<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;}
@font-face
{font-family:Verdana;
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
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
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.8e96fa11-c06d-4965-8817-8ff46765e27f, li.8e96fa11-c06d-4965-8817-8ff46765e27f, div.8e96fa11-c06d-4965-8817-8ff46765e27f
{mso-style-name:8e96fa11-c06d-4965-8817-8ff46765e27f;
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
span.EmailStyle20
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
span.BalloonTextChar
{mso-style-name:"Balloon Text Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Balloon Text";
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang="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">As the issue of the role of the GAC within post-transition ICANN is the one most likely to cause Congressional (and perhaps even NTIA) opposition to the transition
proposal -- if there is a perception of an unacceptable level of governmental influence over ICANN -- it is important to come to a common and acceptable understanding on this matter. As the ST18 subgroup came to an agreement only in the last few minutes of
its final call it is perfectly understandable that there may be differing views on the text’s meaning.<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">Greg raises an interesting question as to what happens if the GAC provides some very unpalatable advice and the Board neither advises the GAC that it intends
to take an inconsistent action , or declines to take a formal vote when the GAC advice is of the consensus variety. Does the advice just wait in limbo indefinitely, or is there a point in time when it is deemed both accepted and in effect if the Board has
declined to take any action?<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>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:navy">Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal</span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:navy">Virtualaw LLC</span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:navy">1155 F Street, NW</span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:navy">Suite 1050</span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:navy">Washington, DC 20004</span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:navy">202-559-8597/Direct</span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:navy">202-559-8750/Fax</span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:navy">202-255-6172/cell</span></b><b><span style="color:navy"><o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:navy"><o:p> </o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:navy">Twitter: @VlawDC</span></b><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:black"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><i><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:navy">"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey</span></i></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></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-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>Schaefer, Brett<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Friday, December 18, 2015 9:55 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> Greg Shatan; Alan Greenberg<br>
<b>Cc:</b> accountability-cross-community@icann.org<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Does the proposed change to the GAC Bylaw create a new "mandatory voting requirement" for the ICANN Board?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Greg,<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">Agree entirely. This is not what I understood to be the intent of the ST 18 language.
<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">The more Paul and I have gone over this, the more concerned we have become over the language. We have expressed similar concerns in our public comment along
with suggestions for alternative text. We need to fix this before moving forward.
<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 fully admit to bearing part of the blame in this – we should have thought this through during the ST 18 discussions. But then we were under an enormous pressure
to meet the deadline and text was being proposed on the fly during the Adobe chat sessions. The past few weeks have finally provided some time to reflect and think things through. That reflection should be taken into account.
<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">Best,<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">Brett
<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"><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"">
<a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org">accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org</a> [<a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org">mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org</a>]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Greg Shatan<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Friday, December 18, 2015 12:52 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> Alan Greenberg<br>
<b>Cc:</b> <a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org">accountability-cross-community@icann.org</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Does the proposed change to the GAC Bylaw create a new "mandatory voting requirement" for the ICANN Board?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"">Alan,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif""><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"">Nowhere does it say that there needs to be a "formal decision." If the existing Bylaws required a vote, or even a "formal decision," before entering into the "mutually acceptable solution"
process, the Bylaws would say so. Instead, a more flexible term was chosen -- "determines to take an action." Assuming competent lawyers, these language choices are meaningful and deliberate. Elsewhere, the Bylaws clearly state when there are votes required
(some variation of the word "vote" is used ~200 times in the ICANN Bylaws). "Determines to take an action" is a unique phrase within the bylaws and virtually unique outside of it -- indeed, all but one Google result when searching on that term is a reference
to this particular Bylaw. It's fairly clear to me that something less formal than a vote was intended by choosing this unique phrase.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif""><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"">It's my understanding that this distinction is carried out in the Board's actual practices, which have utilized the flexibility offered by this language. As presently drafted, the Board is
able to identify a situation where it appears that they are going to take an action that would be inconsistent with GAC Advice; at that point, they would approach the GAC, tell them why and enter into the "mutually acceptable solution" process -- without requiring
a formal vote of the Board. This gives the Board more flexibility and leeway to work with the GAC, and it's my understanding that the Board has in fact worked in this manner. The CCWG proposal would take away that flexibility and mandate a formal vote of
the Board, requiring the Board to take an adversarial stance with the GAC. [Choosng to use the flatly negative word "reject" instead of the more nuanced phrase "take an action that is not consistent with" is just the icing on the cake.]<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif""><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"">There is another issue raised by this new language. With this revision, it is far from clear what the status of GAC Advice that not been rejected by a 2/3 vote? If the Board takes a vote,
but the rejection fails to pass, is the GAC Advice now "accepted" (possibly by a vote of 1/3+1) and binding on ICANN? What about GAC Advice on which no vote has been taken -- is that Advice "accepted" and binding on ICANN and, if so, when? [Compare this
to the Community's right to reject a standard bylaws change -- if the community does not elect to do so, or attempts to do so and fails, that bylaw clearly become binding upon ICANN.] <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif""><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"">The combination of a 2/3 threshold and a mandatory vote to reject GAC Advice creates a presumption that GAC advice will be accepted. This presumption is novel and clearly elevates GAC Advice
to a new level of deference within the ICANN process.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif""><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"">Although none of this is explicitly stated in the detailed explanation in Annex 11, the more I consider this and the more people I talk to, the more convinced I am that what I've laid out
above is exactly what was intended by some of those involved in the drafting process for the Bylaw revision, and the rest of us just didn't see it at the time. Since it's not brought out in the CCWG's explanation, this fundamental change can "fly under the
radar" until the Proposal is approved.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif""><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"">I don't believe that this was the intention of the CCWG. If it's not the intention of the CCWG, then my alternative wording would remove this concern. If this is in fact the intention of
the CCWG then I think it needs to be part of the explanation set forth in the proposal, so that the intent and effect are clear, and any reader can clearly understand what we have wrought.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif""><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"">Finally, I have to say that this is not an "implementation level" concern. This is, if you will, a "policy level" concern. If this gets baked into the accepted proposal, then the implementers
will essentially be bound to carry this out in the implementation (i.e., the drafting of the "real" Bylaw language). Any later attempt to change a concept stated in the accepted and transmitted final proposal will face a very high set of hurdles, at best.
Now is the time to deal with this.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif""><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"">Greg<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif""><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif""><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 3:22 PM, Alan Greenberg <<a href="mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca" target="_blank">alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt">Greg, you say that the current Bylaws do not reference voting. The current wording (<a href="https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/bylaws-en/#XI-2.1j" target="_blank"> https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/bylaws-en/#XI-2.1j</a>)
is "In the event that the ICANN Board determines to take an action that is not consistent with the Governmental Advisory Committee advice..."<br>
<br>
How else is the Board able to formally decide on anything other than by voting? <br>
<br>
Alan<br>
<br>
At 16/12/2015 03:09 AM, Greg Shatan wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt">All,<br>
<br>
In reviewing the Third Draft Proposal, concerns have been raised within my constituency that the proposed Bylaw does more than replace an existing "majority" threshold with a new "2/3" threshold. The concern is that the proposed Bylaw introduces a "mandatory
vote" by the Board in order to reject GAC Advice where the Bylaws do not currently require a Board vote. Further, there appears to be a concern that, if the Board does not take a vote and affirmatively reject a piece of GAC advice, then that GAC advice becomes
binding on ICANN.<br>
<br>
These concerns stem from a reading of the draft Bylaw (new language in red):<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:12.0pt;margin-left:.5in">
The advice of the Governmental Advisory Committee on public policy matters shall be duly taken into account, both in the formulation and adoption of policies. In the event that the ICANN Board determines to take an action that is not consistent with the Governmental
Advisory Committee advice, it shall so inform the Committee and state the reasons why it decided not to follow that advice. Any Governmental Advisory Committee advice approved by a full Governmental Advisory Committee consensus, understood to mean the practice
of adopting decisions by general agreement in the absence of any formal objection, may only be rejected by a vote of two-thirds of the Board, and tThe Governmental Advisory Committee and the ICANN Board will then try, in good faith and in a timely and efficient
manner, to find a mutually acceptable solution.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"">​The current language of the Bylaw makes no reference to voting, only to the far more ambiguous "determines to take an action." As such, adding a reference
to a vote can be seen to add a new element (aside from the introduction of a 2/3 threshold): the element of a bylaws-mandated vote. Similarly, the statement that GAC Advice can only be rejected by a vote of the Board can be read to state that if no such vote
is taken (or if such vote is taken and fails) that the GAC Advice is then something ICANN is bound to follow.<br>
<br>
I don't think either of these things were intended by the CCWG. Whether they are misreadings of our draft language or unintended consequences of the drafting, this concern is troubling. If it is the intent of some of those drafting this language to force
a vote where none is currently required, then that is even more troubling.<br>
<br>
I would appreciate some clarification on these matters that I can bring back to my group.
<br>
<br>
I would also appreciate the CCWG considering a change in language to remove this ambiguity which is currently causing great consternation in my group.<br>
</span><br>
I suggest the language below. This m<br>
ore closely track<br>
​s​<br>
the language of the existing bylaw and avoid the use of the term "vote," with its potential unintended consequences:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">The advice of the Governmental Advisory Committee on public policy matters shall be duly taken into account, both in the formulation and adoption of policies. In the event that the ICANN Board determines to take
an action that is not consistent with the Governmental Advisory Committee advice, it shall so inform the Committee and state the reasons why it decided not to follow that advice.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">​ <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="color:blue">If the Board</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="color:blue">​ </span>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="color:blue">determines to take an action that is not consistent with
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">Governmental Advisory Committee advice approved by a full Governmental Advisory Committee consensus, understood to mean the practice of adopting decisions by general agreement in the absence of any formal objection,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">​ <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="color:blue">​such determination must be supported by
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="color:blue">two-thirds of the Board,</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">and the Governmental Advisory Committee and the ICANN Board will then try, in good faith and in a timely and efficient manner, to find a mutually acceptable solution.<span style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif""><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"">​<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
<br>
I would appreciate your thoughts on this point and the revised language. Thank you.<br>
<br>
Greg<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<hr size="2" width="200" style="width:150.0pt" noshade="" style="color:#58595B" align="left">
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#004B8D">Brett</span></b>
<b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#004B8D">Schaefer</span></b><i><span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#58595B"><br>
Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs<br>
Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy</span></i><br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#58595B">The Heritage Foundation<br>
214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE<br>
Washington, DC 20002<br>
202-608-6097</span><br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#004B8D"><a href="http://heritage.org/"><span style="color:#004B8D;text-decoration:none">heritage.org</span></a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">_______________________________________________<br>
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org" target="_blank">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a>
<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center">
<hr size="1" width="100%" noshade="" style="color:#A0A0A0" align="center">
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">No virus found in this message.<br>
Checked by AVG - <a href="http://www.avg.com">www.avg.com</a><br>
Version: 2016.0.7227 / Virus Database: 4477/11098 - Release Date: 12/01/15<br>
Internal Virus Database is out of date.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>