<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=iso-8859-1"><base href="https://e-aj.my.com/"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">Well, Paul, the normal déontology of public officials in an international context, would not give rise to the information that you are seeking.<div>Except perhaps after a conclusion had been reached, if then.</div><div><br></div><div>CW</div><div><br></div><div><br><div><div>On 31 Jan 2016, at 02:54, Paul Rosenzweig <<a href="mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com">paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite">
<div><p style="margin-top: 0px;" dir="ltr">Which of course reverts to my original question: what are the governments saying and what is the nature and degree of their disagreements, if any.</p><p dir="ltr">--<br>
Paul<br>
Sent from myMail app for Android</p>
Saturday, 30 January 2016, 04:31PM -06:00 from CW Mail <<a href="mailto:mail@christopherwilkinson.eu">mail@christopherwilkinson.eu</a>>:<br><br><blockquote style="border-left:1px solid #FC2C38; margin:0px 0px 0px 10px; padding:0px 0px 0px 10px;" cite="x-msg://7/14541931210000091640">
<div class="js-helper js-readmsg-msg">
<style type="text/css"></style>
<div>
<base target="_self" href="https://e-aj.my.com/">
<div id="style_14541931210000091640_BODY">I would expect most governments to make their comments in the GAC itself.<br>
Only exceptionally to respond to public comments periods.<br>
<br>
CW<br>
<br>
<br>
On 30 Jan 2016, at 23:15, "Paul Rosenzweig" <<a href="x-msg://7/compose?To=paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com">paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com</a>> wrote:<br>
<br>
<div class="mail-quote-collapse">> Sure Jorge<br>
> <br>
> I'll happily agree with you that everyone who spoke to the issue of the<br>
> 2/3rd vote that was a government (as opposed to the rest of the community)<br>
> supported it.<br>
> <br>
> In return, ought you not to acknowledge that the entire opposition to the<br>
> full consensus/ST18 proposal is exactly 5 countries? Nobody outside the GAC<br>
> affirmatively supports less than full consensus and many (most notably the<br>
> gNSO) actively opposes it. Ought you not to acknowledge that the tiny<br>
> minority of 5 dissenters is who is blocking consensus on that aspect of the<br>
> issue?<br>
> <br>
> And, since we are asking questions -- why didn't the government of<br>
> Switzerland submit comments?<br>
> <br>
> Paul<br>
> <br>
> Paul Rosenzweig<br>
> <a href="x-msg://7/compose?To=paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com">paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com</a> <br>
> O: +1 (202) 547-0660<br>
> M: +1 (202) 329-9650<br>
> VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739<br>
> Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066<br>
> Link to my PGP Key<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> -----Original Message-----<br>
> From: <a href="x-msg://7/compose?To=Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch">Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch</a> [mailto:Jorge.Cancio@<a href="http://bakom.admin.ch">bakom.admin.ch</a>] <br>
> Sent: Saturday, January 30, 2016 4:40 PM<br>
> To: <a href="x-msg://7/compose?To=paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com">paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com</a><br>
> Cc: <a href="mailto:egmorris1@toast.net">egmorris1@toast.net</a>; <a href="x-msg://7/compose?To=accountability%2dcross%2dcommunity@icann.org">accountability-cross-community@icann.org</a><br>
> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Creative solutions for Rec.11<br>
> <br>
> Dear Paul<br>
> <br>
> As I said I cannot and would not dare to speak for the GAC.<br>
> <br>
> But in any group where expressing one's opinion is not compulsory, normally<br>
> a majority does remain silent and those with a strong sentiment speak out,<br>
> factually "representing" in some way the main currents of thought in such a<br>
> group.<br>
> <br>
> I guess this happens all across the board and in all constituencies, as it<br>
> happens in our CCWG, where some of us (to varying degrees) cope a lot of the<br>
> conversations while the majority of the +150 (?) members and participants<br>
> are normally silent.<br>
> <br>
> So, I guess that based on this "voluntary" principle the data you mention on<br>
> the 2/3 element is significant, at least in showing that there seems not to<br>
> be any government considering that threshold as something they should object<br>
> (quite to the contrary it seems). And of the governments which participated<br>
> there is quite an interesting variety in regional terms.<br>
> <br>
> best regards<br>
> <br>
> Jorge<br>
> <br>
> Von meinem iPhone gesendet<br>
> <br>
>> Am 30.01.2016 um 22:14 schrieb Paul Rosenzweig<br>
> <<a href="x-msg://7/compose?To=paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com">paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com</a>>:<br>
>> <br>
>> Jorge<br>
>> <br>
>> I took you up on the implicit challenge and have just spent an hour<br>
> happily<br>
>> reading all of the government comments on CCWG-A Third Draft. I may<br>
> have<br>
>> missed a comment, but I don't think so.<br>
>> <br>
>> I can happily report the following to the community:<br>
>> <br>
>> 15 governments commented on the Third Draft report. Of those 14 <br>
>> addressed Rec 11 and 7 also addressed Rec 1. One government (Italy) <br>
>> addressed only Rec 2.<br>
>> <br>
>> Of the 7 who addressed Rec 1: 4 governments supported GAC voting in <br>
>> the EC (Brazil, Argentina, Japan, and NZ) though two (Japan and NZ) <br>
>> expressed caution about this. Two governments said GAC should be <br>
>> advisory only<br>
>> (Ireland/Denmark) and one (UK) said that the decision should be up to <br>
>> the GAC.<br>
>> <br>
>> Of the 14 who addressed Rec 11:<br>
>> -- All who spoke to the issue supported the 2/3rd vote <br>
>> rejection rule. Some were silent<br>
>> -- Eight governments supported the current full consensus rule <br>
>> (Australia, NZ, UK, Japan, Sweden, Ireland, Canada, and Denmark); five <br>
>> opposed it (Brazil, France, Argentina, Portugal, India); one (Norway) <br>
>> noted lack of GAC consensus.<br>
>> <br>
>> So my assessment is that a very small sample of 6 governments splits <br>
>> 2-1 in favor of a GAC voting role in the EC and a somewhat larger <br>
>> sample of 13 governments splits 8-5 in favor of ST18 and full consensus.<br>
>> <br>
>> To be honest, I think that doesn't tell us much. There are 153 <br>
>> governments in the GAC. A sample of 10% probably says nothing about <br>
>> sentiment in that body. Nonetheless the data speak for themselves at<br>
> least as far as they go.<br>
>> <br>
>> Paul<br>
>> <br>
>> Paul Rosenzweig<br>
>> <a href="x-msg://7/compose?To=paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com">paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com</a><br>
>> O: +1 (202) 547-0660<br>
>> M: +1 (202) 329-9650<br>
>> VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739<br>
>> Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066<br>
>> Link to my PGP Key<br>
>> <br>
>> <br>
>> <br>
>> -----Original Message-----<br>
>> From: <a href="x-msg://7/compose?To=Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch">Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch</a> [mailto:Jorge.Cancio@<a href="http://bakom.admin.ch">bakom.admin.ch</a>]<br>
>> Sent: Saturday, January 30, 2016 3:04 PM<br>
>> To: <a href="x-msg://7/compose?To=egmorris1@toast.net">egmorris1@toast.net</a><br>
>> Cc: <a href="mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com">paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com</a>;<br>
>> <a href="x-msg://7/compose?To=accountability%2dcross%2dcommunity@icann.org">accountability-cross-community@icann.org</a><br>
>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Creative solutions for Rec.11<br>
>> <br>
>> Hi Ed<br>
>> <br>
>> I don't know the numbers by heart, but I'll guess they are on the <br>
>> public comment sheet produced by staff (actually I just saw in their <br>
>> ppt that out of 90 comments 17% come from govts).<br>
>> <br>
>> But let's not go down that road: if we count who participates and <br>
>> extend it to other constituencies we will also see the "same faces" all<br>
> over again:<br>
>> that is a consequence of the principle of voluntary participation. <br>
>> <br>
>> In the GAC this is "compensated" with our voluntary high consensus <br>
>> threshold which requires to include any interested delegation into a<br>
> consensus.<br>
>> <br>
>> regards<br>
>> Jorge<br>
>> <br>
>> Von meinem iPhone gesendet<br>
>> <br>
>>> Am 30.01.2016 um 20:54 schrieb Edward Morris <<a href="x-msg://7/compose?To=egmorris1@toast.net">egmorris1@toast.net</a>>:<br>
>>> <br>
>>> Hi Jorge,<br>
>>> <br>
>>> Thanks for this.<br>
>>> <br>
>>> I believe the GAC has around 140 members, give or take a few. As <br>
>>> you've<br>
>> gone through all the public comments filed by governments would be so <br>
>> kind as to us know how many governments actually filed public comments <br>
>> and what percentage of GAC membership that represents?<br>
>>> <br>
>>> Thanks,<br>
>>> <br>
>>> Ed Morris<br>
>>> <br>
>>> Sent from my iPhone<br>
>>> <br>
>>>> On 30 Jan 2016, at 19:46, <<a href="x-msg://7/compose?To=Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch">Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch</a>><br>
>> <<a href="x-msg://7/compose?To=Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch">Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch</a>> wrote:<br>
>>>> <br>
>>>> Dear Paul<br>
>>>> <br>
>>>> I cannot speak for the GAC of course, but the last consensus input <br>
>>>> on<br>
>> ST18 we had was the Dublin Communique.<br>
>>>> <br>
>>>> The subsequent Rec 11 did not satisfy some governments, as they <br>
>>>> basically<br>
>> thought that it did not comply with the "autonomy in defining <br>
>> consensus"-element agreed in Dublin.<br>
>>>> <br>
>>>> This may be checked with the comments filed in the third public <br>
>>>> comment<br>
>> period on the third draft report by governments.<br>
>>>> <br>
>>>> I think I have gone through all public comments filed by governments <br>
>>>> and<br>
>> I'm not aware of any position rejecting or objecting to Rec 11 because <br>
>> it would consider that it went "too far" i.e. because they would <br>
>> actively disagree with the 2/3.<br>
>>>> <br>
>>>> Other colleagues may of course correct and/or complement me if I <br>
>>>> have<br>
>> missed something.<br>
>>>> <br>
>>>> regards<br>
>>>> <br>
>>>> Jorge<br>
>>>> <br>
>>>> Von meinem iPhone gesendet<br>
>>>> <br>
>>>>> Am 30.01.2016 um 20:19 schrieb Paul Rosenzweig<br>
>> <<a href="x-msg://7/compose?To=paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com">paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com</a>>:<br>
>>>>> <br>
>>>>> May I ask a question -- is the GAC willing to disclose the current <br>
>>>>> split of opinion within the GAC regarding Rec 11?<br>
>>>>> <br>
>>>>> The last we heard was that the GAC had not reached consensus on the <br>
>>>>> question. One infers (I think infer is actually too soft a word <br>
>>>>> but I use it to be certain I am not overstating the case) that some <br>
>>>>> members of the GAC support Rec 11 as written and some do not. One <br>
>>>>> also suspects (though here I am less certain) that some of the GAC <br>
>>>>> members oppose Rec 11 because it does not go far enough (they want <br>
>>>>> Rec 11 plus more (e.g. removal of the consensus<br>
>>>>> language)) while others do not support Rec 11 because it goes too <br>
>>>>> far (they would be content with a majority requirement and <br>
>>>>> enshrining the status quo consensus rule in the bylaws).<br>
>>>>> <br>
>>>>> One of the issues we have with the GAC is that unlike the other <br>
>>>>> SO/ACs it is uniquely non-transparent. That means that the voices <br>
>>>>> in our discussion that are the most frequent can be thought to <br>
>>>>> represent the GAC majority. Perhaps they are. Yet every time some <br>
>>>>> of the less frequent voices from GAC speak in this forum they seem <br>
>>>>> much less strident and committed than do the more frequent <br>
>>>>> participants<br>
>> in our discussion.<br>
>>>>> <br>
>>>>> I fear that the result of this is that we are misperceiving the <br>
>>>>> GAC's true intentions, or more accurately, misperceiving the actual <br>
>>>>> split of opinion within the GAC. To be honest, if, in fact, it <br>
>>>>> were the case that every country in the world save my own were <br>
>>>>> supporting Rec 11, I would be more inclined to relinquish my <br>
>>>>> objection. But my strong suspicion is that this is not the case.<br>
>>>>> <br>
>>>>> Put another way, some have recently said we are "disrespecting" the <br>
>>>>> GAC or ignoring its wishes. But, as of now its wishes are <br>
>>>>> radically unclear -- all it says is "we have not reached <br>
>>>>> consensus." In the interests of clarifying the nature of that lack <br>
>>>>> of consensus, would the GAC be willing to disclose its assessment <br>
>>>>> of the relative support for Rec 11 and the relative support for<br>
> objections thereto?<br>
>>>>> <br>
>>>>> Paul<br>
>>>>> <br>
>>>>> Paul Rosenzweig<br>
>>>>> <a href="x-msg://7/compose?To=paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com">paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com</a><br>
>>>>> O: +1 (202) 547-0660<br>
>>>>> M: +1 (202) 329-9650<br>
>>>>> VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739<br>
>>>>> Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066<br>
>>>>> Link to my PGP Key<br>
>>>>> <br>
>>>>> <br>
>>>>> <br>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----<br>
>>>>> From: Mueller, Milton L [mailto:milton@<a href="http://gatech.edu">gatech.edu</a>]<br>
>>>>> Sent: Saturday, January 30, 2016 1:50 PM<br>
>>>>> To: Malcolm Hutty <<a href="x-msg://7/compose?To=malcolm@linx.net">malcolm@linx.net</a>>; <a href="mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch">Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch</a>; <br>
>>>>> <a href="x-msg://7/compose?To=kdrazek@verisign.com">kdrazek@verisign.com</a><br>
>>>>> Cc: <a href="x-msg://7/compose?To=accountability%2dcross%2dcommunity@icann.org">accountability-cross-community@icann.org</a><br>
>>>>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Creative solutions for Rec.11<br>
>>>>> <br>
>>>>> I'm sorry, Malcolm, but this is a bit too "creative." <br>
>>>>> <br>
>>>>> You are proposing to restructure the entire ICANN policy process <br>
>>>>> and to alter in a fairly fundamental way the relationship between <br>
>>>>> GNSO and<br>
>> the GAC.<br>
>>>>> There is a lot of merit in your idea as a general procedural <br>
>>>>> reform, but the point of this exercise is to create accountability <br>
>>>>> mechanisms that substitute for the oversight of the USG, not to <br>
>>>>> alter the policy development process or to redesign all of ICANN.<br>
>>>>> <br>
>>>>> I think Ed Morris's message was a more positive contribution that <br>
>>>>> points the way toward a solution.<br>
>>>>> The problem is not the 2/3 threshold in isolation, the problem is <br>
>>>>> that certain aspects of the CCWG 3rd draft, when looked at in <br>
>>>>> combination, are changing the role of the GAC in ways greatly <br>
>>>>> expand its power over the policy process, because they retain and <br>
>>>>> strengthen the privileges of its old role while also changing its <br>
>>>>> role by making it a part of the community mechanism.<br>
>>>>> <br>
>>>>> I agree with Ed: if GAC is not part of the community mechanism, <br>
>>>>> and/or is not exempted from the same reviews as other ACs and SOs, <br>
>>>>> then the 2/3 threshold becomes much less of an issue.<br>
>>>>> <br>
>>>>> I agree with Becky's more modest proposal: if GAC is removed from <br>
>>>>> the community mechanism appeals that pertain to whether the board <br>
>>>>> follows GAC advice, then there is less worry about raising the <br>
>>>>> threshold for board rejection of GAC advice.<br>
>>>>> <br>
>>>>> I think we need to start from those propositions, not start <br>
>>>>> redesigning the policy process.<br>
>>>>> <br>
>>>>> --MM<br>
>>>>> <br>
>>>>>> -----Original Message-----<br>
>>>>>> From: <a href="x-msg://7/compose?To=accountability%2dcross%2dcommunity%2dbounces@icann.org">accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org</a><br>
>>>>>> [mailto:accountability-<a href="mailto:cross-community-bounces@icann.org">cross-community-bounces@icann.org</a>] On <br>
>>>>>> Behalf Of Malcolm Hutty<br>
>>>>>> Sent: Saturday, January 30, 2016 4:50 AM<br>
>>>>>> To: <a href="mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch">Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch</a>; <a href="x-msg://7/compose?To=kdrazek@verisign.com">kdrazek@verisign.com</a><br>
>>>>>> Cc: <a href="x-msg://7/compose?To=accountability%2dcross%2dcommunity@icann.org">accountability-cross-community@icann.org</a><br>
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Creative solutions for Rec.11<br>
>>>>>> <br>
>>>>>>> On 29/01/2016 21:24, <a href="x-msg://7/compose?To=Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch">Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch</a> wrote:<br>
>>>>>>> it is a bit akward you would need to concede that you imply that <br>
>>>>>>> without the 2/3 the GNSO would be able to support Rec 11.<br>
>>>>>>> <br>
>>>>>>> It gives an impression as if Rec 11 (without 2/3) would contain <br>
>>>>>>> anything "that would need to be accepted", when as we all know <br>
>>>>>>> Rec<br>
>>>>>>> 11 (without 2/3) corresponds to 100% of the GNSO starting position.<br>
>>>>>>> <br>
>>>>>>> So there would be any concession. No aspect "in need to be accepted".<br>
>>>>>>> <br>
>>>>>>> Just a 100% win-situation for the GNSO.<br>
>>>>>> <br>
>>>>>> <br>
>>>>>>> On 29/01/2016 22:01, <a href="x-msg://7/compose?To=Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch">Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch</a> wrote:<br>
>>>>>>> I feel that at this critical juncture we all have to keep the <br>
>>>>>>> whole picture in our heads, be creative (as Becky for instance) <br>
>>>>>>> and look for a solution which may be acceptable across the <br>
>>>>>>> community<br>
>> as a whole.<br>
>>>>>> <br>
>>>>>> The 2/3 rule is evidently unacceptable to the GNSO.<br>
>>>>>> <br>
>>>>>> Without that rule, Rec.11 would (it seems) be acceptable to them. <br>
>>>>>> Jorge says "But this is their starting position, it would mean a <br>
>>>>>> 100% win-situation for the GNSO". I might observe that the logic <br>
>>>>>> of that seems to be that GNSO ought to have come to CCWG with a <br>
>>>>>> more extreme initial position, so that it could settle on what it <br>
>>>>>> really<br>
>> wanted.<br>
>>>>>> Perhaps it will learn to adapt its negotiating tactics.<br>
>>>>>> <br>
>>>>>> However, I do agree with Jorge: we need to try to respect the need <br>
>>>>>> for all parties to be seen to gain improvements from our changes. <br>
>>>>>> I would therefore like us to take up his challenge to "be creative"<br>
>>>>>> in an attempt to find a solution.<br>
>>>>>> <br>
>>>>>> Let us consider what the 2/3 rule attempts:<br>
>>>>>> <br>
>>>>>> - from a government point of view, it provides an assurance that <br>
>>>>>> GAC advice will be given greater weight, affirming the importance <br>
>>>>>> of<br>
>>>>> government input.<br>
>>>>>> Such an assurance is necessary to them.<br>
>>>>>> <br>
>>>>>> - from a GNSO point of view, it ensures that the Board will <br>
>>>>>> automatically follow GAC advice (except in very unusual<br>
>>>>>> circumstances) transforming ICANN into a body which is led by <br>
>>>>>> government policy. Such a transformation is unacceptable to them.<br>
>>>>>> <br>
>>>>>> With GNSO opposition, I believe we must accept that the 2/3 rule <br>
>>>>>> is dead. But taking up Jorge's challenge, we must replace it not <br>
>>>>>> with nothing, but with something creative that would offer in its <br>
>>>>>> place the assurance to governments the 2/3 rule seeks to achieve, <br>
>>>>>> without creating the transformation that the GNSO opposes.<br>
>>>>>> <br>
>>>>>> I think it would be useful if people come forward with ideas for <br>
>>>>>> strengthening the input of governments without overbalancing the <br>
>>>>>> decision-making process as the 2/3 rule does.<br>
>>>>>> <br>
>>>>>> I would therefore like to make the following suggestion of my own:<br>
>>>>>> <br>
>>>>>> * Remove the 2/3 rule; and<br>
>>>>>> * Provide that when providing advice on GNSO policy, GAC advice is <br>
>>>>>> given directly to the GNSO (during the PDP) instead of to the <br>
>>>>>> Board, (after the community consensus policy is finalised and <br>
>>>>>> ready to be<br>
>>>>> ratified).<br>
>>>>>> Require that the GNSO consider any such GAC advice before adopting <br>
>>>>>> a PDP policy. (This is conceptual: lawyers can wordsmith).<br>
>>>>>> <br>
>>>>>> The advantages of this proposal, as I see them, are as follows:<br>
>>>>>> <br>
>>>>>> - By accepting GAC advice into an earlier stage of the process, it <br>
>>>>>> will be possible to incorporate it into the design of the policy, <br>
>>>>>> rather than tacking it on as an adjunct. GAC advice will therefore <br>
>>>>>> be more effective and the ultimate outcome more likely to reflect <br>
>>>>>> GAC<br>
>>>>> expectations than at present.<br>
>>>>>> <br>
>>>>>> - By incorporating the fruits of GAC advice into the community <br>
>>>>>> proposal, it will also benefit from the rule that the Board is <br>
>>>>>> expected to accept GNSO community consensus policy proposals, and <br>
>>>>>> can only reject them by<br>
>>>>>> 2/3 supermajority.<br>
>>>>>> <br>
>>>>>> - By including the GAC in the policy-development process we <br>
>>>>>> strengthen the GAC's role as a part of our community, reducing the<br>
>> "them and us"<br>
>>>>>> tensions and helping to ensure that GAC concerns are given full <br>
>>>>>> respect at every level of the organisation.<br>
>>>>>> <br>
>>>>>> Most importantly, this suggestions aims to strengthen the GAC's <br>
>>>>>> role in a manner that also strengthens the multi-stakeholder <br>
>>>>>> policy development process, rather than standing in tension with <br>
>>>>>> it. It can therefore be seen not as a zero-sum compromise but a <br>
>>>>>> true win-win<br>
>>>>> solution.<br>
>>>>>> <br>
>>>>>> I look forward to your thoughts,<br>
>>>>>> <br>
>>>>>> Malcolm.<br>
>>>>>> <br>
>>>>>> --<br>
>>>>>> Malcolm Hutty | tel: +44 20 7645 3523 Head of Public <br>
>>>>>> Affairs | Read the LINX Public Affairs blog London Internet <br>
>>>>>> Exchange | <a href="http://publicaffairs.linx.net/" target="_blank">http://publicaffairs.linx.net/</a><br>
>>>>>> <br>
>>>>>> London Internet Exchange Ltd<br>
>>>>>> Monument Place, 24 Monument Street, London EC3R 8AJ<br>
>>>>>> <br>
>>>>>> Company Registered in England No. 3137929<br>
>>>>>> Trinity Court, Trinity Street, Peterborough PE1 1DA<br>
>>>>>> <br>
>>>>>> <br>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________<br>
>>>>>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross- <br>
>>>>>> <a href="x-msg://7/compose?To=Community@icann.org">Community@icann.org</a> <br>
>>>>>> <a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-communi" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-communi</a><br>
>>>>>> t<br>
>>>>>> y<br>
>>>>> _______________________________________________<br>
>>>>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list <br>
>>>>> <a href="x-msg://7/compose?To=Accountability%2dCross%2dCommunity@icann.org">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><br>
>>>>> <a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-communit" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-communit</a><br>
>>>>> y<br>
>>>> _______________________________________________<br>
>>>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list <br>
>>>> <a href="x-msg://7/compose?To=Accountability%2dCross%2dCommunity@icann.org">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><br>
>>>> <a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a><br>
>> <br>
> <br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>
> <a href="x-msg://7/compose?To=Accountability%2dCross%2dCommunity@icann.org">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><br>
> <a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a><br>
</div><br>
</div>
<base target="_self" href="https://e-aj.my.com/">
</div>
</div>
</blockquote></div>
_______________________________________________<br>Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br><a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><br>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community<br></blockquote></div><br></div></body></html>