<html><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body dir="auto"><div>Dear All</div><div>Since many years I am struggling with the use of the term" Duely" ,"Due course" " Due account",Due action",undue interference" and ,,,,</div><div>These are qualifiers used to provide some degree of flexibility and manoeuvring . Their use , depend on the circumstances and conditions in which they are used. Their use are also depending on degree of judgement which were / are practices by those using it.</div><div>I suggest the lawyers review the revised text for the text under consideration , in particular with the replacement of " consistent with GAC advice" which caused difficulties for some , in using the current language in the Bylaw , as close as possible</div><div>Regards</div><div>Kavouss </div><div><br>Sent from my iPhone</div><div><br>On 25 Jan 2016, at 06:01, Edward Morris <<a href="mailto:egmorris1@toast.net">egmorris1@toast.net</a>> wrote:<br><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, Sans-Serif; font-size: 12px"><div>From Black's Law Dictionary via Westlaw:</div>
<div> </div>
<div>
<div><strong>Duly: </strong></div>
<div> </div>
<div>In due or proper form or manner ; according to legal requirements.Regularly; upon a proper foundation, as distinguished from mere form. Robertson v.Perkins, 129 U. S. 233, 9 Sup. Ct. 279, 32 L. Ed. 6S6; Brownell v. Greenwich, 114 N. Y.518, 22 N. E. 24, 4 L. R. A. 6S5; Leth- brldge v. New York (Super. N. Y.) 15 N. Y. Supp.502; Allen v. Pancoast, 20 N. J. Law, 74; Van Arsdale v. Van Arsdale, 20 N. J. Law, 423;Dunning v. Coleman. 27 La. Ann. 48; Young v. Wright, 52 Cal. 410; White v. Johnson,27 Or. 282, 40 Pac. 511, 50 Am. St. Rep. 726.</div>
<div>Law Dictionary: What is DULY? definition of DULY (Black's Law Dictionary) </div>
</div>
<div> </div>
<div style="-webkit-touch-callout: none; -webkit-user-select: none; -khtml-user-select: none;-moz-user-select: none;-ms-user-select: none;-o-user-select: none;user-select: none;"> </div>
<div> </div>
<hr align="center" size="2" width="100%">
<div><span style="font-family: tahoma,arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;"><b>From</b>: "Greg Shatan" <<a href="mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com">gregshatanipc@gmail.com</a>><br>
<b>Sent</b>: Monday, January 25, 2016 3:33 AM<br>
<b>To</b>: "Avri Doria" <<a href="mailto:avri@acm.org">avri@acm.org</a>><br>
<b>Cc</b>: "<a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org">accountability-cross-community@icann.org</a>" <<a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org">accountability-cross-community@icann.org</a>><br>
<b>Subject</b>: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Lawyers' High Level Review: Annexes 1, 8, 9, 10, 11</span>
<div> </div>
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Avri,</div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"> </div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">I don't have a formal legal definition of "duly" at my fingertips -- but generally, when "due" or "duly" is used in a legal context, it connotes a reasonable and appropriate level of attention and care, with an implication that more (rather than less) was done by the party.</div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"> </div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Greg </div>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote">On Sun, Jan 24, 2016 at 10:06 PM, Avri Doria <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:avri@acm.org" target="_blank">avri@acm.org</a>></span> wrote:
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Hi,<br>
<br>
Not lawyer and definitely of the opinion that we have understood it the<br>
way Greg et al have understood it up to this point.<br>
<br>
But legally, how is "duly taken into account" different from "taken<br>
into account"<br>
<br>
avri<br>
<br>
<span>On 24-Jan-16 20:22, Greg Shatan wrote:<br>
> "duly taken into account" absolutely does not mean "followed."<br>
><br>
> On Sun, Jan 24, 2016 at 8:10 PM, Nigel Roberts <<a href="mailto:nigel@channelisles.net">nigel@channelisles.net</a></span>
<div>
<div class="h5">> <mailto:<a href="mailto:nigel@channelisles.net">nigel@channelisles.net</a>>> wrote:<br>
><br>
> Paul is right to be concerned.<br>
><br>
> 'duly taken in to account' means 'followed'.<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> On 24/01/16 21:32, Greg Shatan wrote:<br>
><br>
> Paul,<br>
><br>
> I was halfway through writing an email that said exactly that.<br>
><br>
> This may be due to the lawyers re-interpreting "duly taken<br>
> into account"<br>
> in a way that I don't agree with and which I think is<br>
> incorrect. We<br>
> have used the term many times in discussing how we deal with<br>
> public<br>
> comments, and I have taken our meaning to be "we will consider<br>
> it and<br>
> give it our full attention, but without any presumption that<br>
> we will<br>
> adopt it." The additional language suggested by the lawyers as a<br>
> "clarification" would actually be a substantial change, along<br>
> the lines<br>
> that you highlight. I would also note that this phrase has<br>
> been in the<br>
> Bylaws for many year without any ambiguity noted until now.<br>
><br>
> Whatever the genesis of this problem, we need to reverse this<br>
> creeping<br>
> presumption.<br>
><br>
><br>
> Greg<br>
><br>
> On Sun, Jan 24, 2016 at 4:09 PM, Paul Rosenzweig<br>
> <<a href="mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com">paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com</a><br>
> <mailto:<a href="mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com">paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com</a>></div>
</div>
> <mailto:<a href="mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com">paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com</a><br>
<span>> <mailto:<a href="mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com">paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com</a>>>> wrote:<br>
><br>
> Is anyone else concerned about the commentary to Annex<br>
> 11. As I<br>
> read our lawyer’s advice, we are now in the position of<br>
> putting into<br>
> place a presumption that the Board will not act<br>
> inconsistent with<br>
> GAC advice – which to me is more binding that making sure<br>
> that the<br>
> advice is duly taken into account. The latter implies<br>
> that it may<br>
> be taken account of and then diverged from, while the former<br>
> suggests not. I am not questioning the lawyer’s conclusions.<br>
> Rather I am suggesting that we have, mistakenly, created a<br>
> situation<br>
> where government influence is definitely increased. I cannot<br>
> support that. More to the point I do not see how the NTIA<br>
> will<br>
> approve it ….____<br>
><br>
> __ __<br>
><br>
> Paul____<br>
><br>
> __ __<br>
><br>
> Paul Rosenzweig____<br>
><br>
> <a href="mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com">paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com</a></span><br>
> <mailto:<a href="mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com">paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com</a>><br>
> <mailto:<a href="mailto:paul.rosenzweigesq@redbranchconsulting.com">paul.rosenzweigesq@redbranchconsulting.com</a><br>
<span>> <mailto:<a href="mailto:paul.rosenzweigesq@redbranchconsulting.com">paul.rosenzweigesq@redbranchconsulting.com</a>>> ____<br>
><br>
> O: <a href="tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20547-0660" value="+12025470660">+1 (202) 547-0660</a> <tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20547-0660><br>
> <tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20547-0660>____<br>
><br>
> M: +1 (202) 329-9650 <tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20329-9650><br>
> <tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20329-9650>____<br>
><br>
> VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 <tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20738-1739><br>
> <tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20738-1739>____<br>
><br>
> Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066____<br>
><br>
> Link to my PGP Key<br>
><br>
> <<a href="http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=19&Itemid=9" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=19&Itemid=9</a>>____<br>
><br>
><br>
> <<a href="http://www.rsaconference.com/events/us16?utm_source=signature&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=speakers-us2016" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.rsaconference.com/events/us16?utm_source=signature&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=speakers-us2016</a>>____<br>
><br>
> __ __<br>
><br>
> *From:*Gregory, Holly [mailto:<a href="mailto:holly.gregory@sidley.com">holly.gregory@sidley.com</a><br>
> <mailto:<a href="mailto:holly.gregory@sidley.com">holly.gregory@sidley.com</a>><br>
> <mailto:<a href="mailto:holly.gregory@sidley.com">holly.gregory@sidley.com</a><br>
> <mailto:<a href="mailto:holly.gregory@sidley.com">holly.gregory@sidley.com</a>>>]<br>
> *Sent:* Sunday, January 24, 2016 7:24 AM<br>
> *To:* 'Mathieu Weill' <<a href="mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr">mathieu.weill@afnic.fr</a><br>
> <mailto:<a href="mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr">mathieu.weill@afnic.fr</a>></span><br>
> <mailto:<a href="mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr">mathieu.weill@afnic.fr</a><br>
<span>> <mailto:<a href="mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr">mathieu.weill@afnic.fr</a>>>>; '<a href="mailto:thomas@rickert.net">thomas@rickert.net</a><br>
> <mailto:<a href="mailto:thomas@rickert.net">thomas@rickert.net</a>></span><br>
> <mailto:<a href="mailto:thomas@rickert.net">thomas@rickert.net</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:thomas@rickert.net">thomas@rickert.net</a>>>'<br>
> <<a href="mailto:thomas@rickert.net">thomas@rickert.net</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:thomas@rickert.net">thomas@rickert.net</a>><br>
> <mailto:<a href="mailto:thomas@rickert.net">thomas@rickert.net</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:thomas@rickert.net">thomas@rickert.net</a>>>>;<br>
<span>> 'León Felipe Sánchez Ambía'<br>
> <<a href="mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx">leonfelipe@sanchez.mx</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx">leonfelipe@sanchez.mx</a>></span><br>
> <mailto:<a href="mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx">leonfelipe@sanchez.mx</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx">leonfelipe@sanchez.mx</a>>>>;<br>
> '<a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org">accountability-cross-community@icann.org</a><br>
> <mailto:<a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org">accountability-cross-community@icann.org</a>><br>
> <mailto:<a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org">accountability-cross-community@icann.org</a><br>
<span>> <mailto:<a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org">accountability-cross-community@icann.org</a>>>'<br>
> <<a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org">accountability-cross-community@icann.org</a><br>
> <mailto:<a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org">accountability-cross-community@icann.org</a>></span><br>
> <mailto:<a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org">accountability-cross-community@icann.org</a><br>
<span>> <mailto:<a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org">accountability-cross-community@icann.org</a>>>>;<br>
> '<a href="mailto:acct-staff@icann.org">acct-staff@icann.org</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:acct-staff@icann.org">acct-staff@icann.org</a>></span><br>
> <mailto:<a href="mailto:acct-staff@icann.org">acct-staff@icann.org</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:acct-staff@icann.org">acct-staff@icann.org</a>>>'<br>
> <<a href="mailto:acct-staff@icann.org">acct-staff@icann.org</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:acct-staff@icann.org">acct-staff@icann.org</a>><br>
> <mailto:<a href="mailto:acct-staff@icann.org">acct-staff@icann.org</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:acct-staff@icann.org">acct-staff@icann.org</a>>>><br>
<span>> *Cc:* Sidley ICANN CCWG <<a href="mailto:sidleyicannccwg@sidley.com">sidleyicannccwg@sidley.com</a><br>
> <mailto:<a href="mailto:sidleyicannccwg@sidley.com">sidleyicannccwg@sidley.com</a>></span><br>
> <mailto:<a href="mailto:sidleyicannccwg@sidley.com">sidleyicannccwg@sidley.com</a><br>
<span>> <mailto:<a href="mailto:sidleyicannccwg@sidley.com">sidleyicannccwg@sidley.com</a>>>>; Greeley, Amy E.<br>
> <<a href="mailto:AGreeley@sidley.com">AGreeley@sidley.com</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:AGreeley@sidley.com">AGreeley@sidley.com</a>></span><br>
> <mailto:<a href="mailto:AGreeley@sidley.com">AGreeley@sidley.com</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:AGreeley@sidley.com">AGreeley@sidley.com</a>>>>;<br>
<span>> Grapsas, Rebecca<br>
> <<a href="mailto:rebecca.grapsas@sidley.com">rebecca.grapsas@sidley.com</a><br>
> <mailto:<a href="mailto:rebecca.grapsas@sidley.com">rebecca.grapsas@sidley.com</a>></span><br>
> <mailto:<a href="mailto:rebecca.grapsas@sidley.com">rebecca.grapsas@sidley.com</a><br>
<span>> <mailto:<a href="mailto:rebecca.grapsas@sidley.com">rebecca.grapsas@sidley.com</a>>>>;<br>
> '<a href="mailto:ICANN@adlercolvin.com">ICANN@adlercolvin.com</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:ICANN@adlercolvin.com">ICANN@adlercolvin.com</a>></span><br>
> <mailto:<a href="mailto:ICANN@adlercolvin.com">ICANN@adlercolvin.com</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:ICANN@adlercolvin.com">ICANN@adlercolvin.com</a>>>'<br>
> <<a href="mailto:ICANN@adlercolvin.com">ICANN@adlercolvin.com</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:ICANN@adlercolvin.com">ICANN@adlercolvin.com</a>><br>
> <mailto:<a href="mailto:ICANN@adlercolvin.com">ICANN@adlercolvin.com</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:ICANN@adlercolvin.com">ICANN@adlercolvin.com</a>>>>
<div>
<div class="h5">> *Subject:* [CCWG-ACCT] Lawyers' High Level Review: Annexes<br>
> 1, 8, 9,<br>
> 10, 11____<br>
><br>
> __ __<br>
><br>
> __ __<br>
><br>
> __ __<br>
><br>
> Dear CCWG ACCT Co-Chairs, Members, Participants and ICANN<br>
> Staff, ____<br>
><br>
> __ __<br>
><br>
> We are writing to raise with you the following issues that we<br>
> identified in our high-level review of the above- referenced<br>
> Annexes:____<br>
><br>
> __ __<br>
><br>
> *_Annex 1 (GAC as Decisional Participant)_*: We did not<br>
> have any<br>
> high-level comments on this Annex.____<br>
><br>
> *______*<br>
><br>
> *_Annex 8 (Reconsideration)_*: With respect to the timing<br>
> requirements discussed in Paragraph 25 and elsewhere in<br>
> the Annex,<br>
> there appears to be some inconsistency: If the Board<br>
> Governance<br>
> Committee (BGC) takes its full 90 days to make a<br>
> recommendation<br>
> after receiving the request, the Board would not meet<br>
> its 60 day<br>
> timeline, and it would be tight for it to meet the 120 day<br>
> time line<br>
> (particularly if the requestor files a rebuttal to the BGC’s<br>
> recommendation within 15 days of receipt). /We recommend<br>
> that these<br>
> time frames be re-considered to remove the inconsistency, for<br>
> example by deleting the language relating to Board action<br>
> within 60<br>
> days and, if necessary, providing the Board with<br>
> additional time to<br>
> consider the BGC recommendations/.____<br>
><br>
> __ __<br>
><br>
> *_Annex 9 (AOC Reviews)_*: /We recommend that<br>
> consideration be given<br>
> to further clarifying the Review Team provision in<br>
> Paragraph 54 (1)<br>
> to specify the type of “diversity” desired (geographic or<br>
> otherwise)<br>
> for Review Team members and (2) to state whether, in<br>
> determining the<br>
> composition of the members of the Review Teams they<br>
> select, the<br>
> group of chairs can solicit additional nominees or appoint<br>
> less than<br>
> 21 members to avoid potential overrepresentation of<br>
> particular ACs<br>
> or SOs if some nominate less than 3 members./ ____<br>
><br>
> __ __<br>
><br>
> *_Annex 10 (SO/AC Accountability)_*: We did not have any<br>
> high-level<br>
> comments on this Annex. ____<br>
><br>
> *______*<br>
><br>
> *_Annex 11 (GAC Advice)_*: ____<br>
><br>
> __ __<br>
><br>
> We were asked to review the current Bylaws provision<br>
> addressing GAC<br>
> advice and determine whether the ambiguities we identified<br>
> in our<br>
> review of the proposed revisions to this provision are new<br>
> or stem<br>
> from ambiguities under the current Bylaws text. We have<br>
> determined<br>
> that there are ambiguities under the current Bylaws text,<br>
> which<br>
> provides as follows:____<br>
><br>
> *ICANN Bylaws Article XI, Section 2.1.j.*The advice of the<br>
> Governmental Advisory Committee on public policy matters<br>
> shall be<br>
> /duly taken into account/, both in the formulation and<br>
> adoption of<br>
> policies. In the event that the ICANN Board determines to<br>
> take an<br>
> action that is not consistent with the Governmental Advisory<br>
> Committee advice, it shall so inform the Committee and<br>
> state the<br>
> reasons why it decided not to follow that advice. The<br>
> Governmental<br>
> Advisory Committee and the ICANN Board will then try, in<br>
> good faith<br>
> and in a timely and efficient manner, to find a mutually<br>
> acceptable<br>
> solution.____<br>
><br>
> __ __<br>
><br>
> The phrase “duly taken into account” is ambiguous, but<br>
> reading it<br>
> together with the next sentence, which requires that the Board<br>
> follow a specific procedure before taking actions<br>
> inconsistent with<br>
> GAC advice, we believe the best interpretation of this<br>
> phrase is to<br>
> mean “do not act inconsistently with.” Based on this<br>
> interpretation, /we recommend the following clarification<br>
> (underlined) to the first sentence of this Bylaws<br>
> provision: “The<br>
> advice of the Gov//ernmental Advisory Committee on public<br>
> policy<br>
> matters shall be duly taken into account, both in the<br>
> formulation<br>
> and adoption of policies_, and**ICANN shall not act<br>
> inconsistently<br>
> with that advice except as otherwise provided in this<br>
> paragraph_/.” ____<br>
><br>
> __ __<br>
><br>
> We also note that there is no meaningful legal distinction<br>
> between<br>
> voting and determining to take an action, as some<br>
> commenters have<br>
> suggested. The only way the Board can legally determine<br>
> or decide<br>
> anything under California law is by voting. ____<br>
><br>
> __ __<br>
><br>
> The proposed addition to the current Bylaws text is underlined<br>
> below:____<br>
><br>
> __ __<br>
><br>
> *ICANN Bylaws Article XI, Section 2.1.j.*The advice of the<br>
> Governmental Advisory Committee on public policy matters<br>
> shall be<br>
> duly taken into account, both in the formulation and<br>
> adoption of<br>
> policies. In the event that the ICANN Board determines to<br>
> take an<br>
> action that is not consistent with the Governmental Advisory<br>
> Committee advice, it shall so inform the Committee and<br>
> state the<br>
> reasons why it decided not to follow that advice. _Any<br>
> Governmental<br>
> Advisory Committee advice approved by a full Governmental<br>
> Advisory<br>
> Committee consensus, understood to mean the practice of<br>
> adopting<br>
> decisions by general agreement in the absence of any formal<br>
> objection, may only be rejected by a vote of 2/3 of the Board,<br>
> and_ the Governmental Advisory Committee and the ICANN<br>
> Board will<br>
> then try, in good faith and in a timely and efficient<br>
> manner, to<br>
> find a mutually acceptable solution.____<br>
><br>
> __ __<br>
><br>
> Based on our interpretation of the current Bylaws text,<br>
> described<br>
> above, we believe this proposed provision results in the<br>
> following<br>
> process:____<br>
><br>
> __1.__If GAC provides advice (whether by a full GAC<br>
> consensus or a<br>
> lesser approval threshold), the ICANN Board must “duly<br>
> take[] into<br>
> account” that advice -- i.e., ICANN must not act<br>
> inconsistently with<br>
> that advice, unless #2 and/or #3 below apply. ____<br>
><br>
> __2.__If GAC provides advice (whether by a full GAC<br>
> consensus or a<br>
> lesser approval threshold), and the ICANN Board decides<br>
> to take an<br>
> action inconsistent with that advice, the ICANN Board must<br>
> first<br>
> give GAC notice and provide a rationale. ____<br>
><br>
> __·__In addition, f the GAC advice was by a full GAC<br>
> consensus, the<br>
> ICANN Board may decide to take an action inconsistent<br>
> with that<br>
> advice only by a vote of 2/3 of the ICANN Board. If that 2/3<br>
> threshold is reached, GAC and ICANN must then try in good<br>
> faith to<br>
> find a mutually acceptable solution. If the 2/3 threshold<br>
> is not<br>
> reached, ICANN is required to act consistently with the<br>
> consensus<br>
> GAC advice. ____<br>
><br>
> /We recommend that consideration be given to further<br>
> clarifying this<br>
> process, and we agree with commenters who have concluded<br>
> that the<br>
> proposed provision does not impose an affirmative<br>
> obligation upon<br>
> ICANN’s Board to vote on GAC consensus advice every time<br>
> that advice<br>
> is provided/. ____<br>
><br>
> We note that additional Bylaws language is being proposed<br>
> to clarify<br>
> that, in any case, the Board needs to act in compliance<br>
> with the<br>
> ICANN Bylaws. Thus, if the Board were to determine that<br>
> following<br>
> GAC advice would result in non-compliance with the Bylaws,<br>
> the Board<br>
> should be able to reject the advice (with a majority or<br>
> two-thirds<br>
> vote, depending on whether the GAC advice was consensus<br>
> advice) and<br>
> explain its position to GAC. ____<br>
><br>
> Please let us know if we can assist in any way with your<br>
> further<br>
> consideration of these issues.____<br>
><br>
> __ __<br>
><br>
> Kind regards,____<br>
><br>
> Holly and Rosemary____<br>
><br>
> __ __<br>
><br>
> *HOLLY**J. GREGORY*<br>
> Partner and Co-Chair<br>
> Global Corporate Governance & Executive Compensation Practice<br>
><br>
> *Sidley Austin LLP**<br>
> *+1 212 839 5853 <tel:%2B1%20212%20839%205853><br>
> <tel:%2B1%20212%20839%205853><br>
> <a href="mailto:holly.gregory@sidley.com">holly.gregory@sidley.com</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:holly.gregory@sidley.com">holly.gregory@sidley.com</a>></div>
</div>
> <mailto:<a href="mailto:holly.gregory@sidley.com">holly.gregory@sidley.com</a><br>
<span>> <mailto:<a href="mailto:holly.gregory@sidley.com">holly.gregory@sidley.com</a>>>____<br>
><br>
> Image removed by sender.<br>
> <a href="http://www.sidley.com/files/upload/signatures/SA-autosig.png" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.sidley.com/files/upload/signatures/SA-autosig.png</a><br>
> <<a href="http://www.sidley.com/" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.sidley.com/</a>>*SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP*____<br>
><br>
> ____<br>
><br>
> __ __<br>
><br>
> __ __<br>
><br>
> ____<br>
><br>
><br>
> ****************************************************************************************************<br>
> This e-mail is sent by a law firm and may contain<br>
> information that<br>
> is privileged or confidential.<br>
> If you are not the intended recipient, please delete the<br>
> e-mail and<br>
> any attachments and notify us<br>
> immediately.<br>
><br>
><br>
> ****************************************************************************************************____<br>
><br>
><br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>
> <a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><br>
> <mailto:<a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a>></span><br>
> <mailto:<a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><br>
<span>> <mailto:<a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a>>><br>
><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>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>
> <a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><br>
> <mailto:<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>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>
> <a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><br>
> <mailto:<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>
><br>
><br>
><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></span><br>
<br>
<br>
---<br>
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.<br>
<a href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://www.avast.com/antivirus</a>
<div class="HOEnZb">
<div class="h5"><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></div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div></span>
</div></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><div><span>_______________________________________________</span><br><span>Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list</span><br><span><a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a></span><br><span><a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a></span><br></div></blockquote></body></html>