<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=windows-1252"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><span style="font-family: 'Verdana'; font-size: 13px; color: rgb(102, 102, 102);">All,<div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">I think Roelof makes some good points but then I would wouldn’t I. I have been speaking to a number of CCWG folks to try to at least bridge the gap between the perceptions of the Board and the perceptions of the CCWG. If anyone has any ideas how we can do more of that I think it would be most helpful.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">I note for example Greg’s email on response to Roelof about participation. I’m clear that the Board is participating and not intervening. What would help to delver that message to the CCWG?</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><div apple-content-edited="true" class=""><p class="p1"><br class=""></p>
<p class="p2">Cheers,</p>
<p class="p3"><br class=""></p>
<p class="p2">Chris</p>
</div>
<br class=""><div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On 9 Sep 2015, at 02:53 , Roelof Meijer <<a href="mailto:Roelof.Meijer@sidn.nl" class="">Roelof.Meijer@sidn.nl</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=""><div style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;" class=""><div style="font-size: 14px;" class=""><font class="">All,</font></div><div style="font-size: 14px;" class=""><br class=""></div><div style="font-size: 14px;" class="">Below I pasted some quotes from this thread. And I cannot but wonder. What are we getting so wound up about? Did we really expected a “yes, perfect, let’s implement this straight away”?</div><div style="font-size: 14px;" class="">But what makes me wonder most is why, for heaven’s sake, do we see the board as a unity of ill-doers? </div><div style="font-size: 14px;" class=""><br class=""></div><div style="font-size: 14px;" class="">The board members that have participated in our work are individuals that I hold in high esteem. Quite a few of them tutored me when I entered this miraculous world of ICANN quite a few years ago. </div><div style="font-size: 14px;" class="">They gave me different angles and insights, pointed out different possible views and were open to discussion, disagreement and new ideas. And were tirelessly working to improve the way we work for the benefit of the global internet community. And most of them did not change a bit after they decided to help us all forward even more, make a personal sacrifice and join ICANN's board.</div><div style="font-size: 14px;" class=""><br class=""></div><div style="font-size: 14px;" class="">In my opinion, there’s no collective single opinion in any wrong direction in this board. There is however, a collective intellect and a level of individual integrity and selfishness that one does not easily find in executive structures. They deserve our respect. Which, no, does not mean that we cannot have different opinions.</div><div style="font-size: 14px;" class=""><br class=""></div><div style="font-size: 14px;" class=""><font class="">When Steve Crocker writes:</font></div><div style="font-size: 14px; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;" class=""><font face="Consolas,monospace" class=""><br class=""></font></div><div style="font-size: 14px; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;" class=""><i class=""><font face="Consolas,monospace" class="">"</font>We support the important improvements for ICANN's accountability contained in the CCWG-Accountability's 2nd Draft Proposal. We endorse the goal of enforceability of these accountability mechanisms, and we believe that it is possible to implement the key elements of the proposal. We want to work together to achieve the elements of the proposal within the community's timeline while meeting the NTIA requirements.”</i></div><div style="font-size: 14px; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;" class=""><br class=""></div><div style="font-size: 14px; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;" class="">he in my opinion sends a very clear message that we should happily receive, as he commits the board. Let’s await the promised details of their ideas and keep engaged.</div><div style="font-size: 14px; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;" class="">Why should we want to send messages like the following, what do we hope to achieve? Frustrate the process to a halt?</div><div style="font-size: 14px; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;" class="">Read the quotes below, and note the interpretations of what was read or heard: as in “while you say, …. I see…”, “when you say, … you mean.."</div><div style="font-size: 14px; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;" class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: Cambria;" class=""><i class=""><span lang="EN-US" class=""><font size="3" class=""><font face="Calibri" class="">"While you say the the Single member is just a implementation issue, I </font></font></span></i><i style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;" class=""><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: Calibri;" class=""><font size="3" class="">see you attacking one of the fundamental principles, in fact the </font></span></i><i style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;" class=""><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: Calibri;" class=""><font size="3" class="">keystone of the CCWG proposal."</font></span></i></div><div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;" class=""><i class=""><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: Calibri;" class=""><font size="3" class=""> </font></span></i></div><div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;" class=""><i class=""><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: Calibri;" class=""><font size="3" class="">"I see in the Board's response a fear of the community and of the all the </font></span></i><i style="font-size: 12pt;" class=""><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: Calibri;" class=""><font size="3" class="">bad things we might do if we were not kept tightly in check"</font></span></i></div><div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;" class=""><i class=""><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: Calibri;" class=""><font size="3" class=""> </font></span></i></div><div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;" class=""><i class=""><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: Calibri;" class=""><font size="3" class="">"It should not come as a surprise that ICANN's current structure does not want changes. Nothing is more natural in a change process than for those who see some loss of control or authority to oppose it. It is a very natural human reaction."<o:p class=""></o:p></font></span></i></div><div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;" class=""><i class=""><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: Calibri;" class=""><font size="3" class=""> </font></span></i></div><div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;" class=""><i class=""><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: Calibri;" class=""><font size="3" class="">"for too long ICANN the corporation has operated according to the priorities of the legal dept, and especially Jones Day, with the board-staff simply taking direction from its lawyers (in-house and out-house), putting the corporation first and the community last" <o:p class=""></o:p></font></span></i></div><div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;" class=""><i class=""><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: Calibri;" class=""><font size="3" class=""> </font></span></i></div><div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;" class=""><i class=""><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: Calibri;" class=""><font size="3" class="">"When you say you agree to a thing in principle you mean that you have not the slightest intention of carrying it out in practice."<o:p class=""></o:p></font></span></i></div><div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;" class=""><i class=""><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: Calibri;" class=""><font size="3" class=""> </font></span></i></div><div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;" class=""><font size="3" class=""><i class=""><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: Calibri;" class="">"And I, for one, do not want the transition </span></i><i class=""><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: Calibri;" class="">badly enough that I would capitulate to the Board's effort to completely </span></i><i class=""><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: Calibri;" class="">distort the proposed process."</span></i></font></div><div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;" class=""><i class=""><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: Calibri;" class=""><font size="3" class=""> </font></span></i></div><div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;" class=""><i class=""><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: Calibri;" class=""><font size="3" class="">"I understand why the Board does not want to yield power. That is precisely </font></span></i><i style="font-size: 12pt;" class=""><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: Calibri;" class=""><font size="3" class="">why it must."</font></span></i></div><div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;" class=""><i class=""><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: Calibri;" class=""><font size="3" class=""> </font></span></i></div><div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;" class=""><i class=""><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: Calibri;" class=""><font size="3" class="">"The effort to spin the replacement recommendation as just </font></span></i><i style="font-size: 12pt;" class=""><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: Calibri;" class=""><font size="3" class="">operationalization is impressive."</font></span></i></div><div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;" class=""><i class=""><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: Calibri;" class=""><font size="3" class=""> </font></span></i></div><div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: Cambria;" class=""><i style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;" class=""><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: Calibri;" class=""><font size="3" class="">"not surrender and let the Board have complete control </font></span></i><i style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;" class=""><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: Calibri;" class=""><font size="3" class="">without any possibility of ever being subject to oversight ever again"</font></span></i></div></div><div style="font-size: 14px; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;" class=""><br class=""></div><div style="font-size: 14px; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;" class=""><br class=""></div><div style="font-size: 14px; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;" class=""><br class=""></div><div style="font-size: 14px; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;" class="">Let’s all sit back a bit and reflect. On ourselves…</div><div style="font-size: 14px; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;" class=""><font face="Consolas,monospace" class=""><br class=""></font></div><div style="font-size: 12px; font-family: Consolas, monospace;" class=""><div class=""><div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: Cambria;" class=""><span lang="NL" style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;" class=""><br class=""></span></div><div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: Cambria;" class=""><span lang="NL" style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;" class="">Cheers,<o:p class=""></o:p></span></div><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: Cambria;"><span lang="NL" style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;" class=""> </span></p><div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: Cambria;" class=""><span lang="NL" style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;" class="">Roelof Meijer<o:p class=""></o:p></span></div><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: Cambria;"><span lang="NL" style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;" class=""> </span></p><p style="margin: 0px; font-size: 10px; font-family: Arial;" class=""></p><div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: Cambria;" class=""><span lang="NL" style="font-size: 8pt; font-family: Arial; color: gray;" class="">SIDN | Meander 501 | 6825 MD | P.O. Box 5022 | 6802 EA | ARNHEM | THE NETHERLANDS<br class="">T +31 (0)26 352 55 00 | M +31 (0)6 11 395 775 | F +31 (0)26 352 55 05 <span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class=""><a href="mailto:roelof.meijer@sidn.nl" class=""><span style="color: blue;" class="">roelof.meijer@sidn.nl</span></a><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>|<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><a href="http://www.sidn.nl/" class=""><span style="color: gray;" class="">www.sidn.nl</span></a></span><span lang="NL" style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri;" class=""><o:p class=""></o:p></span></div></div></div></div><div style="font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-size: 12px; font-family: Consolas, monospace;" class=""><br class=""></div><div style="font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-size: 12px; font-family: Consolas, monospace;" class="">On 07-09-15 20:14, "<a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org" class="">accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org</a><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>on behalf of Avri Doria" <<a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org" class="">accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org</a><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>on behalf of<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><a href="mailto:avri@acm.org" class="">avri@acm.org</a>> wrote:</div><div style="font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-size: 12px; font-family: Consolas, monospace;" class=""><br class=""></div><blockquote id="MAC_OUTLOOK_ATTRIBUTION_BLOCKQUOTE" style="font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-size: 12px; font-family: Consolas, monospace; border-left-color: rgb(181, 196, 223); border-left-width: 5px; border-left-style: solid; padding: 0px 0px 0px 5px; margin: 0px 0px 0px 5px;" class="" type="cite"><div class="">Hi,</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">First, my perceptions are not colored by Trust. I trust the Board and I</div><div class="">trust that you are all well intentioned people who are doing the best</div><div class="">you can for ICANN. I believe that none of you has an ulterior motive of</div><div class="">personal advantage for the positions you take. I go so far in my trust</div><div class="">of the Board members as being among those who do not believe that a</div><div class="">Board member would ever take a position just because it would help him</div><div class="">get elected and in the future would never believe that a Board member</div><div class="">would change her position due to a concern with being removed from the</div><div class="">Board. I am sure that each and every Board member would resign from the</div><div class="">Board if they believed their effect were deleterious on ICANN and the</div><div class="">Internet.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">My issue has to with with different perspectives. Perspective from the</div><div class="">Board that holds all the power, and from the community that wishes to</div><div class="">become empowered, at leas to a degree.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">While you say the the Single member is just a implementation issue, I</div><div class="">see you attacking one of the fundamental principles, in fact the</div><div class="">keystone of the CCWG proposal.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">I see in the Board's response a fear of the community and of the all the</div><div class="">bad things we might do if we were not kept tightly in check. I think</div><div class="">this is problematic and may be a barrier to finding a solution to the</div><div class="">current impasse.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Some inset comments below.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">On 07-Sep-15 04:22, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote:</div><blockquote id="MAC_OUTLOOK_ATTRIBUTION_BLOCKQUOTE" style="border-left-color: rgb(181, 196, 223); border-left-width: 5px; border-left-style: solid; padding: 0px 0px 0px 5px; margin: 0px 0px 0px 5px;" class="" type="cite"><div class="">Hi Avri,</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">it is not easy for me to disagree with you. In most of the areas where we work together we have consensus or rough consensus. But here we have one of this seldom cases of disagreement. I recognize your statement but I am asking myself whether it is grounded on facts or on mistrust?</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">What are the facts? For nearly all CCWG building blocks we have an agreement:</div><div class="">•<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Community empowerment (Agreeement)</div></blockquote><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">I do not see the Board as agreeing with the basic proposal. Maybe it is</div><div class="">a matter of degree. The Board wishes to empower the community to a lower</div><div class="">extent than the community considers empowerment. As explained by other,</div><div class="">you want to give the community more appeal mechanisms, whereas on some</div><div class="">fundamental issues the community requires decision making empowerment.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></div><div class="">The concepts are so far apart, it cannot be called 'agreement' in any</div><div class="">straightforward definition of the term..<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><blockquote id="MAC_OUTLOOK_ATTRIBUTION_BLOCKQUOTE" style="border-left-color: rgb(181, 196, 223); border-left-width: 5px; border-left-style: solid; padding: 0px 0px 0px 5px; margin: 0px 0px 0px 5px;" class="" type="cite"><div class="">•<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Removal of the Board (Agreement with some minor specifications)</div></blockquote><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Sort of ok. I think there is a bit of very unflattering conjecture on</div><div class="">the Board's part of a capricious and vengeful community. Why do you</div><div class="">fear us so?</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><blockquote id="MAC_OUTLOOK_ATTRIBUTION_BLOCKQUOTE" style="border-left-color: rgb(181, 196, 223); border-left-width: 5px; border-left-style: solid; padding: 0px 0px 0px 5px; margin: 0px 0px 0px 5px;" class="" type="cite"><div class="">•<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Fundamental Bylaws (Agreement)</div></blockquote><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Not really, the CCWG proposal required that the Community have a direct</div><div class="">say on changes to fundamental bylaws and articles of incorporation.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></div><div class="">Raising the Board's threshold and consultations do not match the</div><div class="">requirements at all. The are qualitatively different proposals.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><blockquote id="MAC_OUTLOOK_ATTRIBUTION_BLOCKQUOTE" style="border-left-color: rgb(181, 196, 223); border-left-width: 5px; border-left-style: solid; padding: 0px 0px 0px 5px; margin: 0px 0px 0px 5px;" class="" type="cite"><div class="">•<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Operational Plan (Agreement)</div><div class="">•<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Budget (Agreement with some minor clarifictions)</div></blockquote><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">How minor are those clarifications? My impression in the meeting was</div><div class="">that they, like many of the other 'minor' issues where actually based on</div><div class="">fundamental disagreements.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><blockquote id="MAC_OUTLOOK_ATTRIBUTION_BLOCKQUOTE" style="border-left-color: rgb(181, 196, 223); border-left-width: 5px; border-left-style: solid; padding: 0px 0px 0px 5px; margin: 0px 0px 0px 5px;" class="" type="cite"><div class="">•<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Enforceability (Agreement)</div></blockquote><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">I think you make a mistake about this. The Board seems to assume that</div><div class="">we want to run off to court every time we are thwarted. Nothing could</div><div class="">be further from the truth. The CCWG plan was designed to make going to</div><div class="">court the end of a very long chain of other options that should not be</div><div class="">necessary. The Board seems to offer a fast path to court. The CCWG plan</div><div class="">balances the empowerment of the community with the empowerment of the</div><div class="">Board nd strengthened redress mechanisms. It creates a new participant<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></div><div class="">in the checks and balances.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><blockquote id="MAC_OUTLOOK_ATTRIBUTION_BLOCKQUOTE" style="border-left-color: rgb(181, 196, 223); border-left-width: 5px; border-left-style: solid; padding: 0px 0px 0px 5px; margin: 0px 0px 0px 5px;" class="" type="cite"><div class="">•<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>IRP (Agreement)</div></blockquote><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Without allowing for binding decisions, it can't be called agreement.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><blockquote id="MAC_OUTLOOK_ATTRIBUTION_BLOCKQUOTE" style="border-left-color: rgb(181, 196, 223); border-left-width: 5px; border-left-style: solid; padding: 0px 0px 0px 5px; margin: 0px 0px 0px 5px;" class="" type="cite"><div class="">•<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Ombudsman (Agreement)</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">We have a disagreement with regard to the Sole Membership Model. </div></blockquote><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Which is the keystone of the proposal and the reason that the other</div><div class="">parts of the solution would work.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><blockquote id="MAC_OUTLOOK_ATTRIBUTION_BLOCKQUOTE" style="border-left-color: rgb(181, 196, 223); border-left-width: 5px; border-left-style: solid; padding: 0px 0px 0px 5px; margin: 0px 0px 0px 5px;" class="" type="cite"><div class="">For me the remaining open issues can be solved by further intensification of the dialogue within the community including CCWG and Board members. We have enough legal advice from different perspectives. If needed, we could get a third legal advice. But at the end it is the community which has to make the decision.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></div></blockquote><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">The community makes the decision? I thought the situation here was that</div><div class="">ultimately the Board would make the decision. Had the community been</div><div class="">making the decision, this process would have been like the CWG process.</div><div class="">Once we would have finished the last comment period we would have</div><div class="">submitted out proposal and then we could have moded on to the</div><div class="">implementation phase.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><blockquote id="MAC_OUTLOOK_ATTRIBUTION_BLOCKQUOTE" style="border-left-color: rgb(181, 196, 223); border-left-width: 5px; border-left-style: solid; padding: 0px 0px 0px 5px; margin: 0px 0px 0px 5px;" class="" type="cite"><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">This is the last mile. It is very natural that in such a complicated transition in the final stage there are some remaining controversies. In my eyes, there are not 20 miles to go (as Becky has proposed). The main work is done. And it is good work, also thanks to the CCWG, to its co-chairs, to its members and to the input from the broader community. The whole process is a very encouraging example which shows how the multistakeholder approach works in practice. This is an important signal also towards the WSIS 10+ Review process in New York.</div></blockquote><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">If the Board were closer to agreeing with the CCWG proposal, I would be</div><div class="">able to agree. But given the explanations we have had of the MEM and</div><div class="">the Board's other possible solutions, I just do not see this. To me,</div><div class="">this looks like the morning of a multiday bike bike tour when a century*</div><div class="">or two are left to the finish. But maybe it is more like a climb of</div><div class="">Everest at the last stage - stage 4, but i have never tried that.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">(*century as in 100 km or miles - lets go with km, that is a little better)</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><blockquote id="MAC_OUTLOOK_ATTRIBUTION_BLOCKQUOTE" style="border-left-color: rgb(181, 196, 223); border-left-width: 5px; border-left-style: solid; padding: 0px 0px 0px 5px; margin: 0px 0px 0px 5px;" class="" type="cite"><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">The reason why I have problems with the sole membership model is simple: I am in favor of a new mechanism to strengthen the checks and balances in the ICANN system to keep the board (and the other ICANN bodies) accountable to the community. But in my eyes the proposed Sole Membership Model is untested, has a number of risks and is open for unintended side-effects.</div></blockquote><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Whereas I see this as a fundamental check and balance element that</div><div class="">compensates for the removal of ICANN's only external oversight. An</div><div class="">organization that removes formal external oversight needs a stronger</div><div class="">notion of community oversight mechanisms. The AOC reviews are a good</div><div class="">start, but we have seen that not only do the recommendations sometimes</div><div class="">get perverted in implementation (for example bylaws changes that made</div><div class="">the IRP less useful rather than more so, as had been recommended by</div><div class="">ATRT1) or rather lackadaisically as we have seen with ATRT2</div><div class="">recommendations that are green lighted for someday over the rainbow. As</div><div class="">people pointed out to me frequently when I spoke of ATRT2</div><div class="">recommendations, I mostly had to add: "but we are still waiting."</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">You speak of untested models. The only model that has been tested is the</div><div class="">current model without any changes. And we have seen that this is a</div><div class="">model that does nothing to curb the creative and spending exuberance of</div><div class="">the Board. It is a model that will not work without ultimate oversight</div><div class="">somewhere. This we can see strong evidence for. As we become free from</div><div class="">government's ultimate control, we have to make sure that the community,</div><div class="">one that is ever outreaching, has adequate oversight. We need the SMCM</div><div class="">in order to replace NTIA's ultimate responsibility. This cannot be a</div><div class="">transition of the absence of oversight, but rather must be a transition</div><div class="">to community oversight. It is this that I don't think the Board has</div><div class="">accepted, and that is the crux of the matter. I think it is something</div><div class="">that the CWG proposal requires.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><blockquote id="MAC_OUTLOOK_ATTRIBUTION_BLOCKQUOTE" style="border-left-color: rgb(181, 196, 223); border-left-width: 5px; border-left-style: solid; padding: 0px 0px 0px 5px; margin: 0px 0px 0px 5px;" class="" type="cite"><div class="">I am not convinced that the proposed voting mechanism is save enough against capture. I did not get a satisfying rationale why Advisory Committees are treated so differently in the proposed mechanism. I have my doubts how governments can be included in an appropriate way into this new mechanism without touching the well designed balance between governments and the non-governmental stakeholders in the ICANN ecosystem. And there are other detailed questions.</div></blockquote><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">In one respect, I agree with you. I want all ACSO to have equal</div><div class="">footing in the SMCM, but am in the minority on that one as I want its</div><div class="">structure to resemble essence of the matrix balance that exists in the</div><div class="">ICANN system architecture. Nonetheless, I do not see major opportunity</div><div class="">for capture in the reference model as the initiation mechanisms for</div><div class="">action and the vote thresholds are so high they do not facilitate</div><div class="">capture. And the simpler we are allowed to implement, the less chance</div><div class="">there will be for capture and other shenanigans.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><blockquote id="MAC_OUTLOOK_ATTRIBUTION_BLOCKQUOTE" style="border-left-color: rgb(181, 196, 223); border-left-width: 5px; border-left-style: solid; padding: 0px 0px 0px 5px; margin: 0px 0px 0px 5px;" class="" type="cite"><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">The Sole Membership Model, as it is proposed now, is still too vague, too unbalanced, too confusing.</div></blockquote><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">I disagree. It is fairly direct and limited. It has defined scope and</div><div class="">functions. The only fuzzy part is the voting thresholds and the</div><div class="">modalities by which it worst internally, but that is an implementation</div><div class="">detail.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><blockquote id="MAC_OUTLOOK_ATTRIBUTION_BLOCKQUOTE" style="border-left-color: rgb(181, 196, 223); border-left-width: 5px; border-left-style: solid; padding: 0px 0px 0px 5px; margin: 0px 0px 0px 5px;" class="" type="cite"><div class="">It is not yet ready for adoption.</div></blockquote><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">We disagree on this.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><blockquote id="MAC_OUTLOOK_ATTRIBUTION_BLOCKQUOTE" style="border-left-color: rgb(181, 196, 223); border-left-width: 5px; border-left-style: solid; padding: 0px 0px 0px 5px; margin: 0px 0px 0px 5px;" class="" type="cite"><div class=""> It needs a lot of more work.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></div></blockquote><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">We agree on this, but those are implementation details. That fact of an</div><div class="">SMCM is not a mere operationalization detail as the Board seems to</div><div class="">claim, but its implementation modalities may be.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><blockquote id="MAC_OUTLOOK_ATTRIBUTION_BLOCKQUOTE" style="border-left-color: rgb(181, 196, 223); border-left-width: 5px; border-left-style: solid; padding: 0px 0px 0px 5px; margin: 0px 0px 0px 5px;" class="" type="cite"><div class="">There are too many weak points. Go back to the table which was presented by Sidley in Paris where they showed us the plus and minus of the three models. It is true that the Sole Membership Model was the best of the three with more plus and less minus than the other two. But in total, all the three models were far away to meet the NTIA criteria, to be save enough against capture and to enhance ICANNs operational stability and security. More innovation, more creativity and more careful analysis are needed. I raised my doubts in BA. I repeated this in Paris. And I raised my voice in the various telcos.</div></blockquote><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">I think you will find if you investigate it that many of the weaknesses</div><div class="">of the model have been dealt with. perhaps Sidley and Adler will help</div><div class="">us with that.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><blockquote id="MAC_OUTLOOK_ATTRIBUTION_BLOCKQUOTE" style="border-left-color: rgb(181, 196, 223); border-left-width: 5px; border-left-style: solid; padding: 0px 0px 0px 5px; margin: 0px 0px 0px 5px;" class="" type="cite"><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">My first proposal was to dislink the discussion of the sole membership model from WS 1 and to have more time to go into the details of such a needed new mechanism in WS 2. This is obviously impossible. We have to propose something here and now within WS 1. I know that some CCWG members have mistrust into a long-term process and speculate that if they do not get it now they will get it never. I think this is wrong. The process is unstoppable.</div></blockquote><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Again you miss the point about the SMCM being the the keystone in this</div><div class="">system construction. Removing it requires going back to the beginning</div><div class="">as it holds everything together.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">As soon as WS1 in complete, the process will be stoppable unless the</div><div class="">community model has been implemented. As long as the Board remains</div><div class="">unchecked, and only accessible by appeal, a system that has failed at</div><div class="">ICANN since its beginnings, there will be no way fro redress Board</div><div class="">actiions. If there is one thing ICANN has nearly always failed in it is</div><div class="">redress mechanisms. After all these years of failure in redress</div><div class="">mechanism why should anyone be convinced on ICANN's future redress</div><div class="">mechanisms. Here we have proof of what doesn't work. New RR, IRP,</div><div class="">ombudsman roles roles &c, are the experimental part of this proposal. I</div><div class="">have faith that with a SMCM we can insure that there are genuine</div><div class="">improvements to the redress mechanisms, but in today's Board</div><div class="">configuration, it is impossible to believe in redress at ICANN.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><blockquote id="MAC_OUTLOOK_ATTRIBUTION_BLOCKQUOTE" style="border-left-color: rgb(181, 196, 223); border-left-width: 5px; border-left-style: solid; padding: 0px 0px 0px 5px; margin: 0px 0px 0px 5px;" class="" type="cite"><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">My impression is that the majority in the community sees this indeed as an ongoing process of ICANNs improvement which will not stop with the IANA transition. In BA I argued that after the IANA transition (WS 1) and an enhanced accountability (WS 2) we will need to discuss a restructuring of ICANN to adjust its various SOs and ACs and CCWGs to the new challenges of a changing environment. I did call this “WS 3” and “ICANN 2020”. And I also argued that small steps are better than big jumps.</div></blockquote><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Yes any organization that does not continually improve is doomed. but</div><div class="">we should get to a point of sufficient accountability in good time, and</div><div class="">leave the future to necessary tweaking.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">I find the invention of WS3 to be the first step in the process of</div><div class="">taking decisions out of WS2 and see it as the tip of the spear for</div><div class="">thwarting future change. Anything hard, lets push it to WS2, and then to</div><div class="">WS3...</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><blockquote id="MAC_OUTLOOK_ATTRIBUTION_BLOCKQUOTE" style="border-left-color: rgb(181, 196, 223); border-left-width: 5px; border-left-style: solid; padding: 0px 0px 0px 5px; margin: 0px 0px 0px 5px;" class="" type="cite"><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">More or less we are witnessing now what Bill Clinton told us in San Francisco that getting Internet Governance right is like stumbling forward. As longs as it goes forward, it is ok. And what we are doing now is to prepare the next (small) stumbling step forward. With other words, we have to be patient and to do now what can be done now and what is needed under WS 1 to allow the termination of the IANA contract. But this will not be the end of the story. It will go on.</div></blockquote><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">I am not quite the Bill Clinton fan you are. And find that too much</div><div class="">stumbling, as we often see among the Clintons, is not really the best</div><div class="">example. Yes, if we are about to fall, stumbling forward is preferable,</div><div class="">but I would prefer to see us get our multistakeholder model beyond the</div><div class="">stumbling phase.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">As for being patient, sorry, been too long coming. We have been</div><div class="">patient. My experience is of at least of decade of 'soon come.' For</div><div class="">others it is much longer.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">But if patient I must be, I am ready to be patient now and wait for</div><div class="">transition until we are ready.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><blockquote id="MAC_OUTLOOK_ATTRIBUTION_BLOCKQUOTE" style="border-left-color: rgb(181, 196, 223); border-left-width: 5px; border-left-style: solid; padding: 0px 0px 0px 5px; margin: 0px 0px 0px 5px;" class="" type="cite"><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">And here is a final observation. To put it – like Greg – as a conflict as “Board on Top” vs. “Community on Top” is misleading. Both the members of the Board and the members of the CCWG are selected by the community. Both are accountable to the community. As I said in the chat during the recent telco we all are sitting in one boat (or in one car) and want to have a better, stable, secure, efficient and accountable ICANN with more (and stress-tested) checks and balances in the system.</div></blockquote><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">The politics of Tops and Bottoms is always tough unless there is real</div><div class="">mutual trust of each party by the other. You claim that the community</div><div class="">does not trust the Board, that may be the case among some parts of the</div><div class="">community. I claim that a far greater lack of trust is displayed by the</div><div class="">Board for the community. I think many of your comments are colored by a</div><div class="">pervasive distrust of the community and its purported drive to capture</div><div class="">and game. <span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Once a community member becomes a Board member she adopts a new</div><div class="">perspective and set of responsibilities. This is what makes the Board</div><div class="">another part of the community while not representing the community. For</div><div class="">a the Board to become a genuine member of the community, it needs to</div><div class="">give up its role as benevolent despot and accept the need for the</div><div class="">community to balance its power. ICANN needs a community that can check</div><div class="">and balance the Board's unilateral power.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">The CCWG model defines a degree of power sharing between the two as the</div><div class="">best solution for replacing NTIA oversight.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">avri</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><blockquote id="MAC_OUTLOOK_ATTRIBUTION_BLOCKQUOTE" style="border-left-color: rgb(181, 196, 223); border-left-width: 5px; border-left-style: solid; padding: 0px 0px 0px 5px; margin: 0px 0px 0px 5px;" class="" type="cite"><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Wolfgang</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----</div><div class="">Von:<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org" class="">accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org</a><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>im Auftrag von Avri Doria</div><div class="">Gesendet: Sa 05.09.2015 08:17</div><div class="">An:<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org" class="">accountability-cross-community@icann.org</a></div><div class="">Betreff: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Blog: Working Together Through The Last Mile</div><div class=""> </div><div class="">Hi,</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">The effort to spin the replacement recommendation as just</div><div class="">operationalization is impressive.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">I do not understand the references to capture unless they mean capture</div><div class="">by the community from the Board. I suppose that from their perspective</div><div class="">the CMSM would appear to be capture in and of itself, as it gives the</div><div class="">community a share of the power they now hold for themselves. I think</div><div class="">any discussion of capture that goes beyond FUD, needs an analysis who</div><div class="">who has captured the current ICANN model. Capture is always an</div><div class="">interesting topic because it often means: "who is trying to share my</div><div class="">power now?" I am all for opening up the discussion to the power</div><div class="">anlaysi, current, potential and likely.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Additionally, I do not understand this statement:</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><blockquote id="MAC_OUTLOOK_ATTRIBUTION_BLOCKQUOTE" style="border-left-color: rgb(181, 196, 223); border-left-width: 5px; border-left-style: solid; padding: 0px 0px 0px 5px; margin: 0px 0px 0px 5px;" class="" type="cite"><div class="">where the current proposal still warrants much detail that may not be</div><div class="">achievable<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></div></blockquote><div class="">While it is true that is needs a bit more detail, though perhaps much</div><div class="">less that is being claimed - until it is time for implementaton, it is</div><div class="">not as bad as all of that. What do they mean that an adequate level of</div><div class="">detail is not achievable? Though I have learned that if someone does not</div><div class="">wish to accept a proposal, it can never have enough detail.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">I think we are facing a critical moment in this transition where we, as</div><div class="">a community, will have to decide whether we want the transition so badly</div><div class="">that we are willing to surrender and let the Board have complete control</div><div class="">without any possibility of ever being subject to oversight ever again.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></div><div class="">The transition is the time to switch from NTIA oversight to community</div><div class="">oversight. If this is not possible, then perhaps the transition should</div><div class="">not go forward.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">We need to consider this turn of affairs quite carefully.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">avri</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">On 04-Sep-15 15:53, Grace Abuhamad wrote:</div><blockquote id="MAC_OUTLOOK_ATTRIBUTION_BLOCKQUOTE" style="border-left-color: rgb(181, 196, 223); border-left-width: 5px; border-left-style: solid; padding: 0px 0px 0px 5px; margin: 0px 0px 0px 5px;" class="" type="cite"><div class="">Original</div><div class="">link:<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><a href="https://www.icann.org/news/blog/working-together-through-the-last-mile" class="">https://www.icann.org/news/blog/working-together-through-the-last-mile</a></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""> Working Together Through The Last Mile</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><<a href="https://www.icann.org/news/blog/working-together-through-the-last-mile#><https://www.icann.org/news/blog/working-together-through-the-last-mile#><https://www.icann.org/news/blog/working-together-through-the-last-mile#><https://www.icann.org/news/blog/working-together-through-the-last-mile#><https://www.icann.org/news/blog/working-together-through-the-last-mile#><https://www.icann.org/news/blog/working-together-through-the-last-mile#" class="">https://www.icann.org/news/blog/working-together-through-the-last-mile#><https://www.icann.org/news/blog/working-together-through-the-last-mile#><https://www.icann.org/news/blog/working-together-through-the-last-mile#><https://www.icann.org/news/blog/working-together-through-the-last-mile#><https://www.icann.org/news/blog/working-together-through-the-last-mile#><https://www.icann.org/news/blog/working-together-through-the-last-mile#</a>></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">I'd like to thank everyone who has participated in both the CCWG</div><div class="">briefing to the ICANN Board</div><div class=""><<a href="https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=56132981" class="">https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=56132981</a>>,</div><div class="">and the CCWG and ICANN board dialogue</div><div class=""><<a href="https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=56133316" class="">https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=56133316</a>>.</div><div class="">All of our dialogues over the past months have been illuminating,</div><div class="">challenging and in my opinion, an important and true testament to the</div><div class="">multistakeholder model as we work toward the IANA Stewardship Transition.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">*/We support the important improvements for ICANN's accountability</div><div class="">contained in the CCWG-Accountability's 2nd Draft Proposal. We endorse</div><div class="">the goal of enforceability of these accountability mechanisms, and we</div><div class="">believe that it is possible to implement the key elements of the</div><div class="">proposal. We want to work together to achieve the elements of the</div><div class="">proposal within the community's timeline while meeting</div><div class="">the NTIA requirements./*</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">As we enter the final days of the Public Comment period, the Board</div><div class="">wants to be completely clear on our position. We are in agreement on</div><div class="">key concepts set forward in the CCWG's proposal, for example:</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""> * Fundamental bylaws.</div><div class=""> * Specific requirements for empowering the community into the bylaws</div><div class=""> adoption process.</div><div class=""> * IRP enhancements.</div><div class=""> * Board and director removal.</div><div class=""> * ICANN's mission and core values.</div><div class=""> * Strengthening requirements for empowering the community in the</div><div class=""> budget, operational and strategic planning process.</div><div class=""> * The incorporation of the Affirmation of Commitments Reviews</div><div class=""> intoICANN bylaws.</div><div class=""> * Community ability to enforce the accountability mechanisms in the</div><div class=""> bylaws.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">We have suggestions on how these could be operationalized. With</div><div class="">regards to the mechanisms for community enforceability, where the</div><div class="">current proposal still warrants much detail that may not be achievable</div><div class="">we have a suggestion on how to deliver on it in a stable way, as</div><div class="">increased enforceability must not open up questions of, for example,</div><div class="">capture or diminishing of checks and balances.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Let's work together on operationalizing the above principles on which</div><div class="">we agree. Once again, we are committed to providing more detail on how</div><div class="">these ideas can be operationalized in a way that they can be</div><div class="">implemented within the community identified time frame for the</div><div class="">transition, as well as have sufficient tested grounds to not result in</div><div class="">unintended consequences.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">During last night's discussion we shared this feedback. It was a lot</div><div class="">of information to digest in a call (notes around opening remarks</div><div class=""><<a href="http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/2015-September/005160.html" class="">http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/2015-September/005160.html</a>>, notes</div><div class="">around 10 points</div><div class=""><<a href="http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/2015-September/005161.html%3E" class="">http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/2015-September/005161.html></a>),</div><div class="">and we appreciate everyone giving our advice consideration. We are</div><div class="">committed to submitting our comments into the Public Comment process</div><div class="">in the next few days, and we look forward to the working with the</div><div class="">community on further details.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">It is critical that we work together to build enhanced accountability</div><div class="">forICANN and continue to refine and flesh out details of the</div><div class="">impressive work already done by the community and complete</div><div class="">the IANAStewardship Transition.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">_______________________________________________</div><div class="">Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list</div><div class=""><a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org" class="">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a></div><div class=""><a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community" class="">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a></div></blockquote><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">---</div><div class="">This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.</div><div class=""><a href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus" class="">https://www.avast.com/antivirus</a></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">_______________________________________________</div><div class="">Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list</div><div class=""><a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org" class="">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a></div><div class=""><a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community" class="">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><br class=""></div></blockquote><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">---</div><div class="">This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.</div><div class=""><a href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus" class="">https://www.avast.com/antivirus</a></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">_______________________________________________</div><div class="">Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list</div><div class=""><a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org" class="">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a></div><div class=""><a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community" class="">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><br class=""></div></blockquote><span style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; float: none; display: inline !important;" class="">_______________________________________________</span><br style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;" class=""><span style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; float: none; display: inline !important;" class="">Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list</span><br style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;" class=""><a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;" class="">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><br style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;" class=""><a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;" class="">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a></div></blockquote></div><br class=""></div><style type="text/css" class="">
p.p1 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px}
p.p2 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 13.0px Verdana; color: #9443fb}
p.p3 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 13.0px Verdana; color: #9443fb; min-height: 16.0px}
</style></span></body></html>