<html><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body dir="auto"><div>I share Greg's concerns. I'm not sure how the addition of a further restriction on ICANNS contracting authority solves the ambiguity of the preceding sentence. Also, how would WHOIS obligations qualify as an meeting the "harm" threshold? <br><br>Sent from my iPhone</div><div><br>On Nov 24, 2015, at 12:59 AM, Greg Shatan <<a href="mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com">gregshatanipc@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">i object to this newly-proposed language. This is truly being proposed at the 12th hour, as we already have our Third Draft in front of us for review. Second, it is an entirely new formulation of alleged boundaries around ICANN's mission. It bears no resemblance to any prior generally accepted, or even generally considered formulation of ICANN's mission. Instead, it is based on a novel theory of what falls inside and outside of ICANN's mission, or more accurately, what the author wishes fell inside or outside of ICANN's mission. This might be appropriate or interesting in a theoretical paper or a think-tank document, but now is not the time to try and bake theories about the underpinnings of ICANN's mission into the Bylaws. </div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">On substance, this proposal raises a host of problems. The concept of a "domain causing harm to third parties" is at best a crude and off-target representation of an idea -- what constitutes "harm"? How does that relate to any current or future policy relating to domain disputes, none of which talk about harm as such? There's really no time to consider the issues in depth without sacrificing the ability to review the draft of our Third Draft Report, which cannot be a sacrifice any of us should be asked to make. Even if we did not have the draft in front of us, the time left to consider this is completely inadequate.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">The example given also has some dangerous infirmities, but I've run out of time to talk about them since our call's about to start.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Greg</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 6:25 PM, David Post <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:david.g.post@gmail.com" target="_blank">david.g.post@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div>
<br>
Here's my crack at the restrictive language that should be
included. I tried to leave the the statement in the current draft
as is, but made several additions to it that hopefully cover the things
some of us are very concerned about. <br><br>
The language below is all from the latest draft, except for the added
language IN ALL CAPS:<br><br>
<br>
***************<br>
The Mission of The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers is
to ensure the stable and secure operation of the Internet's unique
identifier systems as described below. Specifically, ICANN:<br><br>
1. Coordinates the allocation and assignment of names in the root zone of
the Domain Name System ("DNS"). In this role, ICANN’s Mission
is to coordinate the development and implementation of policies:
<br><br>
For which uniform or coordinated resolution is reasonably necessary to
facilitate the openness, interoperability, resilience, security and/or
stability of the Domain Name System;<br><br>
That are developed through a bottom-up, consensus-based multi-stakeholder
process and designed to ensure the stable and secure operation of the
Internet’s unique names systems. . . . <br><span class=""><br>
ICANN shall act strictly in accordance with, and only as reasonably
appropriate to achieve its Mission. <br><br></span>
ICANN shall not (a) impose regulations on services (i.e., any software
process that accepts connections from the Internet) that use the
Internet’s unique identifiers, or the content that such services carry or
provide, OR (B) IMPOSE -- DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY -- CONTRACTUAL
OBLIGATIONS OR CONDITIONS ON THE CONDUCT OR BEHAVIOR OF DOMAIN NAME
REGISTRANTS, EXCEPT TO THE EXTENT THAT (1) THE DOMAIN NAME REGISTRATION
IS CAUSING HARM TO THIRD PARTIES OR (2) THE CONDUCT OR BEHAVIOR IS
CAUSING HARM TO THE STABLE AND SECURE OPERATION OF THE DOMAIN NAME
SYSTEM. <br><br>
lCANN shall have the ability to negotiate, enter into and enforce
agreements with contracted parties IN SERVICE OF its Mission.<br><br>
************************<br><br>
<br>
The language added above attempts to rein in ICANN's ability to
"regulate" things other than the registration and allocation of
names. So, for instance, insofar as a TLD has been designated to have a
particular meaning (to imply certain characteristics of those who
register in that domain - e.g. *.pharmacy or *.bank ), ICANN can
legitimately impose contractual conditions on registrants to satisfy
those characteristics, because otherwise the registration of the name is
misleading and can potentially cause harm. At the same time (to use
Bruce's earlier example) ICANN cannot impose contractual
conditions/obligations on whomever has registered computer.expert (or
<a href="http://davidpost.org" target="_blank">davidpost.org</a>) regarding the use of Apple's trademarks, because in that
case, while there might well be harm (to Apple), the harm does not flow
from the registration of the domains computer.expert or <a href="http://davidpost.org" target="_blank">davidpost.org</a>,
nor is it the kind of harm that somehow threatens the stability or
security of the DNS. <br><br>
David<br><br>
<br><br>
d<br><br>
<br>
At 04:18 PM 11/23/2015, Burr, Becky wrote:<br><br>
<blockquote type="cite"><font face="Calibri">First, I
believe that Registrars agreed to this provision in the course of
negotiations. While I would like a mechanism for contracted parties
to challenge ICANN’s “take it or don’t sign†negotiating
ultimatums, this doesn’t fall into that bucket as far as I am
concerned. And I agree with the general principle that contracts
should be enforceable by the parties to the agreement.<br>
<br>
Beyond that, the language of 3.18 in question imposes obligations on
<i>registrars</i> – maintain an abuse pooint of contact, investigate
allegations regarding illegal activities, take appropriate action, so I
don’t think that amounts to regulating registrants. I also agree
that there are situations in which illegal activity could impact the
stability and security of the Internet’s unique identifiers (e.g.,
particularly involving malicious DNS exploits, etc.), so the provision
seems to me to be appropriate in furtherance of ICANN’s
Mission.<br><br>
The problem, of course, is that not all illegal activity threatens the
stability and security of the DNS; behavior that is illegal in some
jurisdictions is not illegal in all jurisdictions; and the
legality/illegality of a particular activity is generally a determination
left to sovereigns or courts. So, what constitutes an “
appropriate response†is going to vary from case to case.
Theoretically, ICANN could choose to enforce the requirement in a manner
that exceeded the scope of its authority, e.g., it could begin to say
that registrars who do not suspend registrations in response to
allegations that an underlying site is defamatory are in breach.
But I think 3.18 itself is a legitimate contract provision that ICANN
should be able to enforce.<br>
</font><span class=""><br>
<b>J. Beckwith Burr <br>
Neustar, Inc. </b>/<b> </b>Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy
Officer<br>
1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006<br>
<b>Office: </b><a href="tel:%2B1.202.533.2932" value="+12025332932" target="_blank">+1.202.533.2932</a> <b>Mobile: </b><a href="tel:%2B1.202.352.6367" value="+12023526367" target="_blank">+1.202.352.6367</a>
<b>/</b> <a href="http://www.neustar.biz" target="_blank"><b>neustar.biz</b></a><br>
<br>
From: <Silver>, Bradley
<<a href="mailto:Bradley.Silver@timewarner.com" target="_blank">
Bradley.Silver@timewarner.com</a>><br>
Date: Monday, November 23, 2015 at 2:37 PM<br>
To: Becky Burr
<<a href="mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz" target="_blank">becky.burr@neustar.biz</a>
>, David Post
<<a href="mailto:david.g.post@gmail.com" target="_blank">david.g.post@gmail.com</a>
><br>
Cc: Alan Greenberg
<<a href="mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca" target="_blank">alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca</a>
>, Greg Shatan
<<a href="mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com" target="_blank">gregshatanipc@gmail.com</a>
>, "Mueller, Milton L"
<<a href="mailto:milton@gatech.edu" target="_blank">milton@gatech.edu</a>>,
Accountability Community
<<a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org" target="_blank">
accountability-cross-community@icann.org</a>><br>
Subject: RE: [CCWG-ACCT] Board comments on the Mission statement<br><br>
Thanks Becky, <br>
<br></span>
The question is not whether ICANN’s authority to enforce policies
regarding resolutions of domain name disputes can be stretched to
websites, the question is whether under the RAA, ICANN can validly
require registrars to maintain an abuse contact and take certain steps in
response to reports of Illegal Activity – which is defined to include
conduct <i>involving</i> use of a Registered Name. Putting
aside the issue of defamation and infringement etc, let’s assume for a
moment that the Illegal Activity in question is not inherent in the
domain name itself but rather <i>involves</i> the use of the name, either
directly or indirectly. And let’s further assume that such use is
something that a reasonable person might argue impacts ICANN’s ability
to ensure the stable and secure operation of the Internet's unique
identifier systems. I had thought that the language we were
searching for would permit ICANN to act in those circumstances.
Unless you are you taking the position that we know all we need to know
today about what those circumstances might be, and whether ICANN’s
activity could be impinged by the language we have been discussing, then
you must acknowledge that we are doing brain surgery in the dark here by
trying to constrain ICANN’s mission with language that has imprecise
meaning. <br><span class="">
<br>
Bradley<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<b>From:</b> Burr, Becky
[<a href="mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz" target="_blank">mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz</a>
] <br>
<b>Sent:</b> Monday, November 23, 2015 1:38 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> Silver, Bradley; David Post<br>
<b>Cc:</b> Alan Greenberg; Greg Shatan; Mueller, Milton L; Accountability
Cross Community<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Board comments on the Mission
statement<br>
<br>
Bradley, <br>
<br></span>
3.7.7.9 speaks about the registration and use of a “Registered
Name.†A "Registered Name" refers to a domain name
within the domain of a gTLD…about which a <gTLD Registry Operator (or
an Affiliate or subcontractor thereof engaged in providing Registry
Services) maintains data in a Registry Database, arranges for such
maintenance, or derives revenue from such maintenance.†To me,
that refers to registration and use of a string, and not a web site.<br>
<br>
That is also consistent with the registrar form of the “picket
fence," which allows ICANN to unilaterally obligate registrars to
comply with policies (a) covering specific topics and (b) developed in
accordance with specified procedures designed to ensure that they are
supported by consensus. The RAA spec (Section 4 of the 2001 RAA and
Spec 4 in the 2013 RAA) covers policies regarding resolution of disputes
regarding the registration of domain names (as opposed to the use of such
domain names, but including where such policies take into account use of
the domain names.) So, under the Registrar’s form of picket
fence, if ICANN has developed a Consensus Policy that covers resolution
of <i>disputes about registrations</i> (e.g., the UDRP, the Rapid
Suspension policy, etc.), and that policy takes use into account (I.e, in
the case of the UDRP for example, registration of a name “in bad
faith†as defined in the UDRP), it is within ICANN’s authority.
<br>
<br>
The question is, could ICANN’s authority to enforce policies regarding
resolution of disputes regarding the <i>registration of domain names</i>
be stretched to construe use of a <i>web site</i> (as opposed to the
string itself) for defamation? I agree with David, I "don't
think they have that power at present, I don't think they have had that
since the beginning of (ICANN) time, and I sure as heck don't want to
them to have it once they are in control of the root and USG oversight is
removed.†<br><span class="">
<br>
Becky<br>
<br>
<b>J. Beckwith Burr<br>
Neustar, Inc.</b>/Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer<br>
1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006<br>
<b>Office:</b><a href="tel:%2B1.202.533.2932" value="+12025332932" target="_blank">+1.202.533.2932</a> <b>Mobile:</b><a href="tel:%2B1.202.352.6367" value="+12023526367" target="_blank">+1.202.352.6367</a>
<b>/<a href="http://www.neustar.biz" target="_blank">neustar.biz</a><br>
</b> <br>
<b>From: </b><Silver>, Bradley
<<a href="mailto:Bradley.Silver@timewarner.com" target="_blank">
Bradley.Silver@timewarner.com</a>><br>
<b>Date: </b>Monday, November 23, 2015 at 11:47 AM<br>
<b>To: </b>David Post
<<a href="mailto:david.g.post@gmail.com" target="_blank">david.g.post@gmail.com</a>
><br>
<b>Cc: </b>Becky Burr
<<a href="mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz" target="_blank">becky.burr@neustar.biz</a>
>, Alan Greenberg
<<a href="mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca" target="_blank">alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca</a>
>, Greg Shatan
<<a href="mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com" target="_blank">gregshatanipc@gmail.com</a>
>, "Mueller, Milton L"
<<a href="mailto:milton@gatech.edu" target="_blank">milton@gatech.edu</a>>,
Accountability Community
<<a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org" target="_blank">
accountability-cross-community@icann.org</a>><br>
<b>Subject: </b>RE: [CCWG-ACCT] Board comments on the Mission
statement<br>
<br></span>
There is a difference between ICANN having power to “enforce local
laws†, as you put it, and ICANN’s ability to enforce its agreements,
which have as a reference point, the conduct of “illegal activityâ€
via an indirect use of a domain name. Let’s be very
clear – we are talking about the latter; the question of whether the
enforcement of specific provisions on their face, would amount to the
kind of regulation you and others would like to see prohibited.
There are a number of forms that enforcement could take which don’t
make ICANN a proxy for local law enforcement. For example,
one manifestation of this concept is in RAA 3.18.1, which talks about the
maintenance of an abuse contact for reports of illegal activity, which
will trigger an obligation to investigate and respond
appropriately. RAA 3.7.7.9 is a logical companion to this
provision, since it ensures that registrars are able, in accordance with
their own terms of service, to address abuse complaints involving illegal
activity, as between them and the registrant involved. We
know there is a broader discussion about what that should entail, but I
am concerned that the language being proposed to prohibit any “direct
or indirect†regulation will be used to argue that these contractual
provisions are outside ICANN’s mission on their face. <br><span class="">
<br>
<b>From:</b> David Post
[<a href="mailto:david.g.post@gmail.com" target="_blank">mailto:david.g.post@gmail.com</a>
] <br>
<b>Sent:</b> Monday, November 23, 2015 11:22 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> Silver, Bradley<br>
<b>Cc:</b> Burr, Becky; Alan Greenberg; Greg Shatan; Mueller, Milton L;
Accountability Cross Community<br>
<b>Subject:</b> RE: [CCWG-ACCT] Board comments on the Mission
statement<br>
<br><br>
Well, this is illuminating ... <br><br>
I take it that at least you and Greg (and perhaps others) think that it
is within ICANN's power to enforce, via its power over the DNS entries,
local pornography laws, or consumer protection laws, or defamation laws,
or ... on the grounds that registrants have to promise not to infringe
any rights of any third parties in any activity they undertake "on
the website to which the domain points." So ICANN can set up a
Pornography Dispute Resolution Procedure, a Consumer Protection Dispute
Resolution Procedure, a Defamation Dispute Resolution Procedure, to
enforce these promises that registrants have supposedly made and to take
down violators. <br><br>
My response is: I don't think they have that power at present, I
don't think they have had that since the beginning of (ICANN) time, and I
sure as heck don't want to them to have it once they are in control of
the root and USG oversight is removed. <br><br>
David<br><br>
<br>
At 10:51 AM 11/23/2015, Silver, Bradley wrote:<br><br>
<br>
David, <br>
<br></span>
That’s an overly narrow reading of RA RAA 3.7.7.9  - its not only
that the registration of the Registered Name infringes or its “direct
useâ€, but also that the manner in which is <i>indirectly</i> is
used. I can’t see how the “i€œindirect†use of the
domain cannot also be attriibuted to infringing uses on the website to
which the domain points.  If that’s not at least an
“ind¬Å“indirect†use, I don’t know what is.   ‚  While I
agree with your conclusion, I don̢۪t agregree with the reasoning, and I
expect there are others (like Milton) who would like to see the clear
meaning of the language of 3.7.7.9 changed through the application of the
“no regulation†sentence. <br>
br> <br><span class="">
Bradley<br>
<br>
<b>From:</b> David Post
[<a href="mailto:david.g.post@gmail.com" target="_blank">
</a><a href="mailto:david.g.post@gmail.com" target="_blank">
mailto:david.g.post@gmail.com</a>] <br>
<b>Sent:</b> Monday, November 23, 2015 10:37 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> Burr, Becky<br>
<b>Cc:</b> Alan Greenberg; Silver, Bradley; Greg Shatan; Mueller, Milton
L; Accountability Cross Community<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Board comments on the Mission
statement<br>
<br>
At 10:03 AM 11/23/2015, Burr, Becky wrote:<br><br>
<br>
Are we seriously arguing that RAA 3.7.7.9 is outside the picket
fence? <br><br>
No, I don't think this was out of scope, because it concerns the
"registration" of the name and the manner in which THE NAME is
used. 3.7.7.9 does not say, in my opnion, that the registrant has
to promise that it is not doing anything at a website that is infringing;
the promise is that the name is not being used in an infringing
manner.<br><br>
D<br><br>
At 10:03 AM 11/23/2015, Burr, Becky wrote:<br><br>
<br>
Are we seriously arguing that RAA 3.7.7.9 is outside the picket
fence? <br><br>
Section 3.7.7.9 of the RAA has been in place from the beginning of
time. Here is the language from the 2001 RAA:<br>
3.7.7.9 The Registered Name Holder shall represent that, to the best of
the Registered Name Holder's knowledge and belief, neither the
registration of the Registered Name nor the manner in which it is
directly or indirectly used infringes the legal rights of any third
party.<br>
Here it is in the 1999 RAA:<br>
7. g. The SLD holder shall represent that, to the best of the SLD
holder's knowledge and belief, neither the registration of the SLD name
nor the manner in which it is directly or indirectly used infringes the
legal rights of a third party.<br><br></span>
As someone who was part of the team drafting and negotiating the 1999
RAA, I can assure you that the inclusion of this requirement in the RAA
was intended to be within the scope of ICANNâ€â„„¢s Mission.<span class=""><br><br>
<br>
J. Beckwith Burr <br>
Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer<br>
1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006<br>
Office: <a href="tel:%2B1.202.533.2932" value="+12025332932" target="_blank">+1.202.533.2932</a> Mobile: <a href="tel:%2B1.202.352.6367" value="+12023526367" target="_blank">+1.202.352.6367</a> /
<a href="http://www.neustar.biz" target="_blank">neustar.biz</a><br><br>
From: Alan Greenberg
<<a href="mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca" target="_blank">alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca</a>
><br>
Date: Sunday, November 22, 2015 at 10:06 PM<br>
To: "Silver, Bradley"
<<a href="mailto:Bradley.Silver@timewarner.com" target="_blank">
Bradley.Silver@timewarner.com</a>>, Greg Shatan
<<a href="mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com" target="_blank">gregshatanipc@gmail.com</a>
>, "Mueller, Milton L"
<<a href="mailto:milton@gatech.edu" target="_blank">milton@gatech.edu</a>><br>
Cc: Accountability Community
<<a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org" target="_blank">
accountability-cross-community@icann.org</a>><br>
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Board comments on the Mission statement<br><br>
I rarely fill people's mailboxes just to do this, but in this
case;<br><br>
+1<br><br>
Alan<br><br>
<br>
At 22/11/2015 08:31 PM, Silver, Bradley wrote:<br><br>
<br></span>
I want to echo and support Greg’s resposposponse below. sp;
Milton’s position that an en existinting pr provision of the RAA
is out of the scope of ICANNâ€Ã¢Ã¢„¢s mission is
illuminating. sp; I had beenn operating on the (hopeful) presumption that
what we were attempting to do was find a way to describe ICANN’s
missionion in a manner that refleflects its cu current activities, and
avoid drafting anything that could adversely impact its continued ability
to do so while clearly preventing any undue expansion. If
those who support the language in the second sentence are seeking a way
to attack the validity or enforceability of existing contractual
provisions, then the concerns of the board are not only well founded,
they are grossly understated. <br><div><div class="h5">
<br>
From:
<a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org" target="_blank">
accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org</a> [
<a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org" target="_blank">
mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org</a>] On Behalf Of
Greg Shatan<br>
Sent: Sunday, November 22, 2015 3:01 AM<br>
To: Mueller, Milton L<br>
Cc: Accountability Cross Community<br>
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Board comments on the Mission statement<br>
<br>
Milton,<br>
<br>
I strongly disagree that 3.7.7 is out of scope of ICANN's mission.
I also don't think it's useless, nor is it an uncommon provision in many
terms of service and similar agreements. 3.7.7 only asks for the
registrant's "knowledge and belief" -- so they are not required
to know whether they are infringing anywhere under any
jurisdiction. They are only required to make reference to what they
already know -- an entirely reasonable and ordinary requirement.<br>
<br>
Is it your intent that the new provision we are discussing places 3.7.7
out of scope, and thus serves as a basis for an IRP or other challenge
seeking to nullify 3.7.7? Since 3.7.7 is only an
"example," what other sections are you trying to place out of
scope?<br>
<br>
Thanks.<br>
<br>
Greg<br>
<br>
On Sat, Nov 21, 2015 at 5:56 PM, Mueller, Milton L
<<a href="mailto:milton@gatech.edu" target="_blank">milton@gatech.edu</a>>
wrote:<br><br>
<br>
> -----Original Message-----<br>
><br>
> See section 3.7.7 of the registrar accreditation agreement
(RAA):<br>
>
<a href="https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_resources_pages_approved-2Dwith-2Dspecs-2D2013-2D09-2D17-2Den&d=CwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=11R4XkcvGwOIsQkhhyE47Z7B829g9E2Cip1amJSBQu0&s=5ThaiusaRSYwZuxG3vlUf8hTsMh251yjw_-T7i4DOFg&e=" target="_blank">
https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/approved-with-specs-2013-09-17-en</a>
<br>
><br>
> 3.7.7.9 The Registered Name Holder shall represent that, to the best
of the<br>
> Registered Name Holder's knowledge and belief, neither the
registration of<br>
> the Registered Name nor the manner in which it is directly or
indirectly used<br>
> infringes the legal rights of any third party.<br><br>
Bruce: this is a good example of how the RAA is currently out of scope.
To begin with, it is a completely useless element of the RAA. This
statement does not stop anyone from doing anything, and it does not
require ICANN to determine whether a registrant is infringing someone's
rights. And how is anyone supposed to know whether the way they use a
domain infringes the legal rights of a third party - anywhere in the
world, under any jurisdiction? They cannot know this until
and unless someone asserts those rights against them in a legal
system which has jurisdiction and can make a legal determination. Or do
we want ICANN to be making this determination? Most would agree that we
do not. So what is the purpose, other than to invite ICANN to impose
controls or regulations on virtually anything that happens on the
internet?<br><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>
<br>
<br><br>
=================================================================<br>
Reminder: Any email that requests your login credentials or that asks you
to click on a link could be a phishing attack. If you have any
questions regarding the authenticity of this email or its sender, please
contact the IT Service Desk at <a href="tel:212.484.6000" value="+12124846000" target="_blank">212.484.6000</a> or via email at
<a href="mailto:ITServices@timewarner.com" target="_blank">ITServices@timewarner.com</a>
<br><br>
<br>
=================================================================<br><br>
=================================================================<br>
This message is the property of Time Warner Inc. and is intended only for
the use of the<br>
addressee(s) and may be legally privileged and/or confidential. If the
reader of this message<br>
is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to
deliver it to the intended<br>
recipient, he or she is hereby notified that any dissemination,
distribution, printing, forwarding,<br>
or any method of copying of this information, and/or the taking of any
action in reliance on<br>
the information herein is strictly prohibited except by the intended
recipient or those to whom<br>
he or she intentionally distributes this message. If you have received
this communication in<br>
error, please immediately notify the sender, and delete the original
message and any copies<br>
from your computer or storage system. Thank you.<br>
=================================================================<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>
<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>
<br><br>
*******************************<br>
David G Post - Senior Fellow, Open Technology Institute/New America
Foundation<br>
blog (Volokh Conspiracy)
<a href="https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.washingtonpost.com_people_david-2Dpost&d=CwMGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=q0We23gB15IOvlVyCxS70PlyFWr7jiJPtk5hUAwJ4-o&s=sFIVEVRa4d2-50iBD-equxjw7XvbBhYdWLFew_7kOTA&e=" target="_blank">
http://www.washingtonpost.com/people/david-post<br>
</a>book (Jefferson's Moose)
<a href="https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__tinyurl.com_c327w2n-25A0-25A0-25A0-25A0-25A0-25A0-25A0&d=CwMGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=q0We23gB15IOvlVyCxS70PlyFWr7jiJPtk5hUAwJ4-o&s=ywg8uVPfTYGqvglA4unTV31GGxchC7v0aAGWrgZkGwI&e=" target="_blank">
http://tinyurl.com/c327w2n </a><br>
music
<a href="https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__tinyurl.com_davidpostmusic-25A0&d=CwMGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=q0We23gB15IOvlVyCxS70PlyFWr7jiJPtk5hUAwJ4-o&s=-Riw1v0au2L-2i3gFKAtEkYl56nN9CXxfpAuLQLoMGo&e=" target="_blank">
http://tinyurl.com/davidpostmusic </a>publications etc.
<a href="https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.davidpost.com-26nbsp-3B-26nbsp-3B-26nbsp-3B-26nbsp-3B-26nbsp-3B-26nbsp-3B-26nbsp-3B-26nbsp-3B-2520_&d=CwMGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=q0We23gB15IOvlVyCxS70PlyFWr7jiJPtk5hUAwJ4-o&s=C0EhJhpDbLpEFEZrabNoThQ_PqYnGoH9H9Ov6mccnu8&e=" target="_blank">
http://www.davidpost.com
</a><br>
******************************* <br><br>
=================================================================<br>
<b><i>Reminder: Any email that requests your login credentials or that
asks you to click on a link could be a phishing attack. If you have
any questions regarding the authenticity of this email or its sender,
please contact the IT Service Desk at <a href="tel:212.484.6000" value="+12124846000" target="_blank">212.484.6000</a> or via email at
<a href="mailto:ITServices@timewarner.com" target="_blank">ITServices@timewarner.com</a>
<br>
</i></b><br><br>
=================================================================<br><br>
=================================================================This
message is the property of Time Warner Inc. and is intended only for the
use of theaddressee(s) and may be legally privileged and/or confidential.
If the reader of this messageis not the intended recipient, or the
employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intendedrecipient, he
or she is hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, printing,
forwarding,or any method of copying of this information, and/or the
taking of any action in reliance onthe information herein is strictly
prohibited except by the intended recipient or those to whomhe or she
intentionally distributes this message. If you have received this
communication inerror, please immediately notify the sender, and delete
the original message and any copiesfrom your computer or storage system.
Thank
you.=================================================================
<br><br>
*******************************<br>
David G Post - Senior Fellow, Open Technology Institute/New America
Foundation<br>
blog (Volokh Conspiracy)
<a href="https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.washingtonpost.com_people_david-2Dpost&d=CwMGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=q0We23gB15IOvlVyCxS70PlyFWr7jiJPtk5hUAwJ4-o&s=sFIVEVRa4d2-50iBD-equxjw7XvbBhYdWLFew_7kOTA&e=" target="_blank">
http://www.washingtonpost.com/people/david-post<br>
</a>book (Jefferson's Moose)
<a href="https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__tinyurl.com_c327w2n-25A0-25A0-25A0-25A0-25A0-25A0-25A0&d=CwMGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=q0We23gB15IOvlVyCxS70PlyFWr7jiJPtk5hUAwJ4-o&s=ywg8uVPfTYGqvglA4unTV31GGxchC7v0aAGWrgZkGwI&e=" target="_blank">
http://tinyurl.com/c327w2n </a><br>
music
<a href="https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__tinyurl.com_davidpostmusic-25A0&d=CwMGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=q0We23gB15IOvlVyCxS70PlyFWr7jiJPtk5hUAwJ4-o&s=-Riw1v0au2L-2i3gFKAtEkYl56nN9CXxfpAuLQLoMGo&e=" target="_blank">
http://tinyurl.com/davidpostmusic </a>publications etc.
<a href="https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.davidpost.com-26nbsp-3B-26nbsp-3B-26nbsp-3B-26nbsp-3B-26nbsp-3B-26nbsp-3B-26nbsp-3B-26nbsp-3B-26nbsp-3B_&d=CwMGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=q0We23gB15IOvlVyCxS70PlyFWr7jiJPtk5hUAwJ4-o&s=lr-1bErJrSUdw4bKPYQHlyQJnyZmCN5O3BLA8oN7OPY&e=" target="_blank">
http://www.davidpost.com
</a><br>
******************************* <br><br>
=================================================================<br>
<b><i>Reminder: Any email that requests your login credentials or that
asks you to click on a link could be a phishing attack. If you have
any questions regarding the authenticity of this email or its sender,
please contact the IT Service Desk at <a href="tel:212.484.6000" value="+12124846000" target="_blank">212.484.6000</a> or via email at
<a href="mailto:ITServices@timewarner.com" target="_blank">ITServices@timewarner.com</a>
<br>
</i></b><br><br>
=================================================================<br><br>
=================================================================<br>
<b><i>Reminder: Any email that requests your login credentials or that
asks you to click on a link could be a phishing attack. If you have
any questions regarding the authenticity of this email or its sender,
please contact the IT Service Desk at <a href="tel:212.484.6000" value="+12124846000" target="_blank">212.484.6000</a> or via email at
<a href="mailto:ITServices@timewarner.com" target="_blank">ITServices@timewarner.com</a>
<br>
</i></b><br><br>
=================================================================</div></div></blockquote><div><div class="h5">
<br>
*******************************<br>
David G Post - Senior Fellow, Open Technology Institute/New America
Foundation<br>
blog (Volokh Conspiracy)
<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/people/david-post" target="_blank">
http://www.washingtonpost.com/people/david-post<br>
</a>book (Jefferson's Moose)
<a href="http://tinyurl.com/c327w2n%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0" target="_blank">
http://tinyurl.com/c327w2n </a> <br>
music
<a href="http://tinyurl.com/davidpostmusic%A0" target="_blank">
http://tinyurl.com/davidpostmusic </a> publications etc.
<a>
http://www.davidpost.com
</a> <br>
******************************* </div></div></div>
</blockquote></div><br></div></div>
<p>=================================================================<br>
<font size="3" color="red">
<i> <b>
Reminder: Any email that requests your login credentials or that asks you to click on a link could be a phishing attack. If you have any questions regarding the authenticity of this email or its sender, please contact the IT Service Desk at 212.484.6000 or via email at <a href="mailto:ITServices@timewarner.com">ITServices@timewarner.com</a>
</b></i> </font>
<br>=================================================================<br>
</p></div></blockquote></body></html>