<div dir="ltr"><div>Dear All,</div><div>I categorically disagree that GAC has ever interferened with any thing.</div><div>Regards</div><div>Kavouss </div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">2016-01-29 22:29 GMT+01:00 Paul Rosenzweig <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com" target="_blank">paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com</a>></span>:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Jorge<br>
<br>
To answer your question directly -- No. The principle is not as you suggest<br>
it is, but rather an attempt to accommodate concerns about the unique<br>
position of the GAC. Since you don't (it seems) accept the uniqueness of<br>
the GAC's advice process you, naturally, misread the principle.<br>
<br>
If the GAC were to agree to all of the preliminary steps identified for a<br>
PDP (<a href="http://gnso.icann.org/en/node/31379/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">http://gnso.icann.org/en/node/31379/</a>) before it issued advice I would<br>
gladly acknowledge equivalence in voting within the EC to overturn that<br>
advicce. The GAC can't of course (nor should it).<br>
<br>
All the best<br>
<span>Paul<br>
<br>
Paul Rosenzweig<br>
<a href="mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com">paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com</a><br>
O: <a href="tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20547-0660" value="+12025470660">+1 (202) 547-0660</a><br>
M: <a href="tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20329-9650" value="+12023299650">+1 (202) 329-9650</a><br>
VOIP: <a href="tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20738-1739" value="+12027381739">+1 (202) 738-1739</a><br>
Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066<br>
Link to my PGP Key<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
-----Original Message-----<br>
From: <a href="mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch">Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch</a> [mailto:<a href="mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch">Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch</a>]<br>
</span><div><div class="h5">Sent: Friday, January 29, 2016 4:12 PM<br>
To: <a href="mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com">paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com</a><br>
Cc: <a href="mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz">Becky.Burr@neustar.biz</a>; <a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org">accountability-cross-community@icann.org</a><br>
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Recommendation 11, 2/3 board threshold, GAC<br>
consensus, and finishing<br>
<br>
Well the principle put forward by Becky, as I understand it, is to avoid<br>
that one sub-entity of ICANN (she focuses on GAC) may block a community IRP<br>
brought forward against an action of the Board which is the result of that<br>
sub-entities initiative.<br>
<br>
Is that principle not applicable to all SO/AC?<br>
<br>
why?<br>
<br>
regards<br>
<br>
Jorge<br>
<br>
Von meinem iPhone gesendet<br>
<br>
> Am 29.01.2016 um 22:06 schrieb Paul Rosenzweig<br>
<<a href="mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com">paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com</a>>:<br>
><br>
> With respect Jorge, you keep saying that but it simply isn't true. As<br>
> Keith described in some detail on the last call (and in the chat) the<br>
> gNSO provisions are quite different.<br>
><br>
> Your argument is, inherently, logically inconsistent. ON the one<br>
> hand, because governments "represent their citizens" (many of them<br>
> don't, but let's leave that aside) their advice deserves special<br>
> consideration, but because they are an AC they should be treated like<br>
> other ACs or (here, you<br>
> leap) other SOs. You can't really have it both ways.<br>
><br>
> Paul<br>
><br>
> Paul Rosenzweig<br>
> <a href="mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com">paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com</a><br>
> O: <a href="tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20547-0660" value="+12025470660">+1 (202) 547-0660</a><br>
> M: <a href="tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20329-9650" value="+12023299650">+1 (202) 329-9650</a><br>
> VOIP: <a href="tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20738-1739" value="+12027381739">+1 (202) 738-1739</a><br>
> Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066<br>
> Link to my PGP Key<br>
><br>
><br>
> -----Original Message-----<br>
> From: <a href="mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch">Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch</a> [mailto:<a href="mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch">Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch</a>]<br>
> Sent: Friday, January 29, 2016 4:01 PM<br>
> To: <a href="mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz">Becky.Burr@neustar.biz</a><br>
> Cc: <a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org">accountability-cross-community@icann.org</a><br>
> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Recommendation 11, 2/3 board threshold, GAC<br>
> consensus, and finishing<br>
><br>
> A special status which is (with the 2/3) similar to the status<br>
> currently 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<br>
>> the fact that the GAC has a special status that other SO/ACs don¹t<br>
>> have (Board must engage in effort to find a mutually acceptable<br>
>> solution regarding 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<br>
>>> accept the 2/3rd rejection language but also provide that the GAC<br>
>>> cannot act in a decision-making role with respect to an exercise of<br>
>>> community power designed to challenge the Board¹s implementation of GAC<br>
Advice.<br>
>>> In other words, the GAC would not be counted in the ³no more than<br>
>>> two SO/ACs objecting² threshold to a community IRP challenge to the<br>
>>> Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice alleged to exceed the scope of<br>
>>> ICANN¹s 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 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>
>>> <<a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org">accountability-cross-community@icann.org</a><mailto:<a href="mailto:accountability-cros">accountability-cros</a><br>
>>> s<br>
>>> -comm<br>
>>> <a href="mailto:unity@icann.org">unity@icann.org</a>>><br>
>>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Recommendation 11, 2/3 board threshold, 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 correct about the answer to my question. I wanted to see if<br>
>>> I had overlooked positive support for the 2/3 majority as such. It<br>
>>> appears 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<br>
>>> was virtually no positive support outside GAC for the proposition<br>
>>> that the board could only reject its advice with a 2/3 majority.<br>
>>> There was, in fact, overwhelming opposition to the 2/3 threshold.<br>
>>> Insofar as that idea gained acceptance (not support), it was<br>
>>> perceived as a compromise that would help the GAC to accept a<br>
>>> requirement that it 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 for the 2/3 threshold?² outside the GAC is clearly no.<br>
>>><br>
>>> From:<br>
>>> <a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org">accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org</a><mailto:<a href="mailto:accountabili">accountabili</a><br>
>>> t<br>
>>> y-cro<br>
>>> <a href="mailto:ss-community-bounces@icann.org">ss-community-bounces@icann.org</a>><br>
>>> [mailto:<a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org">accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org</a><mailto:<a href="mailto:acco">acco</a><br>
</div></div>>>> u ntabi <a href="mailto:lity-cross-community-bounces@icann.org">lity-cross-community-bounces@icann.org</a>>] On Behalf Of Greg<br>
<div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5">>>> 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>
>>> <a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org">accountability-cross-community@icann.org</a><mailto:<a href="mailto:accountability-cross">accountability-cross</a><br>
>>> -<br>
>>> commu<br>
>>> <a href="mailto:nity@icann.org">nity@icann.org</a>><br>
>>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Recommendation 11, 2/3 board threshold, GAC<br>
>>> consensus, and finishing<br>
>>><br>
>>> Alan,<br>
>>><br>
>>> I think you misunderstand the question. Of course ALAC has decided<br>
>>> to join a position supported by the bulk of the other participants,<br>
>>> even where it did not really agree with that position. Every<br>
>>> stakeholder and stakeholder structure has done that, here (and in<br>
>>> every other WG, I assume), to avoid being an outlier and to honor<br>
>>> the building of consensus. This is the usual move at some point in<br>
>>> the consensus-building process, when dealing with a position that<br>
>>> has broad 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<br>
>>> broad multistakeholder support. I could jump to conclusions, but I<br>
>>> prefer not to. Hence the question, which I think is quite relevant.<br>
>>> First, if I go back to my constituency and tell them that we are the<br>
>>> outlier and this has broad multistakeholder support, that may be<br>
>>> persuasive to some of them, committed as we are to consensus-driven<br>
processes.<br>
>>> Second, I think it is relevant to understand the context of this<br>
>>> particular position, isolated from discussions of the value of<br>
>>> compromise and other such 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<br>
>>> believe "is a good idea, or enhances ICANN's accountability, or<br>
>>> corrects a problem/deficiency in the Bylaws, or is needed for the<br>
transition".<br>
>>> So have other parts of the community.<br>
>>><br>
>>> I would ask the opposite. What is the HARM? The overall number of<br>
>>> times that GAC advice is rejected is small. I find it hard to<br>
>>> imagine that there will be any substantive difference in outcomes in<br>
>>> the future with the two alternatives. If people want to die in the<br>
>>> ditch (so to speak) over the difference, I guess that is what will<br>
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<br>
>>> the<br>
>>> 2/3 threshold? In other words, does any member or participant think<br>
>>> that this is a good idea, or enhances ICANN's accountability, or<br>
>>> corrects a problem/deficiency in the Bylaws, or is needed for the<br>
>>> transition? How about any chartering organization or constituent<br>
>>> part of a chartering 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 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>>> wrote:<br>
>>> GAC did not formally reject the Rec 11 in announcing that " no<br>
>>> consensus is reached " GNSO and its spokemen push for their<br>
>>> objection, GAC must formally reject the Recommendation as currently<br>
>>> GAC lost o-1 because of Stress Test 18 ,if such ST remains and 2/ 3<br>
>>> supermajority becomes Simple Majority then GAC would loose o-2 .That<br>
>>> is not fair .There should not win loose against GAC, WIN-WIN YES,<br>
>>> loose-loose yes ,for every body BUT NOT LOOSE FOR gac and win for<br>
>>> 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<br>
>>> say 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<br>
>>> favour 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>
</div></div><div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5">>>> <a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><mailto:<a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross">Accountability-Cross</a><br>
>>> -<br>
>>> Commu<br>
>>> <a href="mailto:nity@icann.org">nity@icann.org</a>><br>
>>> <a href="https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_ma" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_ma</a><br>
>>> i<br>
>>> lman_<br>
>>> listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeD<br>
>>> A<br>
>>> LC_lU<br>
>>> Lrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=hztKOghNjATPghuj<br>
>>> B<br>
>>> r31se<br>
>>> 8zAnPYjgu096CZkLJH1M8&s=QGFS5bJ0Cv64FcImyPiJjRr4NoogMmK4gR_b5V_-SJk&<br>
>>> e<br>
>>> =<br>
>>> <<a href="https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_m" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_m</a><br>
>>> a<br>
>>> ilman<br>
>>> _listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETe<br>
>>> D<br>
>>> ALC_l<br>
>>> ULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=IPeeS727VSPyw6E<br>
>>> o<br>
>>> paZqi<br>
>>> SVdGmc7CU9_kkXYW3JiLjE&s=xohs2ScA5mgcD6vDqSINegEcDgo0OnBIZYQvTaptkRI<br>
>>> &<br>
</div></div><span class="im HOEnZb">>>> e=><br>
>>><br>
>>> _______________________________________________<br>
>>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>
</span><div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5">>>> <a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><mailto:<a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross">Accountability-Cross</a><br>
>>> -<br>
>>> Commu<br>
>>> <a href="mailto:nity@icann.org">nity@icann.org</a>><br>
>>> <a href="https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_ma" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_ma</a><br>
>>> i<br>
>>> lman_<br>
>>> listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeD<br>
>>> A<br>
>>> LC_lU<br>
>>> Lrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=hztKOghNjATPghuj<br>
>>> B<br>
>>> r31se<br>
>>> 8zAnPYjgu096CZkLJH1M8&s=QGFS5bJ0Cv64FcImyPiJjRr4NoogMmK4gR_b5V_-SJk&<br>
>>> e<br>
>>> =<br>
>>> <<a href="https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_m" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_m</a><br>
>>> a<br>
>>> ilman<br>
>>> _listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETe<br>
>>> D<br>
>>> ALC_l<br>
>>> ULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=IPeeS727VSPyw6E<br>
>>> o<br>
>>> paZqi<br>
>>> SVdGmc7CU9_kkXYW3JiLjE&s=xohs2ScA5mgcD6vDqSINegEcDgo0OnBIZYQvTaptkRI<br>
>>> &<br>
</div></div><span class="im HOEnZb">>>> e=><br>
>>><br>
>>> _______________________________________________<br>
>>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>
</span><div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5">>>> <a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><mailto:<a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross">Accountability-Cross</a><br>
>>> -<br>
>>> Commu<br>
>>> <a href="mailto:nity@icann.org">nity@icann.org</a>><br>
>>> <a href="https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_ma" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_ma</a><br>
>>> i<br>
>>> lman_<br>
>>> listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeD<br>
>>> A<br>
>>> LC_lU<br>
>>> Lrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=hztKOghNjATPghuj<br>
>>> B<br>
>>> r31se<br>
>>> 8zAnPYjgu096CZkLJH1M8&s=QGFS5bJ0Cv64FcImyPiJjRr4NoogMmK4gR_b5V_-SJk&<br>
>>> e<br>
>>> =<br>
>>> <<a href="https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_m" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_m</a><br>
>>> a<br>
>>> ilman<br>
>>> _listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETe<br>
>>> D<br>
>>> ALC_l<br>
>>> ULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=IPeeS727VSPyw6E<br>
>>> o<br>
>>> paZqi<br>
>>> SVdGmc7CU9_kkXYW3JiLjE&s=xohs2ScA5mgcD6vDqSINegEcDgo0OnBIZYQvTaptkRI<br>
>>> &<br>
</div></div><span class="im HOEnZb">>>> e=><br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>> _______________________________________________<br>
>>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>
</span><span class="im HOEnZb">>>> <a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><mailto:<a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross">Accountability-Cross</a><br>
>>> -<br>
>>> Commu<br>
>>> <a href="mailto:nity@icann.org">nity@icann.org</a>><br>
>>> <a href="https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_ma" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_ma</a><br>
>>> i<br>
>>> lman_<br>
>>> listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeD<br>
>>> A<br>
>>> LC_lU<br>
>>> Lrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=hztKOghNjATPghuj<br>
>>> B<br>
>>> r31se<br>
>>> 8zAnPYjgu096CZkLJH1M8&s=QGFS5bJ0Cv64FcImyPiJjRr4NoogMmK4gR_b5V_-SJk&<br>
>>> e<br>
</span><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" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a><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" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>