<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Tatiana,</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Thanks for bringing this to my attention. Gmail "clipped" the email, cutting off the rest of the information, and I didn't notice that it had done so. I've now "shown" myself the "clipped information and I'll re-run and repost my data.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Greg</div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 12:25 PM, Dr. Tatiana Tropina <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:t.tropina@mpicc.de" target="_blank">t.tropina@mpicc.de</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
Greg, <br>
<br>
thanks for your great efforts to provide us with the results
distribution, but I would like to ask what's the matter with Poll
#4. I might be missing something, but why according to your results
it is only NCSG? The results that were sent to us in the email
(which you are citing as well, when one scrolls down) include not
only NCSG: <br><span class="">
<br>
<b>Poll #4 – Who supports sending the report to Chartering
Organizations as it is currently, (i.e. the 19 February version
with the full text in Paragraph 72)?</b><br>
<br></span><span class="">
1. Aarti Bhavana (NCSG – Participant)<br>
2. Brett Schaefer (NCSG – Participant)<br>
3. Edward Morris (NCSG – Participant)<br>
4. Farzaneh Badii (NCSG – Participant)<br>
5. James Gannon (NCSG – Participant)<br></span>
6. Jordan Carter (<b>ccNSO</b> – Member)<span class=""><br>
7. Martin Boyle (<b>ccNSO</b> – Participant)<br>
8. Matthew Shears (NCSG – Participant)<br>
9. Malcolm Hutty (<b>ISPCP</b> – Participant)<br></span><span class="">
10. Milton Mueller (NCSG – Participant)<br>
11. Paul Rosenzweig (NCSG – Participant)<br>
12. Robin Gross (NCSG – Member)<br>
13. Stephen Deerhake (<b>ccNSO</b> – Participant)<br>
14. Tatiana Tropina (NCSG – Participant)<br>
<br></span>
Am I confusing things? Would be grateful if you clarify this.<br>
Thanks!<br>
<br>
Tanya <br><div><div class="h5">
<br>
<br>
<div>On 23/02/16 18:09, Greg Shatan wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">All:</div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">I'd like to offer an
observation on the polls and a path to interpreting them.</div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">The distribution of
voters among groups was fairly skewed. Having 11 Board
members present (and voting) was remarkable, but there were
other imbalances in stakeholder structure representation that
also tended to skew the results. I prepared the attached
charts to track and control for these imbalanced
distributions. The bottom line is that support for the 4
polls was as follows, if broken down by stakeholder structure
(i.e., without giving weight to multiple votes from the same
structure).</div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><b>REMOVING THE
LANGUAGE (“If the IRP is not available to challenge the
Board action in question”)</b></div>
<div class="gmail_default"><font face="verdana,
sans-serif"><br>
</font></div>
<div class="gmail_default">
<div class="gmail_default"><font face="verdana, sans-serif">Poll
#3 – Who supports removing the language in the 2nd bullet
in Paragraph 72 (in red on the slide), (“If the IRP is not
available to challenge the Board action in question”)?<br>
</font></div>
<div class="gmail_default"><font face="verdana, sans-serif"><b><font color="#ff0000">10</font></b> (GAC, ccNSO, ALAC, NCSG,
RySG, RrSG, BC, IPC, Board, Staff)</font></div>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default"><font face="verdana,
sans-serif">Poll #1 – Who objects to removing the 2nd bullet
in Paragraph 72 (in red on the slide), (“If the IRP is not
available to challenge the Board action in question”)?</font><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default"><font face="verdana,
sans-serif"><b><font color="#ff0000">3</font></b> (ccNSO,
NCSG, ISPCP)</font></div>
<div class="gmail_default"><font face="verdana,
sans-serif"><br>
</font></div>
<div class="gmail_default">
<div class="gmail_default"><font face="verdana, sans-serif"><b>SENDING
THE REPORT "AS IS"</b></font></div>
<div class="gmail_default"><font face="verdana, sans-serif"><br>
</font></div>
<div class="gmail_default"><font face="verdana, sans-serif">Poll
#4 – Who supports sending the report to Chartering
Organizations as it is currently, (i.e. the 19 February
version with the full text in Paragraph 72)?<br>
</font></div>
<div class="gmail_default"><font face="verdana, sans-serif"><b><font color="#ff0000">1</font></b> in support (NCSG)</font></div>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default"><font face="verdana,
sans-serif"><br>
</font></div>
<div class="gmail_default"><font face="verdana,
sans-serif">Poll #2 – Who objects to sending the report
forward (to Chartering Organizations) as it is currently,
(i.e. the 19 February version with the full text in
Paragraph 72)?<br>
</font></div>
<div class="gmail_default"><font face="verdana,
sans-serif"><b><font color="#ff0000">6</font></b> (GAC,
ccNSO, ALAC, RySG, Board, Staff)</font></div>
<div class="gmail_default"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default">One can parse the data
further, and one can decide how to deal with split structures
(e.g., 2 of 3 structures having participants objecting to
removing the language in Poll #1 also had participants
supporting removing the language) and with whether Steve
DelBianco should be counted as a "BC" vote when he was voting
as the appointed representative of the CSG, and whether Staff
votes should count at all and whether Member votes should
count more. But I decided to keep it simple and let the data
speak for themselves.</div>
<div class="gmail_default"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default">Greg</div>
<div class="gmail_default"><font face="verdana,
sans-serif"><br>
</font></div>
<div class="gmail_default"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default"><br>
</div>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 9:54 AM, Edward
Morris <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:egmorris1@toast.net" target="_blank">egmorris1@toast.net</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><span style="font-family:Arial,Helvetica,Sans-Serif;font-size:12px">
<div>+1</div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<hr size="2" width="100%" align="center">
<div><span style="font-family:tahoma,arial,sans-serif;font-size:10pt"><b>From</b>:
"Salaets, Ken" <<a href="mailto:ksalaets@itic.org" target="_blank">ksalaets@itic.org</a>><br>
<b>Sent</b>: Tuesday, February 23, 2016 2:52 PM<br>
<b>To</b>: "Roelof Meijer" <<a href="mailto:Roelof.Meijer@sidn.nl" target="_blank"></a><a href="mailto:Roelof.Meijer@sidn.nl" target="_blank">Roelof.Meijer@sidn.nl</a>><br>
<b>Cc</b>: "<a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org" target="_blank">accountability-cross-community@icann.org</a>"
<<a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org" target="_blank">accountability-cross-community@icann.org</a>><span><br>
<b>Subject</b>: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Poll results</span></span>
<div> </div>
<div>
<div>
Roelof et al., if there wasn't consensus for
including the second 'exception,' then where did it
come from and why was it included in the 19 Feb.
draft? This is what's perplexing.<br>
<br>
Second, the co-chairs and CCWG process clearly
aren't following anything close to the classic sense
of the term 'consensus,' but frankly, it is nigh
impossible to determine what metric is being
followed. Indeed, one could easily get the
impression we are embracing a floating definition,
so to speak, the metric for which is convenience
rather than consistency. Hence, it sets the table
for confusion and second-guessing, both of which are
bait for those inclined to question this entire
endeavor.<br>
<br>
I agree with the expressions of frustration voiced
here, i.e., that process violations are allowed on a
frequent basis and then unevenly, with some voices
deemed 'louder' than others. I am not arguing for or
against the merits of this particular latest debate,
mind you, but when the process being employed comes
across as 'winging it' - or worse - it raises
inevitable questions regarding the overall integrity
of this important exercise.<br>
<br>
I greatly admire the endurance of everyone involved,
including and especially the co-chairs. I would only
urge you, however, to absolutely ensure that every
participant and organization engaged in this
activity is held to the same standard. Doing
anything less will make the outcome all the more
difficult to justify and defend here in Washington.<br>
<br>
Happy Tuesday.<br>
<br>
Ken<br>
<br>
> On Feb 23, 2016, at 8:50 AM, Roelof Meijer <<a href="mailto:Roelof.Meijer@sidn.nl" target="_blank"></a><a href="mailto:Roelof.Meijer@sidn.nl" target="_blank">Roelof.Meijer@sidn.nl</a>>
wrote:<br>
><br>
> Where it leaves us, I think is clear. We just
follow our common practice:<br>
> if we have no (rough) consensus on inserting a
particular clause or<br>
> solution in our proposal, we do not put it in.
Item (2) was inserted a few<br>
> weeks ago, we do not have anything close to
rough consensus to support<br>
> that. So it should be taken out.<br>
><br>
><br>
> Best,<br>
><br>
> Roelof<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> On 23-02-16 12:39, "<a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org" target="_blank">accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org</a>
on<br>
> behalf of Dr Eberhard W Lisse"<br>
> <<a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org" target="_blank">accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org</a>
on behalf of<br>
> <a href="mailto:el@lisse.na" target="_blank">el@lisse.na</a>>
wrote:<br>
><br>
>> Grace,<br>
>><br>
>> thank you.<br>
>><br>
>> Dear Co-Chairs,<br>
>><br>
>> As mentioned in the chat I had to leave
after one hour (of which 22<br>
>> were taken by a summary, for which I
expected an Executive Summary of<br>
>> 2 minutes or less, by the way) as I have to
work for a living.<br>
>><br>
>> Just for the record, sending it to the SOs
is not the same as<br>
>> supporting it, hence your careful language
reflects my proxy with the<br>
>> exception of Poll 4 where he only polled as
participant but should<br>
>> have also polled my member proxy in favor
of submitting as is.<br>
>><br>
>> That said, it is disturbing that 11 Board
members and even staff<br>
>> participated in the poll.<br>
>><br>
>> Never mind the expected outcome from the
ACs.<br>
>><br>
>> It is however clear that we do NOT have
Consensus as required by our<br>
>> Charter.<br>
>><br>
>> So, where does this leave us?<br>
>><br>
>> el<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>>> On 2016-02-23 12:26, Grace Abuhamad
wrote:<br>
>>> Dear all,<br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>> To ensure full transparency around the
polling, the staff have<br>
>>> reviewed the recording for the call and
crosschecked the results.<br>
>>> The Adobe Connect recording is
available here for your viewing as<br>
>>> well: <a href="https://icann.adobeconnect.com/p2ner13u4kd/" target="_blank">https://icann.adobeconnect.com/p2ner13u4kd/</a>.<br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>> Please note that the instructions
regarding participation in the polls<br>
>>> were as follows:<br>
>>><br>
>>> · Anyone on the call was invited to
participate in the poll<br>
>>> (members & participants).<br>
>>><br>
>>> · To participate, participants in the
Adobe Connect room used<br>
>>> either a red or green tick to respond
to the poll question.<br>
>>><br>
>>> · Those on audio-only could express
their position over the phone.<br>
>>><br>
>>> · After the polls, analysis would be
conducted to assess<br>
>>> participation from CCWG members (for
the purposes of these results, the<br>
>>> members¹ names are in bold font).<br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>> The Chairs conducted four polls in a
group that varied between 85-90<br>
>>> participants. The text used as the
basis for the polls is Paragraph<br>
>>> 72 of the CCWG report (see attached
slide for the text as well as<br>
>>> the 2^nd bullet highlighted in red).
The first two poll questions<br>
>>> were based on objections and the second
two poll questions were<br>
>>> based on expressions of support.<br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>> *Summary of results: *<br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>> · 11 objections to removing the 2^nd
bullet in Paragraph 72 (in red<br>
>>> on the slide)<br>
>>><br>
>>> o (2 CCWG member objections)<br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>> · 27 objections to sending the report
forward as it is currently,<br>
>>> with the full text in Paragraph 72<br>
>>><br>
>>> o (8 CCWG member objections, including
all ALAC members)<br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>> · 36 support removing the language in
the 2^nd bullet in Paragraph<br>
>>> 72 (in red on the slide)<br>
>>><br>
>>> o (10 CCWG members supporting)<br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>> · 14 support sending the report forward
as it is currently, with<br>
>>> the full text in Paragraph 72<br>
>>><br>
>>> o (2 CCWG members supporting)<br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>> *Detailed results: *<br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>> *Poll #1* Who objects to removing the
2^nd bullet in Paragraph 72 (in<br>
>>> red on the slide), (³If the IRP is not
available to challenge the Board<br>
>>> action in question²)?<br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>> 1. Brett Schaefer (NCSG Participant)<br>
>>><br>
>>> 2. Edward Morris (NCSG Participant)<br>
>>><br>
>>> 3. Farzaneh Badii (NCSG Participant)<br>
>>><br>
>>> 4. James Gannon (NCSG Participant)<br>
>>><br>
>>> 5. Malcolm Hutty (ISPCP Participant)<br>
>>><br>
>>> 6. Milton Mueller (NCSG Participant)<br>
>>><br>
>>> 7. Paul Rosenzweig (NCSG Participant)<br>
>>><br>
>>> 8. *Robin Gross*(NCSG Member)<br>
>>><br>
>>> 9. Stephen Deerhake (ccNSO
Participant)<br>
>>><br>
>>> 10.Tatiana Tropina (NCSG Participant)<br>
>>><br>
>>> 11.*Eberhard Lisse*(ccNSO Member)<br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>> *Poll #2* Who objects to sending the
report forward (to Chartering<br>
>>> Organizations) as it is currently,
(i.e. the 19 February version with<br>
>>> the full text in Paragraph 72)?<br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>> 1. *Alan Greenberg*(ALAC Member)<br>
>>><br>
>>> 2. Asha Hemrajani (ICANN Board
Participant)<br>
>>><br>
>>> 3. Cherine Chalaby (ICANN Board
Participant)<br>
>>><br>
>>> 4. *Cheryl Langdon-Orr*(ALAC Member)<br>
>>><br>
>>> 5. Chris Disspain (ICANN Board
Participant)<br>
>>><br>
>>> 6. David McAuley (GNSO Participant)<br>
>>><br>
>>> 7. Fadi Chehade (ICANN Board
Participant)<br>
>>><br>
>>> 8. George Sadowsky (ICANN Board
Participant)<br>
>>><br>
>>> 9. Jorge Cancio (GAC Participant)<br>
>>><br>
>>> 10.*Julia Wolman*(GAC Member)<br>
>>><br>
>>> 11.Keith Drazek (RySG Participant)<br>
>>><br>
>>> 12.*Leon Sanchez*(ALAC Member)<br>
>>><br>
>>> 13.Lito Ibarra (ICANN Board
Participant)<br>
>>><br>
>>> 14.Louisewies Van del Laan (ICANN Board
Participant)<br>
>>><br>
>>> 15.Markus Kummer (ICANN Board
Participant)<br>
>>><br>
>>> 16.*Olga Cavalli*(GAC Member)<br>
>>><br>
>>> 17.Olivier Crepin-Leblond (ALAC
Participant)<br>
>>><br>
>>> 18.Pedro da Silva (GAC Participant)<br>
>>><br>
>>> 19.Rafael Perez Galindo (GAC
Participant)<br>
>>><br>
>>> 20.Rinalia Abdul Rahim (ICANN Board
Participant)<br>
>>><br>
>>> 21.*Roelof Meijer*(ccNSO Member)<br>
>>><br>
>>> 22.Ron da Silva (ICANN Board
Participant)<br>
>>><br>
>>> 23.Samantha Eisner (ICANN Staff
Liaison)<br>
>>><br>
>>> 24.Seun Ojedeji (ALAC Participant)<br>
>>><br>
>>> 25.Steve Crocker (ICANN Board
Participant)<br>
>>><br>
>>> 26.*Sebastien Bachollet*(ALAC Member)<br>
>>><br>
>>> 27.Stephen Deerhake (ccNSO
Participant)<br>
>>><br>
>>> 28.Tarek Kamel (ICANN Staff
Participant)<br>
>>><br>
>>> 29.*Tijani Ben Jemaa*(ALAC Member)<br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>> *Poll #3* Who supports removing the
language in the 2^nd bullet in<br>
>>> Paragraph 72 (in red on the slide),
(³If the IRP is not available to<br>
>>> challenge the Board action in
question²)?<br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>> 1. *Alan**Greenberg* (ALAC Member)<br>
>>><br>
>>> 2. Annaliese Williams (GAC
Participant)<br>
>>><br>
>>> 3. Asha Hemrajani (ICANN Board
Participant)<br>
>>><br>
>>> 4. Avri Doria (NCSG Participant)<br>
>>><br>
>>> 5. Cherine Chalaby (ICANN Board
Participant)<br>
>>><br>
>>> 6. *Cheryl Langdon-Orr*(ALAC Member)<br>
>>><br>
>>> 7. Chris Disspain (ICANN Board
Participant)<br>
>>><br>
>>> 8. David McAuley (GNSO Participant)<br>
>>><br>
>>> 9. Fadi Chehade (ICANN Board
Participant)<br>
>>><br>
>>> 10.Finn Petersen (GAC Participant)<br>
>>><br>
>>> 11.George Sadowsky (ICANN Board
Participant)<br>
>>><br>
>>> 12.Greg Shatan (IPC Participant)<br>
>>><br>
>>> 13.*James Bladel*(RrSG Member)<br>
>>><br>
>>> 14.*Julia**Wolman* (GAC Member)<br>
>>><br>
>>> 15.Kavouss Arasteh (GAC Participant)<br>
>>><br>
>>> 16.Keith Drazek (RySG Participant)<br>
>>><br>
>>> 17.*Leon**Sanchez* (ALAC Member)<br>
>>><br>
>>> 18.Lito Ibarra (ICANN Board
Participant)<br>
>>><br>
>>> 19.Louisewies Van del Laan (ICANN Board
Participant)<br>
>>><br>
>>> 20.Mark Carvell (GAC Participant)<br>
>>><br>
>>> 21.Markus Kummer (ICANN Board
Participant)<br>
>>><br>
>>> 22.Mary Uduma (ccNSO Participant)<br>
>>><br>
>>> 23.Niels Ten Oever (Participant)<br>
>>><br>
>>> 30.*Olga**Cavalli* (GAC Member)<br>
>>><br>
>>> 24.Olivier Crepin-Leblond (ALAC
Participant)<br>
>>><br>
>>> 25.Paul Szyndler (ccNSO Participant)<br>
>>><br>
>>> 26.Pedro da Silva (GAC Participant)<br>
>>><br>
>>> 31.Rafael Perez Galindo (GAC
Participant)<br>
>>><br>
>>> 27.Rinalia Abdul Rahim (ICANN Board
Participant)<br>
>>><br>
>>> 28.*Roelof**Meijer* (ccNSO Member)<br>
>>><br>
>>> 29.Ron da Silva (ICANN Board
Participant)<br>
>>><br>
>>> 30.Sabine Meyer (GAC Participant)<br>
>>><br>
>>> 31.Seun Ojedeji (ALAC Participant)<br>
>>><br>
>>> 32.Steve Crocker (ICANN Board
Participant)<br>
>>><br>
>>> 33.*Steve DelBianco*(CSG Member)<br>
>>><br>
>>> 34.*Sebastien**Bachollet* (ALAC
Member)<br>
>>><br>
>>> 35.Tarek Kamel (ICANN Staff)<br>
>>><br>
>>> 36.*Tijani**Ben Jemaa* (ALAC Member)<br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>> *Poll #4* Who supports sending the
report to Chartering Organizations<br>
>>> as it is currently, (i.e. the 19
February version with the full text in<br>
>>> Paragraph 72)?<br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>> 1. Aarti Bhavana (NCSG Participant)<br>
>>><br>
>>> 2. Brett Schaefer (NCSG Participant)<br>
>>><br>
>>> 3. Edward Morris (NCSG Participant)<br>
>>><br>
>>> 4. Farzaneh Badii (NCSG Participant)<br>
>>><br>
>>> 5. James Gannon (NCSG Participant)<br>
>>><br>
>>> 6. *Jordan Carter*(ccNSO Member)<br>
>>><br>
>>> 7. Martin Boyle (ccNSO Participant)<br>
>>><br>
>>> 8. Matthew Shears (NCSG Participant)<br>
>>><br>
>>> 9. Malcolm Hutty (ISPCP Participant)<br>
>>><br>
>>> 10.Milton Mueller (NCSG Participant)<br>
>>><br>
>>> 11.Paul Rosenzweig (NCSG Participant)<br>
>>><br>
>>> 12.*Robin**Gross* (NCSG Member)<br>
>>><br>
>>> 13.Stephen Deerhake (ccNSO
Participant)<br>
>>><br>
>>> 14.Tatiana Tropina (NCSG Participant)<br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>>
_______________________________________________<br>
>>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing
list<br>
>>> <a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org" target="_blank">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><br>
>>> <a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a><br>
>><br>
>> --<br>
>> Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse \ / Obstetrician
& Gynaecologist (Saar)<br>
>> <a href="mailto:el@lisse.NA" target="_blank">el@lisse.NA</a> / * | Telephone: <a href="tel:%2B264%2081%20124%206733" value="+264811246733" target="_blank">+264 81 124
6733</a> (cell)<br>
>> PO Box 8421 \ /<br>
>> Bachbrecht, Namibia ;____/<br>
>>
_______________________________________________<br>
>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>
>> <a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org" target="_blank">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><br>
>> <a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a><br>
><br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>
> <a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org" target="_blank">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><br>
> <a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org" target="_blank">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a><br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</span>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org" target="_blank">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a><br>
<br>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset></fieldset>
<br>
<pre>_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
<a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org" target="_blank">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div></div></div>
<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><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>