<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 14 (filtered medium)">
<!--[if !mso]><style>v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
</style><![endif]--><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;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
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;}
p.MsoAcetate, li.MsoAcetate, div.MsoAcetate
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Balloon Text Char";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:8.0pt;
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";}
p.MsoListParagraph, li.MsoListParagraph, div.MsoListParagraph
{mso-style-priority:34;
margin-top:0in;
margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:0in;
margin-left:.5in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
span.BalloonTextChar
{mso-style-name:"Balloon Text Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Balloon Text";
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";}
span.EmailStyle19
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
/* List Definitions */
@list l0
{mso-list-id:137964442;
mso-list-type:hybrid;
mso-list-template-ids:-2019136900 67698703 67698713 67698715 67698703 67698713 67698715 67698703 67698713 67698715;}
@list l0:level1
{mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level2
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level3
{mso-level-number-format:roman-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:right;
text-indent:-9.0pt;}
@list l0:level4
{mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level5
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level6
{mso-level-number-format:roman-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:right;
text-indent:-9.0pt;}
@list l0:level7
{mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level8
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level9
{mso-level-number-format:roman-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:right;
text-indent:-9.0pt;}
ol
{margin-bottom:0in;}
ul
{margin-bottom:0in;}
--></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="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Ron,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">I personally think there is still a great deal of confusion about how some of the competing proposals for structure would operate in practice. I think that
Steve’s idea about comparison of the enforceability aspect of the proposals for each model is a great idea whether or not we follow “Plan B”.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">I also think we need a visual representation of the timelines associated with each of the three enforcement mechanisms, as stated on the call. For example,
it is very unclear to me how the Community exercises budget authority as required by the CWG-Stewardship in the context of binding arbitration. Here is why:
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph" style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1"><![if !supportLists]><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><span style="mso-list:Ignore">1.<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><![endif]><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Alan brought up the MEM does not specify a level of consensus. I read the proposal from the Board as requiring full consensus of all SOs and ACs.
I brought this up as a question – that is, what is the Board’s definition of consensus in the MEM proposal from the very beginning. Of course as Alan points out, we have the same question as to defining consensus depending on how many SOs and ACs participate
– in the CMSM proposal.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph" style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1"><![if !supportLists]><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><span style="mso-list:Ignore">2.<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><![endif]><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Assuming for the moment that consensus is reached on a budget rejection by the Community, it is not at all clear to me how that process evolves in
the context of binding arbitration. Under the MEM, are we saying the Community sends the question of whether it is entitled to reject a budget to a panel of arbitrators to determine? Are we saying that under the CMSM, the budget is at that point rejected
by the Community on notice to the Board and the Board has to go “back to the drawing Board” to submit another budget. What budget applies during the long process of binding arbitration?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">This all points out that there are numerous questions raised by the Board’s proposal that we will have to take the time to carefully sort out – but it certainly
would be appropriate to identify various timelines associated with the three models shown in Steve DelBianco’s chart and to create a visual representation of those timelines in relation to the questions Steve has asked for the six points. This is partly a
legal question regarding how soon enforcement action takes effect. It is also a Community question regarding the commencement of deliberations on whether or not to take action, convening Community Forum, convening designators, etc.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Sidley memo says we already have a designator model, although not a sole designator model. WE DO NEED THEIR ANALYSIS, HOWEVER, OF THE TIMING TO IMPLEMENT
AN ENFORCEMENT ACTION ONCE THE COMMUNITY HAS DETERMINED VIA CONSENSUS (HOWEVER THAT IS ULTIMATELY DEFINED) THAT IT WILL INDEED TAKE ACTION TO ENFORCE THE POWER.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">It is tough to have new ideas when you are not even able to correctly evaluate those that have already been proposed. I volunteer to help work on timelines
if others think this is appropriate.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Anne<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<table class="MsoNormalTable" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" style="border-collapse:collapse">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td width="67" rowspan="7" valign="top" style="width:.7in;padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><img width="150" height="62" id="Picture_x0020_1" src="cid:image001.gif@01D1059E.E5F81EF0"></span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</td>
<td width="355" valign="top" style="width:3.7in;padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black">Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="355" valign="top" style="width:3.7in;padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black">Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="355" valign="top" style="width:3.7in;padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black">One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="355" valign="top" style="width:3.7in;padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black">(T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="355" valign="top" style="width:3.7in;padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><a href="mailto:AAikman@lrrlaw.com" target="_new" title="Email User"><span style="color:blue">AAikman@lrrlaw.com</span></a></span></b><b><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black">
| <a href="http://www.lrrlaw.com/" target="_new" title="Lewis and Roca Webpage">
<span style="color:blue">www.LRRLaw.com</span></a></span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="355" valign="top" style="width:3.7in;padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt"></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="355" valign="top" style="width:3.7in;padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt"></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D;display:none"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<table class="MsoNormalTable" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" style="border-collapse:collapse">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td width="19" valign="top" style="width:.2in;padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black"></span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</td>
<td width="25" valign="bottom" style="width:18.8pt;padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black"> </span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif""> accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Ron Baione<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, October 13, 2015 9:26 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> Nigel Roberts; paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com; accountability-cross-community@icann.org<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Need for clarity on enforcement mechanisms for Dublin<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<table class="MsoNormalTable" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td valign="top" style="padding:0in 0in 0in 0in">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">This is a general question to the group, in your view, what percentage of responses to this email list contain new ideas for real progress and what percentage of responses are clarifications and confusion on what ICANN's situation currently
is? Is it that we are so far along in the process that the only thing to do is wait on the ideas already proposed? I expected people on the list to be saying, "lets try it this way" or "what about this idea", I haven't seen that said once.
<br>
<br>
Ron<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<div id="_origMsg_">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div>
<div class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">
<hr size="1" width="100%" align="center">
</span></div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">From:
</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">Nigel Roberts <<a href="mailto:nigel@channelisles.net">nigel@channelisles.net</a>>;
<br>
<b>To: </b>Paul Rosenzweig <<a href="mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com">paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com</a>>; <<a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org">accountability-cross-community@icann.org</a>>;
<br>
<b>Subject: </b>Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Need for clarity on enforcement mechanisms for Dublin
<br>
<b>Sent: </b>Tue, Oct 13, 2015 7:32:05 AM <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<table class="MsoNormalTable" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td valign="top" style="padding:0in 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt">It's not for me to interpret the Joint Statement as I was no part of its
<br>
drafting.<br>
<br>
The statement was prepared jointly by the HLIG and CENTR and it was <br>
offered to the joint meeting as a draft. It was then adopted without <br>
even minor typographical or stylistic changes.<br>
<br>
Statements published public authorities, or together involving public <br>
authorities are necessarily guarded, in general.<br>
<br>
So I would hesitate to give you an answer to your question with 100.1% <br>
certainty.<br>
<br>
However, personally speaking, I did indeed find the proposed statement <br>
"powerful" (as you put it), and my comments upon seeing it for the first <br>
time, expressed in the meeting at the time, were that it needed no changes.<br>
<br>
I trust this helps?<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Nigel<br>
<br>
PS: Personally I am mildly less than enamoured of the CCWG-A proposal <br>
myself (the "single member idea"), but I remain terribly disturbed that <br>
the Board appears to think -- to paraphrase myself -- that it is <br>
entitled to yap subsequent to canine purchase.<o:p></o:p></p>
<div id="yqtfd99028">
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
On 13/10/15 02:18, Paul Rosenzweig wrote:<br>
> Nigel<br>
><br>
> Help us who weren't there read between the lines -- is this the HLIG saying that the CCWG-A proposal is more to be respected than th<br>
e Boards MEM revision. That is how I read it, which would be powerful, <br>
but I don't want to overstate it if that is an inaccurate interpretation<br>
><br>
> Paul<br>
><br>
> Paul Rosenzweig<br>
> <a href="javascript:return">paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com</a><br>
> O: +1 (202) 547-0660<br>
> M: +1 (202) 329-9650<br>
> VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739<br>
> Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066<br>
> Link to my PGP Key<br>
><br>
><br>
> -----Original Message-----<br>
> From: Nigel Roberts [mailto:<a href="javascript:return">nigel@channelisles.net</a>]<br>
> Sent: Sunday, October 11, 2015 4:21 AM<br>
> To: <a href="javascript:return">accountability-cross-community@icann.org</a><br>
> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Need for clarity on enforcement mechanisms for Dublin<br>
><br>
> Enforceability was a key theme I heard at the European's Commission's HLIG at the CENTR meeting in Brussels.<br>
><br>
> They also said:<br>
>> We wish to reiterate our support to the Cross-Community Working Group on the IANA Stewardship Transition (CWG) and to the work of the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG).<br>
><br>
> and that<br>
><br>
>> The outcome will only have the necessary legitimacy if the bottom-up, consensus-driven process continues to be fully respected.<br>
><br>
><br>
> <a href="http://www.domainpulp.com/icann/centr-and-commission-meet-and-discuss-icann-accountability/" target="_blank">
http://www.domainpulp.com/icann/centr-and-commission-meet-and-discuss-icann-accountability/</a><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> On 11/10/15 08:56, Matthew Shears wrote:<br>
>> Thanks for circulating this Grace.<br>
>><br>
>> I would certainly support - _and believe it should be a priority for<br>
>> Dublin_ - having a very clear understanding (in chart form or other)<br>
>> of the enforcement mechanisms for each of the powers under the SMM,<br>
>> Designator and MEM models as noted in the second bullet in the Action<br>
>> for lawyers section below. Hopefully much of this has analysis been<br>
>> done and won't take to much additional work.<br>
>><br>
>> Thanks.<br>
>><br>
>> Matthew<br>
>><br>
>> On 08/10/2015 18:14, Grace Abuhamad wrote:<br>
>>> Dear all,<br>
>>><br>
>>> The notes, recordings and transcripts for the Briefing with Counsel<br>
>>> for Plan B Proposal Meeting - Thursday 8 October 2015 @ 21:00 UTC<br>
>>><br>
>>> will be available here: <a href="https://community.icann.org/x/BahYAw" target="_blank">
https://community.icann.org/x/BahYAw</a><br>
>>><br>
>>> A copy of the notes may be found below.<br>
>>><br>
>>> AC room recording:<br>
>>> <<a href="https://icann.adobeconnect.com/p46pejy7tf3/" target="_blank">https://icann.adobeconnect.com/p46pejy7tf3/</a>><a href="https://icann.adobeconne" target="_blank">https://icann.adobeconne</a><br>
>>> ct.com/p46pejy7tf3/<br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>> *Briefing with Counsel for Plan B Proposal Meeting - Thursday 8<br>
>>> October 2015 @ 21:00 UTC*<br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>> *Attendees in AC room: *<br>
>>><br>
>>> CCWG: Steve DelBianco; Jonathan Zuck; Kavouss Arasteh<br>
>>><br>
>>> Counsel: Ingrid Mittermaier; Michael Clark; Rosemary Fei (and Ed<br>
>>> McNicholas and Holly Gregory on the phone line only)<br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>> *Notes:*<br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>> Today's discussion revolves around the text here:<br>
>>> <<a href="http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/2015-Oc" target="_blank">http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/2015-Oc</a><br>
>>> tober/006125.html><a href="http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-" target="_blank">http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-</a><br>
>>> community/2015-October/006125.html<br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>> Kavouss added an edit (underlined here):<br>
>>><br>
>>> 1. Power to block a proposed Operating Plan/Strat Plan/Budget with<br>
>>> limitation on rejection/ Veto ( maximum 3 times )<br>
>>><br>
>>> 2. Power to approve changes to Fundamental Bylaws and Articles of<br>
>>> Incorporation.<br>
>>><br>
>>> 3. Power to block changes to standard Blaws.<br>
>>><br>
>>> 4. Power to appoint and remove individual board Directors possibly<br>
>>> with the approval of the entire community<br>
>>><br>
>>> 5. Power to recall the entire board of Directors<br>
>>><br>
>>> 6. Mechanism for binding IRP where a panel decision is enforceable in<br>
>>> any court recognizing international arbitration results — even if<br>
>>> ICCANNs Board refused to participate in the binding arbitration.<br>
>>> (assuming CCWG lawyers verify this works without activating a<br>
>>> Membership model)<br>
>>><br>
>>> All decision taken on the above would require consensus , without<br>
>>> more than two Advice against that ( non-voting of ACs)<br>
>>><br>
>>> I think we are close enough to get consensus around the above powers<br>
>>> before we leave Dublin. And based on what we’ve heard recently,<br>
>>> the board will support the powers described above.<br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>> *Action for Steve/Jonathan: *revise chart per call discussions (MEM /<br>
>>> Single Designator / Single Member) and send to lawyers before they<br>
>>> can proceed with their work.<br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>> *Actions for lawyers*:<br>
>>><br>
>>> * Assess level of effort to do 2-part project as follows:<br>
>>> * Part 1: completing the chart shown in AC. The chart shows the 6<br>
>>> Powers and their enforcement in Board's MEM (within Bylaws),<br>
>>> Designator, Sole Member. For first pass, only do each of the 3 as<br>
>>> described. (If there is extra time, the lawyers can study options<br>
>>> for personhood for SO/ACs in the models).<br>
>>> * Part 2: Plan B design and lockdown<br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>> Lawyers would like for this to be a priority if this needs to be<br>
>>> ready by Dublin.<br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>> The more the documents can look simpler, the better. Minimal change<br>
>>> is preferred.<br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>> _______________________________________________<br>
>>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>
>>> <a href="javascript:return">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><br>
>><br>
>> --<br>
>><br>
>> Matthew Shears<br>
>> Director - Global Internet Policy and Human Rights Center for<br>
>> Democracy & Technology <a href="javascript:return">mshears@cdt.org</a><br>
>> + 44 771 247 2987<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------<br>
>> Avast logo <<a href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus" target="_blank">https://www.avast.com/antivirus</a>>
<br>
>><br>
>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.<br>
>> <a href="http://www.avast.com">www.avast.com</a> <<a href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus" target="_blank">https://www.avast.com/antivirus</a>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> _______________________________________________<br>
>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>
>> <a href="javascript:return">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><br>
>><br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list <a href="javascript:return">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><br>
><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>
<a href="javascript:return">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></p>
</div>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<hr>
<font face="Arial" color="Gray" size="1"><br>
This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message
or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying
to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.
<br>
</font>
</body>
</html>