<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default"><font face="verdana, sans-serif">In looking back at the March email from Denmark's GAC representative, it points to a two-tier solution: The Board should "duly consider" any GAC advice, but only needs to give GAC advice produced by consensus the full treatment of "<span style="color:rgb(51,51,51);line-height:22.4px">stat[ing] the reasons why it decided not to follow that advice. The Governmental </span><abbr title="Advisory Committee" class="" style="direction:ltr;border-bottom-width:1px;border-bottom-style:dotted;border-bottom-color:rgb(153,153,153);color:rgb(51,51,51);line-height:22.4px">Advisory Committee</abbr><span style="color:rgb(51,51,51);line-height:22.4px"> and the </span><abbr title="Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers" class="" style="direction:ltr;border-bottom-width:1px;border-bottom-style:dotted;border-bottom-color:rgb(153,153,153);color:rgb(51,51,51);line-height:22.4px">ICANN</abbr><span style="color:rgb(51,51,51);line-height:22.4px"> Board will then try, in good faith and in a timely and efficient manner, to find a mutually acceptable solution.</span>"</font></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 2:36 PM, Paul Rosenzweig <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com" target="_blank">paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple"><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d">Steve<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d">I have no interest in telling GAC how to operate. They can use a Oujia board for all I care (ok .. that’s a bit extreme). My concern is with the action forcing mechanism that they have to compel Board consideration. That is why, to be clear, I <b>completely support</b> the idea of amending the bylaws to require the mutual agreement consultation process <b>only</b> when the GAC’s advice is by consensus --- so long as the Board gets to determine what it deems consensus advice that activates the consultation agreement. If you read my note as anything other than support for the idea, I apologize for my rhetorical flourish.<u></u><u></u></span></p><span class=""><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d">Paul<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d">Paul Rosenzweig<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d"><a href="mailto:paul.rosenzweigesq@redbranchconsulting.com" target="_blank"><span style="color:#0563c1">paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com</span></a> <u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d">O: <a href="tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20547-0660" value="+12025470660" target="_blank">+1 (202) 547-0660</a><u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d">M: <a href="tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20329-9650" value="+12023299650" target="_blank">+1 (202) 329-9650</a><u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d">VOIP: <a href="tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20738-1739" value="+12027381739" target="_blank">+1 (202) 738-1739</a><u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d">Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d"><a href="http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=19&Itemid=9" target="_blank"><span style="color:#0563c1">Link to my PGP Key</span></a><u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p></div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p></span><div><div style="border:none;border-top:solid #e1e1e1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in"><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"> Steve DelBianco [mailto:<a href="mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org" target="_blank">sdelbianco@netchoice.org</a>] <br><b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, October 28, 2015 1:23 PM<br><b>To:</b> Paul Rosenzweig <<a href="mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com" target="_blank">paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com</a>></span></p><div><div class="h5"><br><b>Cc:</b> 'Accountability Cross Community' <<a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org" target="_blank">accountability-cross-community@icann.org</a>><br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [CCWG-ACCT] On Stress Test 18<u></u><u></u></div></div><p></p></div></div><div><div class="h5"><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p><div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">Paul — you suggest CCWG should somehow prevent GAC from changing its own<a href="https://gacweb.icann.org/display/gacweb/GAC+Operating+Principles" target="_blank"> operating principles</a>, regarding how they make decisions. But an approach that interferes with GAC (or any AC/SO) prerogative to make its own rules…seems to me a blunt instrument that will meet fierce resistance.<u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"><u></u> <u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">Far better, don’t you think, to amend ICANN bylaws regarding how ICANN is obliged to respond to GAC advice. From the start, that’s all we have ever proposed in CCWG: to require ICANN to seek a mutually acceptable solution <u>only</u> when the GAC advice was supported by consensus of governments. <u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"><u></u> <u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">That approach avoids embroiling ICANN’s board in resolving differences among sovereign governments in the GAC. <u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">It provides the incentive for GAC to reach consensus when it wants its advice to be taken most seriously. <u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">And it avoids telling an AC/SO how it must make decisions. <u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"><u></u> <u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">—Steve <u></u><u></u></span></p></div></div></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"><u></u> <u></u></span></p></div><div style="border:none;border-top:solid #b5c4df 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in"><p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-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" target="_blank">accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org</a>> on behalf of Paul Rosenzweig<br><b>Date: </b>Tuesday, October 27, 2015 at 4:35 PM<br><b>To: </b>'Arun Mohan Sukumar', 'Greg Shatan'<br><b>Cc: </b>'Accountability Cross Community'<br><b>Subject: </b>Re: [CCWG-ACCT] On Stress Test 18<u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"><u></u> <u></u></span></p></div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d">Arun</span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d"> </span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d">Don’t let them change your mind. Though the GAC members may assert othewrisie, your summary is accurate. The GAC has reached consensus that it should retain the unilateral ability to change its own definition of consensus while at the same time agreeing that the Board should continue to give the GAC’s consensus advice the same value it currently attributes to consensus advice. This is not “accepting” Stress Test 18 it is deliberately avoiding the hard choice.</span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d"> </span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d">The issue remains – will GAC advice continue to require Board negotiation, a privilege given to no other advisory committee? If it will then will the GAC agree that it cannot unilaterally change the definition of consensus? I see nothing in the communique that resolves that – nor any recognition by the GAC that all of the other commenters in the public comment process have disagreed with its position and supported the Bylaw modification that answers ST18. There is only a recognition of the problem and a continued promse to “work within CCWG.” All that is well and good – but it doesn’t change the issue which (save for your inadvertent misattribution of Denmark’s views) you have correctly summarized.</span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d"> </span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d">Paul</span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d"> </span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d">Paul Rosenzweig</span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d"><a href="mailto:paul.rosenzweigesq@redbranchconsulting.com" target="_blank"><span style="color:#0563c1">paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com</span></a></span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d">O: <a href="tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20547-0660" value="+12025470660" target="_blank">+1 (202) 547-0660</a></span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d">M: <a href="tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20329-9650" value="+12023299650" target="_blank">+1 (202) 329-9650</a></span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d">VOIP: <a href="tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20738-1739" value="+12027381739" target="_blank">+1 (202) 738-1739</a></span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d">Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066</span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d"><a href="http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=19&Itemid=9" target="_blank"><span style="color:#0563c1">Link to my PGP Key</span></a></span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d"> </span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d"> </span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"> Arun Mohan Sukumar [<a href="mailto:arun.sukumar@orfonline.org" target="_blank">mailto:arun.sukumar@orfonline.org</a>] <br><b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, October 27, 2015 2:12 PM<br><b>To:</b> Greg Shatan <<a href="mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com" target="_blank">gregshatanipc@gmail.com</a>><br><b>Cc:</b> Accountability Cross Community <<a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org" target="_blank">accountability-cross-community@icann.org</a>><br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [CCWG-ACCT] On Stress Test 18</span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> <u></u><u></u></span></p><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">Hi Olga, <u></u><u></u></span></p><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> <u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">This is the operative part of the Dublin communique on ST18. <u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> <u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">The GAC considered:<u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> <u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">1. The need that each and every Advisory Committee ensures that the advice provided is clear and reflects the consensus view of the Committee; <u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">2. The need that each and every Advisory Committee should preserve its own autonomy in its definition of consensus; <u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">3. The value the Board attributes to receiving consensus advice;<u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> <u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">.... the GAC agreed to further work on the issue of Stress Test 18...<u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> <u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">These 3 options considered by the GAC are as different as chalk and cheese. What might an objective analysis of them be? If, as Greg says, the issue is settled, why didn't the GAC simply accept the stress test?<u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> <u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">I have no fight in this either, so I'm very much looking to hear a more informed take on the Communique.<u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> <u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">Best,<u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">Arun<u></u><u></u></span></p><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> <u></u><u></u></span></p></div></div></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"><br clear="all"><u></u><u></u></span></p><div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">-- <u></u><u></u></span></p><div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">Head, Cyber Initiative<u></u><u></u></span></p><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">Observer Research Foundation, New Delhi<u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"><a href="http://amsukumar.tumblr.com/" target="_blank"><span style="color:#1155cc">http://amsukumar.tumblr.com</span></a><u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"><a href="tel:%2B91-9871943272" value="+919871943272" target="_blank">+91-9871943272</a><u></u><u></u></span></p></div></div></div></div></div></div></div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> <u></u><u></u></span></p><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 11:13 PM, Greg Shatan <<a href="mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com" target="_blank">gregshatanipc@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<u></u><u></u></span></p><blockquote style="border:none;border-left:solid #cccccc 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-top:5.0pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt"><div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black">Arun,</span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black"> </span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black">This is not my fight, but I don't understand your position. Your reliance on the 3 March 2015 email is incorrect on its face -- it does not say that Denmark opposed Stress Test 18. </span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black"> </span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black">In any event you have the email intervention from Finn Petersen (signed "GAC - Dk") asking you tor correct it. I don't think you need any further requests from Denmark to correct your article. It would be the responsible thing to do.</span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black"> </span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black">If this remains uncorrected, in combination with the passage that Olga Cavalli quoted, it gives the appearance that your article is a stick stirring the ashes, hoping to rekindle a fire that has gone out, rather than a serious piece of reporting or analysis. I hope that you did not intend to be a pyromaniac -- it would be a waste of your time and skills, and counterproductive in the larger scheme of things.</span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:#888888"> </span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:#888888">Greg</span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:#888888"> </span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:#888888"> </span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div></div><div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> <u></u><u></u></span></p><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 1:31 PM, Arun Mohan Sukumar <<a href="mailto:arun.sukumar@orfonline.org" target="_blank">arun.sukumar@orfonline.org</a>> wrote:<u></u><u></u></span></p><blockquote style="border:none;border-left:solid #cccccc 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-top:5.0pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt"><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">Thanks Greg - I would need to link to an e-mail intervention from DK or GAC meeting transcripts (when Dublin ones are out) to make this correction. Saying this post the article's publication is not quite the same.<u></u><u></u></span></p><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> <u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">Best,<u></u><u></u></span></p></div></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"><br clear="all"><u></u><u></u></span></p><div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">-- <u></u><u></u></span></p><div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">Head, Cyber Initiative<u></u><u></u></span></p><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">Observer Research Foundation, New Delhi<u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"><a href="http://amsukumar.tumblr.com/" target="_blank"><span style="color:#1155cc">http://amsukumar.tumblr.com</span></a><u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"><a href="tel:%2B91-9871943272" target="_blank">+91-9871943272</a><u></u><u></u></span></p></div></div></div></div></div></div></div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> <u></u><u></u></span></p><div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 10:56 PM, Greg Shatan <<a href="mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com" target="_blank">gregshatanipc@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<u></u><u></u></span></p><blockquote style="border:none;border-left:solid #cccccc 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-top:5.0pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt"><div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black">Arun,</span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black"> </span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black">I just read the email you referred to. It does not support the proposition that Stress Test 18 is unacceptable to Denmark, or even that Denmark has a position on Stress Test 18. It is a fairly nuanced and non-dispositive email, contributing to the overall discourse at the time it was written. Furthermore, it was written 3 March 2015, which in "CCWG time" is several millennia ago -- a further reason not to rely on it as a statement of "position" in late October.</span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black"> </span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black">I suggest that you do not need to wait for further instructions from Denmark in order to correct your piece, especially since Denmark has already told you in no uncertain terms that "your statement concerning Denmark is wrong!!!!"</span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black"> </span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black">I look forward to reading the revised version of your article.</span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black"> </span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black">Best regards,</span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black"> </span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black">Greg Shatan</span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div></div><div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> <u></u><u></u></span></p><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 1:15 PM, Arun Mohan Sukumar <<a href="mailto:arun.sukumar@orfonline.org" target="_blank">arun.sukumar@orfonline.org</a>> wrote:<u></u><u></u></span></p><blockquote style="border:none;border-left:solid #cccccc 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-top:5.0pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt"><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">Hi Finn, this is what I went by: <a href="http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/wp1/2015-March/000071.html" target="_blank">http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/wp1/2015-March/000071.html</a><u></u><u></u></span></p><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> <u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">If the Danish position has changed, happy to correct.<u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> <u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">Best,<u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"><br clear="all"><u></u><u></u></span></p><div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">-- <u></u><u></u></span></p><div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">Head, Cyber Initiative<u></u><u></u></span></p><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">Observer Research Foundation, New Delhi<u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"><a href="http://amsukumar.tumblr.com/" target="_blank"><span style="color:#1155cc">http://amsukumar.tumblr.com</span></a><u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"><a href="tel:%2B91-9871943272" target="_blank">+91-9871943272</a><u></u><u></u></span></p></div></div></div></div></div></div></div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> <u></u><u></u></span></p><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 10:32 PM, Finn Petersen <<a href="mailto:FinPet@erst.dk" target="_blank">FinPet@erst.dk</a>> wrote:<u></u><u></u></span></p><blockquote style="border:none;border-left:solid #cccccc 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-top:5.0pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt"><div><div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">Dear Arun,<u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> <u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">Thoughts - here is one!<u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> <u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">You write "Several countries, notably Brazil, Spain, Denmark and Argentina, see the proposed modification as unacceptable."<u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> <u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">Why did you include Denmark in the group of countries that oppose ST18 - your statement concerning Denmark is wrong!!!!<u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> <u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">Please correct this.<u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> <u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">Best,<u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> <u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">Finn, GAC - Dk<br><br>Sendt fra min iPad<u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span style="color:black"><br>Den 27. okt. 2015 kl. 17.42 skrev "<a href="mailto:arun.sukumar@orfonline.org" target="_blank">arun.sukumar@orfonline.org</a>" <<a href="mailto:arun.sukumar@orfonline.org" target="_blank">arun.sukumar@orfonline.org</a>>:<u></u><u></u></span></p></div><blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt"><div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">CCWGers, plugging here a post I wrote on discussions around Stress Test 18. <u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"><a href="http://blogs.cfr.org/cyber/2015/10/27/governments-v-icann-the-last-battle-before-the-iana-transition/" target="_blank">http://blogs.cfr.org/cyber/2015/10/27/governments-v-icann-the-last-battle-before-the-iana-transition/</a><u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> <u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">Thoughts welcome!<u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> <u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">Best,<u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span style="color:black">Arun<u></u><u></u></span></p><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">Sent from my iPad<u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> <u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">Head, Cyber Initiative<u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">Observer Research Foundation, New Delhi<u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"><a href="http://amsukumar.tumblr.com/" target="_blank">http://amsukumar.tumblr.com/</a><u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">Ph: +91-</span><span style="font-family:uictfonttextstylebody;color:black">9871943272</span><span style="color:black"> <u></u><u></u></span></p></div></div></div></blockquote></div></div><blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt"><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><u></u><u></u></span></p></div></blockquote></div></div></div></blockquote></div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> <u></u><u></u></span></p></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" 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><u></u><u></u></span></p></blockquote></div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> <u></u><u></u></span></p></div></div></div></blockquote></div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> <u></u><u></u></span></p></div></div></div></blockquote></div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> <u></u><u></u></span></p></div></div></div></blockquote></div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> <u></u><u></u></span></p></div></div></div></div></div></div></div><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" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>