<div dir="ltr"><div><br></div><div>I do not know what some people talking about in saying" talking about when saying "That said, the RySG position on Recommendation 11 and the 2/3 threshold has turned out to be a minority view in the GNSO." </div><div>There is not information on what was the basis for minority and majority in GNSO</div><div>SOME OTHER PEOPLE TAKE THEMSLEF AS CHAIR AND ASKIN " WHO ELSE SUPPORT THE 2/3 ????This question is irrelevant</div><div>Some other people said , did GAC reach consensus on the need to have 2/3 MAJORITY</div><div>THE ANSWER IS YES.</div><div>There are two mutually exclusinve condition </div><div>1. st 18</div><div>2. Simple majority</div><div>We can not have both</div><div>either ST18 with 2/3</div><div>Or Simple majority without ST 18</div><div>NO PAINTING THE OPTIONS</div><div>Regards</div><div>Kavouss </div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">2016-01-29 22:10 GMT+01:00 Mueller, Milton L <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:milton@gatech.edu" target="_blank">milton@gatech.edu</a>></span>:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><span>> -----Original Message-----<br>
> I do not believe that the Board has an affirmative obligation to sit down with<br>
> any other SO or AC to find a “mutually acceptable solution” to anything<br>
><br>
<br>
</span>This is more than a "belief," Becky, it is the reality. GAC advice has a special, stronger status - especially because it usually comes AFTER an SO has gone through the laborious process of developing consensus policy. I might also add that the ASO and ccNSO cannot and do not offer "advice" about GNSO-made policies, and vice-versa.<br>
<br>
GAC cannot have it both ways. That is, it cannot pretend that it is "just another AC/SO" when it comes to board votes, while at the same time enjoying the by-law status that allows it to hold the entire policy making process hostage while the board and it "reach a mutually acceptable solution."<br>
<span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br>
--MM<br>
</font></span><div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><br>
> On 1/29/16, 4:00 PM, "<a href="mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch">Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch</a>"<br>
> <<a href="mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch">Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
> >A special status which is (with the 2/3) similar to the status currently<br>
> >accorded to GNSO (PDP and Guidance Procedure) and CCNSO.<br>
> ><br>
> >Best<br>
> ><br>
> >Jorge<br>
> ><br>
> >Von meinem iPhone gesendet<br>
> ><br>
> >> Am 29.01.2016 um 21:20 schrieb Burr, Becky <<a href="mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz">Becky.Burr@neustar.biz</a>>:<br>
> >><br>
> >> Jorge, I don¹t understand the concept of neutral application given the<br>
> >> fact that the GAC has a special status that other SO/ACs don¹t have<br>
> >>(Board<br>
> >> must engage in effort to find a mutually acceptable solution regarding<br>
> >>GAC<br>
> >> Advice)<br>
> >><br>
> >><br>
> >><br>
> >> J. Beckwith Burr<br>
> >> Neustar, Inc. / Deputy<br>
> >> 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">+1.202.533.2932</a> Mobile: <a href="tel:%2B1.202.352.6367" value="+12023526367">+1.202.352.6367</a> / <a href="http://neustar.biz" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">neustar.biz</a><br>
> >> <<a href="http://www.neustar.biz" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">http://www.neustar.biz</a>><br>
> >><br>
> >><br>
> >><br>
> >><br>
> >> On 1/29/16, 3:08 PM, "<a href="mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch">Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch</a>"<br>
> >> <<a href="mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch">Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch</a>> wrote:<br>
> >><br>
> >>> Would that be applicable in SO/AC-neutral terms?<br>
> >>><br>
> >>> Von meinem iPhone gesendet<br>
> >>><br>
> >>> Am 29.01.2016 um 21:06 schrieb Burr, Becky<br>
> >>> <<a href="mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz">Becky.Burr@neustar.biz</a><mailto:<a href="mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz">Becky.Burr@neustar.biz</a>>>:<br>
> >>><br>
> >>> I have a proposal for discussion.<br>
> >>><br>
> >>> Start from the premise that ICANN may implement GAC Advice only<br>
> >>> consistent with the Bylaws, including the Mission. What if we accept<br>
> >>>the<br>
> >>> 2/3rd rejection language but also provide that the GAC cannot act in a<br>
> >>> decision-making role with respect to an exercise of community power<br>
> >>> designed to challenge the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice. In<br>
> >>>other<br>
> >>> words, the GAC would not be counted in the ³no more than two SO/ACs<br>
> >>> objecting² threshold to a community IRP challenge to the Board¹s<br>
> >>> implementation of GAC Advice alleged to exceed the scope of ICANN¹s<br>
> >>> Mission.<br>
> >>><br>
> >>> I think this addresses the two bites at the apple problem we might<br>
> >>> otherwise have, and provides a safety valve to counter balance the<br>
> >>>2/3rds<br>
> >>> rejection threshold.<br>
> >>><br>
> >>> Just a thought -<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">+1.202.533.2932</a> Mobile: <a href="tel:%2B1.202.352.6367" value="+12023526367">+1.202.352.6367</a> /<br>
> >>> <a href="http://neustar.biz" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">neustar.biz</a><<a href="http://www.neustar.biz" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">http://www.neustar.biz</a>><br>
> >>><br>
> >>> From: Greg Shatan<br>
> >>> <<a href="mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com">gregshatanipc@gmail.com</a><mailto:<a href="mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com">gregshatanipc@gmail.com</a>>><br>
> >>> Date: Friday, January 29, 2016 at 2:38 PM<br>
> >>> To: "Mueller, Milton L"<br>
> <<a href="mailto:milton@gatech.edu">milton@gatech.edu</a><mailto:<a href="mailto:milton@gatech.edu">milton@gatech.edu</a>>><br>
> >>> Cc: Accountability Community<br>
> >>><br>
> >>><<a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org">accountability-cross-community@icann.org</a><mailto:<a href="mailto:accountability-cross-">accountability-cross-</a><br>
> co<br>
> >>>mm<br>
> >>> <a href="mailto:unity@icann.org">unity@icann.org</a>>><br>
> >>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Recommendation 11, 2/3 board threshold,<br>
> GAC<br>
> >>> consensus, and finishing<br>
> >>><br>
> >>> Milton,<br>
> >>><br>
> >>> I agree with your assessment of the situation, and I think you are<br>
> >>>likely<br>
> >>> correct about the answer to my question. I wanted to see if I had<br>
> >>> overlooked positive support for the 2/3 majority as such. It appears<br>
> >>> that (subject to further responses) I have not.<br>
> >>><br>
> >>> Greg<br>
> >>><br>
> >>> On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 12:50 PM, Mueller, Milton L<br>
> >>> <<a href="mailto:milton@gatech.edu">milton@gatech.edu</a><mailto:<a href="mailto:milton@gatech.edu">milton@gatech.edu</a>>> wrote:<br>
> >>> Greg:<br>
> >>> It was clear from the earlier (pre-transition) process that there was<br>
> >>> virtually no positive support outside GAC for the proposition that the<br>
> >>> board could only reject its advice with a 2/3 majority. There was, in<br>
> >>> fact, overwhelming opposition to the 2/3 threshold.<br>
> >>> Insofar as that idea gained acceptance (not support), it was perceived<br>
> >>>as<br>
> >>> a compromise that would help the GAC to accept a requirement that it<br>
> >>> continue to act on the basis of UN consensus.<br>
> >>><br>
> >>> So I think the answer to your question, ³is there any affirmative<br>
> >>>support<br>
> >>> for the 2/3 threshold?² outside the GAC is clearly no.<br>
> >>><br>
> >>> From:<br>
> >>><br>
> >>>accountability-cross-community-<br>
> <a href="mailto:bounces@icann.org">bounces@icann.org</a><mailto:<a href="mailto:accountability-c">accountability-c</a><br>
> >>>ro<br>
> >>> <a href="mailto:ss-community-bounces@icann.org">ss-community-bounces@icann.org</a>><br>
> >>><br>
> >>>[mailto:<a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community-">accountability-cross-community-</a><br>
> <a href="mailto:bounces@icann.org">bounces@icann.org</a><mailto:<a href="mailto:accounta">accounta</a><br>
> >>>bi<br>
> >>> <a href="mailto:lity-cross-community-bounces@icann.org">lity-cross-community-bounces@icann.org</a>>] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan<br>
> >>> Sent: Friday, January 29, 2016 11:58 AM<br>
> >>> To: Alan Greenberg<br>
> >>> <<a href="mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca">alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca</a><mailto:<a href="mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca">alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca</a>>><br>
> >>> Cc:<br>
> >>><br>
> >>><a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org">accountability-cross-community@icann.org</a><mailto:<a href="mailto:accountability-cross-">accountability-cross-</a><br>
> com<br>
> >>>mu<br>
> >>> <a href="mailto:nity@icann.org">nity@icann.org</a>><br>
> >>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Recommendation 11, 2/3 board threshold,<br>
> GAC<br>
> >>> consensus, and finishing<br>
> >>><br>
> >>> Alan,<br>
> >>><br>
> >>> I think you misunderstand the question. Of course ALAC has decided to<br>
> >>> join a position supported by the bulk of the other participants, even<br>
> >>> where it did not really agree with that position. Every stakeholder<br>
> >>>and<br>
> >>> stakeholder structure has done that, here (and in every other WG, I<br>
> >>> assume), to avoid being an outlier and to honor the building of<br>
> >>> consensus. This is the usual move at some point in the<br>
> >>> consensus-building process, when dealing with a position that has broad<br>
> >>> multistakeholder support.<br>
> >>><br>
> >>> But this virtually always starts with a position that already has<br>
> >>> significant multistakeholder support.<br>
> >>><br>
> >>> I am honestly unclear whether the 2/3 proposal, on its own, has broad<br>
> >>> multistakeholder support. I could jump to conclusions, but I prefer<br>
> >>>not<br>
> >>> to. Hence the question, which I think is quite relevant. First, if I<br>
> >>>go<br>
> >>> back to my constituency and tell them that we are the outlier and this<br>
> >>> has broad multistakeholder support, that may be persuasive to some of<br>
> >>> them, committed as we are to consensus-driven processes. Second, I<br>
> >>>think<br>
> >>> it is relevant to understand the context of this particular position,<br>
> >>> isolated from discussions of the value of compromise and other such<br>
> >>> things.<br>
> >>><br>
> >>> Greg<br>
> >>><br>
> >>><br>
> >>> On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 9:09 PM, Alan Greenberg<br>
> >>> <<a href="mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca">alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca</a><mailto:<a href="mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca">alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca</a>>> wrote:<br>
> >>> Greg,<br>
> >>><br>
> >>> That is a simple question, but not a particularly relevant one in my<br>
> >>> mind. I and ALAC have accepted a LOT of things that we do not believe<br>
> >>>"is<br>
> >>> a good idea, or enhances ICANN's accountability, or corrects a<br>
> >>> problem/deficiency in the Bylaws, or is needed for the transition". So<br>
> >>> have other parts of the community.<br>
> >>><br>
> >>> I would ask the opposite. What is the HARM? The overall number of<br>
> times<br>
> >>> that GAC advice is rejected is small. I find it hard to imagine that<br>
> >>> there will be any substantive difference in outcomes in the future with<br>
> >>> the two alternatives. If people want to die in the ditch (so to speak)<br>
> >>> over the difference, I guess that is what will happen.<br>
> >>><br>
> >>> Alan<br>
> >>><br>
> >>> At 28/01/2016 06:24 PM, Greg Shatan wrote:<br>
> >>><br>
> >>> I'd like to ask a simple question.<br>
> >>><br>
> >>> Aside from members of the GAC, is there any affirmative support for the<br>
> >>> 2/3 threshold? In other words, does any member or participant think<br>
> >>>that<br>
> >>> this is a good idea, or enhances ICANN's accountability, or corrects a<br>
> >>> problem/deficiency in the Bylaws, or is needed for the transition? How<br>
> >>> about any chartering organization or constituent part of a chartering<br>
> >>> organization?<br>
> >>><br>
> >>> I'm not asking about the value of compromise, or the effect (or lack<br>
> >>> thereof) of the change, or whether it's something you can live with.<br>
> >>>I'm<br>
> >>> asking about affirmative support.<br>
> >>><br>
> >>> Greg<br>
> >>><br>
> >>> [cross-posts to GAC list removed]<br>
> >>><br>
> >>> On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 5:53 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <<br>
> >>> <a href="mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com">kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com</a><mailto:<a href="mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com">kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com</a>>><br>
> wrote:<br>
> >>> GAC did not formally reject the Rec 11 in announcing that " no<br>
> >>>consensus<br>
> >>> is reached " GNSO and its spokemen push for their objection, GAC must<br>
> >>> formally reject the Recommendation as currently GAC lost o-1 because<br>
> of<br>
> >>> Stress Test 18 ,if such ST remains and 2/ 3 supermajority becomes<br>
> >>>Simple<br>
> >>> Majority then GAC would loose o-2 .That is not fair .There should not<br>
> >>>win<br>
> >>> loose against GAC,<br>
> >>> WIN-WIN YES, loose-loose yes ,for every body BUT NOT LOOSE FOR gac<br>
> and<br>
> >>> win for the others .<br>
> >>> THAT IS NOT FAIR<br>
> >>> Kavouss<br>
> >>> 2016-01-28 23:45 GMT+01:00 Andrew Sullivan<br>
> >>> <<a href="mailto:ajs@anvilwalrusden.com">ajs@anvilwalrusden.com</a><mailto:<a href="mailto:ajs@anvilwalrusden.com">ajs@anvilwalrusden.com</a>> >:<br>
> >>>> On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 10:26:54PM +0000, Jeff Neuman wrote:<br>
> >>>> Where in writing has the GAC stated that it will reject the<br>
> >>>> accountability proposal of the 2/3 threshold is not in there.<br>
> >>> I didn't intend to suggest that they'd stated that in writing, but<br>
> >>> rather to suggest that the GAC had consensus around the 2/3 number.<br>
> >>> But this'll teach me to go from memory, because I was relying on my<br>
> >>> recollection of the Dublin communiqé. In fact it does not exactly say<br>
> >>> that the GAC has consensus about the 2/3 threshold, so I'm wrong.<br>
> >>> I still believe that the compromise position is an effective way<br>
> >>> forward that actually gives no additional real power to the GAC<br>
> >>> (because of the new Empowered Community) while yet granting the 2/3<br>
> >>> number that many seem to think is important. But the claim in favour<br>
> >>> of 2/3 is indeed weaker given the GAC's stated positions.<br>
> >>> Best regards,<br>
> >>> A<br>
> >>> --<br>
> >>> Andrew Sullivan<br>
> >>> <a href="mailto:ajs@anvilwalrusden.com">ajs@anvilwalrusden.com</a><mailto:<a href="mailto:ajs@anvilwalrusden.com">ajs@anvilwalrusden.com</a>><br>
> >>> _______________________________________________<br>
> >>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>
> >>><br>
> >>><a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><mailto:<a href="mailto:Accountability-">Accountability-</a><br>
> Cross-Com<br>
> >>>mu<br>
> >>> <a href="mailto:nity@icann.org">nity@icann.org</a>><br>
> >>><br>
> >>><a href="https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-</a><br>
> 3A__mm.icann.org_mailma<br>
> >>>n_<br>
> >>><br>
> >>>listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIF-<br>
> g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_<br>
> >>>lU<br>
> >>><br>
> >>>Lrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=hztKO<br>
> ghNjATPghujBr31<br>
> >>>se<br>
> >>><br>
> 8zAnPYjgu096CZkLJH1M8&s=QGFS5bJ0Cv64FcImyPiJjRr4NoogMmK4gR_b5V<br>
> _-SJk&e=<br>
> >>><br>
> >>><<a href="https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-</a><br>
> 3A__mm.icann.org_mailm<br>
> >>>an<br>
> >>><br>
> >>>_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-<br>
> 2Dcommunity&d=CwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC<br>
> >>>_l<br>
> >>><br>
> >>>ULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=IPee<br>
> S727VSPyw6EopaZ<br>
> >>>qi<br>
> >>><br>
> >>>SVdGmc7CU9_kkXYW3JiLjE&s=xohs2ScA5mgcD6vDqSINegEcDgo0OnBIZY<br>
> QvTaptkRI&e=><br>
> >>><br>
> >>> _______________________________________________<br>
> >>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>
> >>><br>
> >>><a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><mailto:<a href="mailto:Accountability-">Accountability-</a><br>
> Cross-Com<br>
> >>>mu<br>
> >>> <a href="mailto:nity@icann.org">nity@icann.org</a>><br>
> >>><br>
> >>><a href="https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-</a><br>
> 3A__mm.icann.org_mailma<br>
> >>>n_<br>
> >>><br>
> >>>listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIF-<br>
> g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_<br>
> >>>lU<br>
> >>><br>
> >>>Lrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=hztKO<br>
> ghNjATPghujBr31<br>
> >>>se<br>
> >>><br>
> 8zAnPYjgu096CZkLJH1M8&s=QGFS5bJ0Cv64FcImyPiJjRr4NoogMmK4gR_b5V<br>
> _-SJk&e=<br>
> >>><br>
> >>><<a href="https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-</a><br>
> 3A__mm.icann.org_mailm<br>
> >>>an<br>
> >>><br>
> >>>_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-<br>
> 2Dcommunity&d=CwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC<br>
> >>>_l<br>
> >>><br>
> >>>ULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=IPee<br>
> S727VSPyw6EopaZ<br>
> >>>qi<br>
> >>><br>
> >>>SVdGmc7CU9_kkXYW3JiLjE&s=xohs2ScA5mgcD6vDqSINegEcDgo0OnBIZY<br>
> QvTaptkRI&e=><br>
> >>><br>
> >>> _______________________________________________<br>
> >>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>
> >>><br>
> >>><a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><mailto:<a href="mailto:Accountability-">Accountability-</a><br>
> Cross-Com<br>
> >>>mu<br>
> >>> <a href="mailto:nity@icann.org">nity@icann.org</a>><br>
> >>><br>
> >>><a href="https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-</a><br>
> 3A__mm.icann.org_mailma<br>
> >>>n_<br>
> >>><br>
> >>>listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIF-<br>
> g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_<br>
> >>>lU<br>
> >>><br>
> >>>Lrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=hztKO<br>
> ghNjATPghujBr31<br>
> >>>se<br>
> >>><br>
> 8zAnPYjgu096CZkLJH1M8&s=QGFS5bJ0Cv64FcImyPiJjRr4NoogMmK4gR_b5V<br>
> _-SJk&e=<br>
> >>><br>
> >>><<a href="https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-</a><br>
> 3A__mm.icann.org_mailm<br>
> >>>an<br>
> >>><br>
> >>>_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-<br>
> 2Dcommunity&d=CwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC<br>
> >>>_l<br>
> >>><br>
> >>>ULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=IPee<br>
> S727VSPyw6EopaZ<br>
> >>>qi<br>
> >>><br>
> >>>SVdGmc7CU9_kkXYW3JiLjE&s=xohs2ScA5mgcD6vDqSINegEcDgo0OnBIZY<br>
> QvTaptkRI&e=><br>
> >>><br>
> >>><br>
> >>> _______________________________________________<br>
> >>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>
> >>><br>
> >>><a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><mailto:<a href="mailto:Accountability-">Accountability-</a><br>
> Cross-Com<br>
> >>>mu<br>
> >>> <a href="mailto:nity@icann.org">nity@icann.org</a>><br>
> >>><br>
> >>><a href="https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-</a><br>
> 3A__mm.icann.org_mailma<br>
> >>>n_<br>
> >>><br>
> >>>listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIF-<br>
> g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_<br>
> >>>lU<br>
> >>><br>
> >>>Lrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=hztKO<br>
> ghNjATPghujBr31<br>
> >>>se<br>
> >>><br>
> 8zAnPYjgu096CZkLJH1M8&s=QGFS5bJ0Cv64FcImyPiJjRr4NoogMmK4gR_b5V<br>
> _-SJk&e=<br>
> >><br>
<br>
</div></div><div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5">_______________________________________________<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" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>