br>
<br>
The headline of this section highlights the difference
of perspective one can have of Icann's Governance model.
I believe personnaly that the empowered community
strengthens Icann's Governance model by setting up a
*mutual accountability* between the Board and the
Community, instead of the currrent model where the Board
is fully empowered on all issues : it has the last word
on Bylaws, budgets, policies, disputes, etc. The only
*perceived* backstop is the NTIA, thanks to the leverage
provided by the IANA contract and the AoC. <br>
<br>
It is true that the CCWG proposals have focused so far
on providing more powers to the Community. But I insist
the underlying model is about mutual accountability,
separation of powers. The community holds the Board
accountable through this limited but powerful set of
rights ; the Board is still in charge of running the
corporations and holds SO and ACs accountable in terms
of policy making or structural improvements. SO/AC
accountability is an item of work we are currently
investigating further, taking into account the comments
we have received so far. <br>
<br>
So both bodies are selected by the community, both
bodies must be accountable, both bodies pursue the same
Purpose, which is the Purpose of the organisation. The
big change is that they are mutually accountable and
powers are shared.
<br>
<br>
Unintended Consequence 2: Threatening ICANN's
financial stability ?<br>
<br>
In this section you mention three threats : budget
paralysis, instability of the business environment and
unfairness to minority interests. As a reminder the
current proposal would enable the community, if a SO/AC
approved a petition against a budget or strategic plan,
to vote on this budget. Only if 2/3 of the communitty
votes against the budget or strategic plan would it be
rejected. This means that a budget that would secure
support from only 1/3 of the community would not be
blocked.
<br>
<br>
We are aware of the need to review our proposals to
mitigate any risk of budget paralysis, and provide more
details on the continuity measures in case a budget
would be rejected. Just like the Board usually asks to
be trusted by the Community, I guess we should also
consider the opposite : can we seriously imagine a
situation where more than 2/3 of the community would
become so obsessed with their respective "pet" projects
that they would jeopardize Icann's stability ? Does a
strategic plan or budget that gets less than 33% support
deserve to be carried forward ? There needs to be a
balance found, and I am confident this can be achieved.
<br>
<br>
Regarding business environment stability I must admit I
can't really see how our proposals are degrading the
current situation. Icann policy decisions often are
decried as creating instability for business, I have
difficulties anticipating that budget decisions by
themselves would have such an impact ? <br>
<br>
And with regards to unfairness for a minority, I believe
your point raises a fundamental question : should Icann
be funding anything "for the benefit of a minority" if
the rest of the community disagrees ? If Icann decisions
are based on consensus and aim at fulfilling a common
purpose, then I would argue that no project should raise
opposition by 2 thirds of the community, even though
direct beneficiaries might be a subset of stakeholders
only.
<br>
<br>
In conclusion on this point, budgets and strategic plans
are tough, and I know that. Especially in the
multistakeholder environment where bottom up is key. And
it is a key responsibility for the Board to define these
plans and budgets not only so that they enable
continuity of operations, but also so that they are
supported by the community. This means that the Board
needs to ensure, not only that it takes input into
account but also that it gets buy-in. This is in my
opinion, what our proposals will enable to achieve :
greater alignment behind the strategy and budgets, for
the benefit of the Purpose of Icann.
<br>
<br>
<br>
Unintended Consequence 3: Dysfunctional Board ? <br>
<br>
Your concern is that the threat of removal of Board
members without justification would lead to Board
members fearing the loss of their seats if they do not
adhere to the wishes of the constituency which appointed
them. This concern has been raised by others in our
public comment and we have launched additional work to
see how best to address this.
<br>
<br>
While I agree with you that a Board that would function
as a representative body would not be appropriate, I
also have to question whether a Board functioning on the
basis of the addition of 16+ individual views (which are
also subjective and certainly have no way to exclude
some personal agendas) would be more, or less,
appropriate to ensure that Icann fulfills its Mission. I
see no contradiction between the Board being a place for
debates, sometimes clashes, then reconciliation behind a
common goal, and the fact that the Board would then act
as a body in the interest of the Purpose of the
organization (note that I am not mentioning the the
interest of the organization itself but its purpose
here).
<br>
<br>
You have more experience than I have, but it seems to me
that most Boards across the globe acknowledge the fact
that shareholders (or stakeholders) appoint Board
members, that some of these Board members take the
interests of certain shareholders to heart, and that
they can be removed at will. To my knowlege this is the
situation in most corporations, as well as in many
membership organizations.
<br>
<br>
Being a Board member is not a "regular" job. It is
always a service, to a company, to a community, and it
is not always rewarding : the CEO gets the media
attention and fancy presentations when everything's ok
while you work in the background, and the Board members
are liable, and people turn to them when things go
wrong. I believe accepting the fact that one can be
removed at any time would actually enhance Board
member's ability to contribute : it reminds everyone out
of the Board that THEY appointed you, and could remove
you if need be. And until then, you are doing your best
to serve the Purpose of Icann.
<br>
<br>
<br>
To conclude, I hope we can pursue this dialogue and, at
the same time, focus our efforts to deliver proposals in
time. We need Board members inputs, we also need your
support and efforts to get to a point of consensus that
is sufficient to get approval in Dublin. There is no
question to me that we are all in this together, trying
to demonstrate the value of the multistakeholder model
and its ability to "up its game" to face the challenge
of the transition. This implies that we all, co-chairs,
members, leaders of Icann, feel accountable to reaching
consensus. <br>
<br>
Best,<br>
Mathieu<br>
PS: For full disclosure, I acknowledge that in my role
as co Chair of the CCWG-Accountability I can be removed
without cause at any point (some argue that I should say
"be relieved") ;-)<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Le 07/07/2015 08:45, Cherine
Chalaby a écrit :<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal">Dear Mathieu and the CCWG group, <o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">In Buenos Aires, I attended
most of the sessions on the CCWG proposal and made
several comments. I wish to share these comments
in writing with you and the
accountability-cross-community group as you
prepare for the F2F meeting in Paris. As I said
in Buenos Aires, please do not take my comments as
fierce criticism but more as constructive
suggestions. <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Let me start by saying that as
a Director of the Board, I believe in (a)
appropriate empowerment of the community within
the multi-stakeholder model, (b) strengthening of
the the bottom-up process, and (c) enhancing
accountability without destabilising the security
and stability of ICANN or introducing
opportunities for capture.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">In my personal capacity as a
member of the community, I support the CWG
proposal, but I have concerns that the CCWG draft
proposal, discussed in Buenos Aires, could lead
to three unintended consequences that could
seriously damage ICANN in the long run. These
unintended consequences apply to both the
Membership model as well as the Designator
(Hybrid) model. <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><u>Unintended Consequence 1:
Weakening ICANN's Governance model</u></b><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">The
CCWG has asserted that the “empowered community”
will have control over the Board in the following
areas: Strategic Plan, Operating Plan, Budget and
Bylaws changes, fundamental or not. As a
consequence, there will be no decision that the
Board can make in those core fiduciary
responsibilities that cannot be rejected or
stopped by the proposed new community-empowerment
mechanism.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">The
CCWG draft proposal indicates that the Board would
always have the ability to exercise its own
judgment after the community-empowerment mechanism
makes its decisions. But the proposal also states
that if the community-empowrment mechanism does
not like what the Board has done, it can remove
the Board individually or collectively. Hence,
the new community-empowerment mechanism in fact
has the ultimate power to control the activities
of ICANN. While as a community member who
believes in the bottom-up model, I support the
principles behind this objective, I believe it is
vitally important that these newly transferred
powers are paired with the transfer of
corresponding accountability. The CCWG proposal
in effect creates two bodies – one that is
empowered (the community) and a separate one that
is accountable (the Board). This, in my view,
breaches a fundamental principle of governance,
weakens the overall structure of ICANN, and is not
sustainable. <o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><u>Unintended Consequence
2: Threatening ICANN's financial
stability </u></b><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">The
CCWG draft proposal gives the community the right
to reject the Board approved budget. I have not
yet seen proposed mechanisms to prevent the
following from happening: <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">(a)
Budget paralysis, whereby members of the community
will vote against each other rather than be
accountable to each other. For example, given
budget limitations, what will stop members from
voting against funding projects that do not
facilitate their personal interest. This could
lead to a situation where the budget is never
adopted or takes too long to adopt,
therefore jeopardising ICANN’s ability to deliver
on key commitments such as contractual compliance
enforcement , including issues relating to
enhanced consumer protections and enhanced IP and
rights protections, and other initiatives
important to the community. This budget
paralysis could also risk the stable and continued
funding of the IANA functions. That is why I
suggested in Buenos Aires that a commitment to
fund the IANA functions should be separated from
this budgetary process and embodied in the ICANN
Bylaws.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph">(b) Threat to
the stability of the business environment in which
many have invested and rely on ICANN’s ability to
maintain, as under the new proposal, members of
the community will have the right to reject the
budget, but not a single member of the community
will be accountable for the budget bottom line. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph">(c) Unfairness, where
the financial needs of the minority will seldom be
fulfilled because final budget decisions will be
made as a result of a majority voting by members
of the community who do not have an obligation to
act in the collective interest of all
stakeholders.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph">it is worth noting that
the current budget process is robust and
transparent and ensures that none of the above
consequences can occur. It also ensures community
participation and it can always be improved. <o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><u>Unintended Consequence
3: Dysfunctional Board</u></b><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">The CCWG draft proposal gives
the community the right to remove an individual
board member. The CCWG proposed mechanism for
implementing this right will in my view lead to
the creation of two classes of board members.
Those that will act in sole the interest of the
SO/AC that has elected them, and the others who
will be free to act in the collective interest
of all stakeholders. The threat of removal
without significant justification runs the risk
of having individual Board members fear the loss
of their seats if they do not adhere to the
wishes of the constituency from which they
come. This could turn the Board into a
representative body, or a parliament, i.e. a
place where opposing interests clash and are
reconciled, rather than the present situation in
which all Board members are obligated to act as
a body in the best interests of the overall
organization.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Furthermore, Board
deliberations and decisions would be at risk of
being driven to a large extent by subjective
goals and personal compromise.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">I do not have concrete
suggestions to prevent these unintended
consequences from happening, but I sincerely
hope that the CCWG takes my concerns into
account when it prepares its 2nd draft proposal
at its F2F meeting in Paris. <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Thank you for listening.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Regards<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Cherine Chalaby<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<blockquote
style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On 6 Jul 2015, at 22:10,
Mathieu Weill <<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr">mathieu.weill@afnic.fr</a>>
wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Dear Colleagues,<br>
<br>
In anticipation of our call tomorrow, here are
a few points outlining the current thinking
about the face to face in Paris.<br>
<br>
Goal of the meeting :<br>
2 weeks before the publication of our second
(and hopefully last) WS1 public comment the
overarching goal will be to find the common
views that will be detailed in our 2nd draft
proposals. The expected outcome of the meeting
is that we find common ground on most of, if
not all the open discussions.<br>
<br>
Agenda of the meeting :<br>
Our plans are to work 8.30-18.00 local time
(CEST, UTC+2), with lunch break from 12.00 to
13.00.<br>
<br>
Our plan is to define a topic based agenda,
including :<br>
- WP3 proposals (emerging issues)<br>
- Community mechanism model (including
thorough Q&A with lawyers)<br>
- modalities of of community mechanisms<br>
- Removal / recall Board members refinements<br>
- Government input related discussions (the BA
GAC communiqué announced upcoming
contributions before Paris)<br>
- IRP refinements<br>
<br>
We might have to plan sessions on the most
difficult topics on day 1 and on day 2 to
enable consensus building.<br>
<br>
Please let us know either on list or during
the call tomorrow if you have specific
suggestions or feedbacks regarding this plan
for the meeting.<br>
<br>
Best regards,<br>
<br>
-- <br>
*****************************<br>
Mathieu WEILL<br>
AFNIC - directeur général<br>
Tél: +33 1 39 30 83 06<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr">mathieu.weill@afnic.fr</a><br>
Twitter : @mathieuweill<br>
*****************************<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=AwMGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=JCr2GFZkZoXBUWV4fYtrTpyge15IvMjomyUz83QZSqs&s=2kXNtLp6gJbc8dC0pluue3-8vQJT6q8oKKiBXCdmNYc&e=">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<pre>-- <o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>*****************************<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>Mathieu WEILL<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>AFNIC - directeur général<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>Tél: +33 1 39 30 83 06<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr">mathieu.weill@afnic.fr</a><o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>Twitter : @mathieuweill<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>*****************************<o:p></o:p></pre>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</span>
<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">--
Matthew Shears
Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
+ 44 (0)771 247 2987</pre>
</body>
</html>