<html 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">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;}
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;}
span.E-MailFormatvorlage17
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D;}
span.E-MailFormatvorlage18
{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:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:70.85pt 70.85pt 2.0cm 70.85pt;}
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]-->
</head>
<body lang="DE-CH" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US">Community powers only are meaningful if they represent the “community” as a whole, which is the collective we want to
empower to check the power exercised by the executive power designated to represent that same community. That’s the key point.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US">And I would beg you to avoid qualifying opinions different to yours as “autocratic” or the like.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US">Regards<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US">Jorge <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span lang="DE" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Von:</span></b><span lang="DE" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"> James Gannon [mailto:james@cyberinvasion.net]
<br>
<b>Gesendet:</b> Mittwoch, 30. September 2015 10:36<br>
<b>An:</b> Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>; kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com; jordan@internetnz.net.nz<br>
<b>Cc:</b> accountability-cross-community@icann.org<br>
<b>Betreff:</b> Re: [CCWG-ACCT] A way to avoid the 'The Single Member Can Do Anything!' problem<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">I have said it before and will repeat it here again, it is not our place to force parts of the community into exercising a vote, our voting thresholds should reflect
variable participation to allow groups such as the SSAC and RSSAC to participate when they feel the need to, but we should not be forcing any part of our community into a role that they do not wish to have. To do so is in my mind autocratic and does not reflect
the wishes of these groups as expressed through the bottom up multistakeholder process.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">-James<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">From:
</span></b><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"><<a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org">accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org</a>> on behalf of "<a href="mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch">Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch</a>"<br>
<b>Date: </b>Wednesday 30 September 2015 09:22<br>
<b>To: </b>"<a href="mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com">kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com</a>", "<a href="mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz">jordan@internetnz.net.nz</a>"<br>
<b>Cc: </b>"<a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org">accountability-cross-community@icann.org</a>"<br>
<b>Subject: </b>Re: [CCWG-ACCT] A way to avoid the 'The Single Member Can Do Anything!' problem<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">Kavouss makes a vital point here.
</span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"> </span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">Any decision-making process needs to be absolutely capture-proof and respect the diversity of the ICANN community.
</span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"> </span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">Hence, large supermajorities and/or consensus might be required for such important decisions. This means that those large supermajorities have to
be measured against the community as a whole (i.e. the seven SO/AC).</span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"> </span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">Regards</span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"> </span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">Jorge
</span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"> </span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span lang="DE" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">Von:</span></b><span lang="DE" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">
<a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org">accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org</a> [<a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org">mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org</a>]
<b>Im Auftrag von </b>Kavouss Arasteh<br>
<b>Gesendet:</b> Mittwoch, 30. September 2015 10:15<br>
<b>An:</b> Jordan Carter <<a href="mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz">jordan@internetnz.net.nz</a>><br>
<b>Cc:</b> Accountability Cross Community <<a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org">accountability-cross-community@icann.org</a>><br>
<b>Betreff:</b> Re: [CCWG-ACCT] A way to avoid the 'The Single Member Can Do Anything!' problem</span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">Dear All,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">I also understood Fadi in LA expressing a concern on how do we ensure ..in the single member model, that we have inclusion in consensus, rather than allowing a subset of the community to exercise that power without
the Full acceptance of the community..and that can easily be construed as a capture scenario that needs to be stress tested.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">Let us take a scenario as follows<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">There is a potion to reject the Budget.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">Petition is agreed ( not voted ) in the petition SO
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">Then it is discussed at Forum<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">Then put it for voting<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">SAS,RSSAC and very likely GAC do not participate in voting
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">Very probably all 3 OCs participate in voting .<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">ALAC may or may not to do so <o:p>
</o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> if three OCs vote ,the super majority would be 2/3 thus out of 15 votes currently foreseen 10 is enough to reset or ,at extreme, veto the budget .<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">Then out of 29 overall weighted /weighting votes 10 succeeded to veto the budget and start an unnecessary process of back and fort of the Budget for months
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">Is that a right process?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">However, if we first establish a quorum for decision making with fairly high threshold ( 3/4 or 4/5 of the 7 SOs and ACs ) which means 5 SOs and ACs or 4 SOs and ACs are the minimum requirement of quorum to
decide on the matter .<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">Then we have to apply the super majority of votes which means 2/3 of 25 or 2/3 of 22 or 2/3 of 19 , depending on the SOs and ACs participating which becomes 17, 14 and 12 votes out of 29 votes are sufficient to
reject the budget .This would result in a real capture of the community by a small number of subset of that community.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">Consequently, should we replace the voting by consensus then we are better saved .<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">In view of the above the decision making process voting versus consensus building needs to be seriously re-examined
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">Kavouss <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">2015-09-30 9:40 GMT+02:00 Jordan Carter <<a href="mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz" target="_blank">jordan@internetnz.net.nz</a>>:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<blockquote style="border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-top:5.0pt;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">Tapani: The approach I have suggested could work for none, any or all of the statutory powers. If it is worth exploring we can explore it. There might be some statutory rights that should not be subject to this
approach, as Ed has argued.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">To address Kavouss' point: Kavouss, I agree with you this is unusual. I would not suggest this for any of the accountability powers we have suggested through the CCWG. I would only suggest it as a cast-iron, impossible-to-avoid,
last-resort for powers that AREN'T about accountability. Dissolving ICANN, to pick the example repeatedly raised by Board members in LA, isn't an accountability issue. So let's not treat it as one. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">To put it another way: <b>some</b> of the powers of a Member in the law of California [or under any other law, should ICANN's jurisdiction change at some point] are clearly about accountability. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="color:black">Some</span></b><span style="color:black"> of them aren't. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">The ones that <u>aren't</u> about accountability, the ones that pose some kind of risk to stability or that just aren't relevant, we can make impossible to use. We can make them even more impossible to use by including
the Board as a participant for any decision to use them.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">All food for thought.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">best<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">Jordan<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">On 30 September 2015 at 19:36, Tapani Tarvainen <<a href="mailto:ncuc@tapani.tarvainen.info" target="_blank">ncuc@tapani.tarvainen.info</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<blockquote style="border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-top:5.0pt;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">This is worrysome. While I can understand the concern about<br>
things like dissolving the company, what's the issue with<br>
document inspection?<br>
<br>
After all, transparency is one of the key elements of trust,<br>
and trust is ultimately what will sustain or kill ICANN.<br>
<br>
Perhaps some of the lawyers among us could explain what<br>
bad could result from document inspection power of the member?<br>
<br>
--<br>
Tapani Tarvainen<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"><br>
On Sep 29 20:48, Rudolph Daniel (<a href="mailto:rudi.daniel@gmail.com" target="_blank">rudi.daniel@gmail.com</a>) wrote:<br>
<br>
> "the other powers the California law grants to member/s (document<br>
> inspection, dissolve the company, etc), should face such high thresholds to<br>
> action that they can, practically speaking, never be actioned at all."<br>
><br>
> Yes , interesting, I understood Fadi today expressing a concern (my take on<br>
> it)....how do we ensure ..in the single member model, that we have<br>
> inclusion in consensus, rather than allowing a subset of the community to<br>
> exercise that power without the Full acceptance of the community..and that<br>
> can easily be construed as a capture scenario that needs to be stress<br>
> tested.<br>
><br>
> Interesting take on the problem Jordon, but as you suggest...over to the<br>
> legal minds..<br>
> RD<br>
> On Sep 29, 2015 8:15 PM, "Jordan Carter" <<a href="mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz" target="_blank">jordan@internetnz.net.nz</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
> > Hi all<br>
> ><br>
> > One of the pieces of feedback from Board members I heard in L.A. was a<br>
> > concern that basically goes like this:<br>
> ><br>
> > "The Single Member is a problematic idea because of the incredible powers<br>
> > it has under California law - for instance, it could even dissolve ICANN!"<br>
> ><br>
> > There were some sub-themes to this concern:<br>
> ><br>
> > - the accountability of SO/AC actors in exercising the powers intended for<br>
> > the CMSM<br>
> > - the absence of fiduciary duties on the Single Member in making its<br>
> > decisions<br>
> > - the engineering principle of minimal change at a time<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> > Focusing on the overarching concern, it was a tenet of the CCWG's Second<br>
> > Draft Proposal that the CMSM should be largely ruled out from exercising<br>
> > any of the powers the community didn't propose it had.<br>
> ><br>
> > That is, aside from the five community powers and the ability to enforce<br>
> > the bylaws against the Board, the other powers the California law grants to<br>
> > member/s (document inspection, dissolve the company, etc), should face such<br>
> > high thresholds to action that they can, practically speaking, never be<br>
> > actioned at all.<br>
> ><br>
> > [The Second Draft Proposal may not have been terribly clear about this,<br>
> > but that's what it was driving at.]<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> > So how to resolve this? The CCWG's choice of a Single Member (following<br>
> > its earlier choice of multiple members) was to meet the accountability<br>
> > requirements the community has asked for. But nobody asked for the<br>
> > community to have these other powers.<br>
> ><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">> > *Here is a suggestion.*<br>
> ><br>
> > *For the exercise of any of the Member Powers the CMSM would have (beyond<br>
> > those we "want" it to have), why don't we include the ICANN Board as one of<br>
> > the groups that has to vote / come to consensus to exercise them?*<br>
> ><br>
> > This sounds a little strange on the face of it but think it through.<br>
> ><br>
> > This seems to me to be a very simple way to avoid the problem.<br>
> ><br>
> > It acknowledges that the rights of the Member are set out in law and can't<br>
> > be eroded - that they can only be managed by the decisions that member is<br>
> > able to take. And it acknowledges that the concerns about constraining the<br>
> > possible actions of the member to those that are intended, should be<br>
> > solved. It shares power in the model in quite a nice, dare-I-say-it,<br>
> > "multistakeholder" way.<br>
> ><br>
> > I'd welcome others' thoughts. I'd welcome views from our lawyers about<br>
> > this, too. On the face of it I can't see any reason this wouldn't work in<br>
> > law, since the CMSM can be comprised of any set of ICANN actors. But - I Am<br>
> > Not A Lawyer.<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> > cheers<br>
> > Jordan<br>
> ><br>
> > --<br>
> > Jordan Carter<br>
> ><br>
> > Chief Executive<br>
> > *InternetNZ*<br>
> ><br>
> > <a href="tel:%2B64-4-495-2118" target="_blank">+64-4-495-2118</a> (office) | <a href="tel:%2B64-21-442-649" target="_blank">
+64-21-442-649</a> (mob)<br>
> > Email: <a href="mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz" target="_blank">jordan@internetnz.net.nz</a><br>
> > Skype: jordancarter<br>
> > Web: <a href="http://www.internetnz.nz" target="_blank">www.internetnz.nz</a><br>
> ><br>
> > *A better world through a better Internet *<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">_______________________________________________<br>
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org" target="_blank">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"><br>
<br clear="all">
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">-- <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">Jordan Carter<br>
<br>
Chief Executive <br>
<b>InternetNZ</b><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"><br>
<a href="tel:%2B64-4-495-2118" target="_blank">+64-4-495-2118</a> (office) | <a href="tel:%2B64-21-442-649" target="_blank">
+64-21-442-649</a> (mob)<br>
Email: <a href="mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz" target="_blank"><span style="color:#1155CC">jordan@internetnz.net.nz</span></a> <br>
Skype: jordancarter<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">Web: <a href="http://www.internetnz.nz" target="_blank">
www.internetnz.nz</a> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"><br>
<i>A better world through a better Internet </i><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span style="color:black"><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</blockquote>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>