<HTML><BODY><p style='margin-top: 0px;' dir="ltr">This is the point where the Co chairs should intervene and save us from a minority of one. </p>
<p dir="ltr">--<br>
Paul<br>
Sent from myMail app for Android</p>
Tuesday, 03 May 2016, 11:27AM -07:00 from Kavouss Arasteh <<a href="mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com">kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com</a>>:<br><br><blockquote style='border-left:1px solid #FC2C38; margin:0px 0px 0px 10px; padding:0px 0px 0px 10px;' cite="14623001380000100140">
<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_14623001380000100140_BODY">Dear Colleague<br>
You can put 100 time +<br>
But until an explicit reference to chartering organisation is not made ,the text is opposed<br>
Regards<br>
Kavousd<br>
<br>
<br>
Sent from my iPhone<br>
<br>
<div class="mail-quote-collapse">> On 3 May 2016, at 19:10, Dr. Tatiana Tropina <<a href="/compose?To=t.tropina@mpicc.de">t.tropina@mpicc.de</a>> wrote:<br>
> <br>
> +3. I agreed with Greg so many times in the last days, I think I can<br>
> just make auto-response for any of his emails on this FOI approval topic.<br>
> <br>
> Cheers<br>
> <br>
> Tanya<br>
> <br>
> <br>
>> On 03/05/16 18:58, Salaets, Ken wrote:<br>
>> +2. This is becoming like the movie 'Groundhog Day.' I move the previous question.<br>
>> <br>
>> Cheers,<br>
>> <br>
>> Ken<br>
>> <br>
>>> On May 3, 2016, at 6:37 PM, Niels ten Oever <<a href="/compose?To=lists@nielstenoever.net">lists@nielstenoever.net</a>> wrote:<br>
>>> <br>
>>> Fully agree with Greg.<br>
>>> <br>
>>> Best,<br>
>>> <br>
>>> Niels<br>
>>> <br>
>>>> On 05/03/2016 05:46 PM, Greg Shatan wrote:<br>
>>>> Responses inline below.<br>
>>>> <br>
>>>> On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 1:33 AM, Seun Ojedeji <<a href="/compose?To=seun.ojedeji@gmail.com">seun.ojedeji@gmail.com</a><br>
>>>> <mailto:<a href="/compose?To=seun.ojedeji@gmail.com">seun.ojedeji@gmail.com</a>>> wrote:<br>
>>>> <br>
>>>> Greg, my reference was bullet point 6 of paragraph 28 and not 27.<br>
>>>> <br>
>>>> This seems like an attempt to create an aura of misunderstanding where<br>
>>>> there is none. Paragraph 27 is a graphic with (quite clearly) no bullet<br>
>>>> points. My reference was a simple typo, nothing more. Hardly worthy of<br>
>>>> the lead sentence of your reply.<br>
>>>> <br>
>>>> <br>
>>>> I have never written that high standard be applied;<br>
>>>> <br>
>>>> You seem to be writing exactly that, repeatedly. Unless, I<br>
>>>> misunderstand your viewpoint, you contend that the approval of all<br>
>>>> Chartering Organizations be required. With the Work Stream 1 Proposal,<br>
>>>> it was sufficient that the Proposal had the approval of the ALAC, ASO,<br>
>>>> ccNSO, GNSO and SSAC and a non-objection by the GAC. Isn't it your<br>
>>>> position that this should be insufficient for the FoI? If so, that is<br>
>>>> unquestionably a higher standard. <br>
>>>> <br>
>>>> I have always quoted what the report clearly stated, which is that<br>
>>>> approval of CO was required for the FoI<br>
>>>> <br>
>>>> I disagree that this is what the report clearly states. You are using<br>
>>>> the parenthetical as your sole support for the claim that the CCWG<br>
>>>> wanted a heightened level of approval for the FOI. My recollection was<br>
>>>> that this parenthetical was put in solely to clarify that the FOI does<br>
>>>> not go directly from the WG to the Board, but rather needs a a review by<br>
>>>> the COs. I don't think there is any basis for bootstrapping that<br>
>>>> statement into a heightened standard of review and approval -- but<br>
>>>> apparently you do.<br>
>>>> <br>
>>>> but you seem to counter that with intent and a reference and I have<br>
>>>> told you was rather referring to board's approval process(bullet6<br>
>>>> para28). By the way, the phrase "including Chartering Organizations’<br>
>>>> approval" was repeated 3 times in that report. It's not just a<br>
>>>> coincidence.<br>
>>>> <br>
>>>> Again, that's the parenthetical. I've dealt with that above and<br>
>>>> before. I've asked you for a clear and unequivocal statement that shows<br>
>>>> that the CCWG intended to create a unique and higher standard for the<br>
>>>> Chartering Organization's review of the FOI. You have not provided<br>
>>>> one. Clearly, this is because such a statement does not exist. Again,<br>
>>>> given all the time we have spent saying and writing things about levels<br>
>>>> of review, it is unimaginable that we would create a higher level of<br>
>>>> review with no explanation or discussion. As such, the idea that the<br>
>>>> Proposal should be seen as creating such a higher level of review solely<br>
>>>> for the FOI is unsupportable.<br>
>>>> <br>
>>>> They say "iron sharpen iron" as I am not a lawyer, I obviously<br>
>>>> cannot convince you on this one ;-). At this point, I will rest my<br>
>>>> case since irrespective of what I say and the references I provide<br>
>>>> in the report, you counter it with intent and what was said.<br>
>>>> <br>
>>>> I've dealt with your references, which are roundly unconvincing. At no<br>
>>>> point have I relied on "what was said" in the sense of a verbal<br>
>>>> utterance. As pointed out before, in colloquial English, it's common to<br>
>>>> write that "a report says" something, when what is meant is that<br>
>>>> something is written in the report. So again that's an attempt to<br>
>>>> create an aura of misunderstanding where there is none.<br>
>>>> <br>
>>>> <br>
>>>> I hope my point has been duly noted by the Co-Chairs, irrespective<br>
>>>> of route we take it should be based on the decision of the group as<br>
>>>> per the charter. Apologies in advance for the upcoming meeting (will<br>
>>>> join if I can)<br>
>>>> <br>
>>>> Regards<br>
>>>> <br>
>>>> Sent from my LG G4<br>
>>>> Kindly excuse brevity and typos<br>
>>>> <br>
>>>> On 2 May 2016 11:08 p.m., "Greg Shatan" <<a href="/compose?To=gregshatanipc@gmail.com">gregshatanipc@gmail.com</a><br>
>>>> <mailto:<a href="/compose?To=gregshatanipc@gmail.com">gregshatanipc@gmail.com</a>>> wrote:<br>
>>>> <br>
>>>> I disagree. Paragraph 6, which was repeated twice more in the<br>
>>>> Proposal, was not merely a summary of the bylaw language. It<br>
>>>> stated the _intent_ behind the "bylaw" language. I don't think<br>
>>>> any of the Proposal is to "taken lightly," and it was not our<br>
>>>> intent that the "draft bylaw" language have any special place in<br>
>>>> indicating the intent of the CCWG vs. the rest of the text of<br>
>>>> the proposal. We also recognized that the CCWG's attempts to<br>
>>>> draft legally sufficient text were not sufficient, which is why<br>
>>>> paragraph 23 is introduced by a statement (which you chose not<br>
>>>> to quote) that the recommendation is to "Include a Bylaw with<br>
>>>> the following */intent/* in Work Stream 1 recommendations"<br>
>>>> [emphasis added], which clearly indicates that the text of the<br>
>>>> "draft bylaw" sections in our proposal was not intended to be<br>
>>>> adopted verbatim. The Proposal needs to be read as a whole, and<br>
>>>> it's incorrect to assume that greater weight should be given to<br>
>>>> language in a "bylaws" section.<br>
>>>> <br>
>>>> Nothing you have put forward even touches on whether the review<br>
>>>> by the Chartering Organizations was going to be done to a unique<br>
>>>> and higher standard, much less states it "clearly and<br>
>>>> unequivocally." So, no, there's nothing here that shows that<br>
>>>> the CCWG wanted to require a higher threshold from the<br>
>>>> Chartering Organizations than is used for all the rest of the<br>
>>>> work of the CCWG.<br>
>>>> <br>
>>>> Finally, if there was "quite a huge debate during the<br>
>>>> discussion" on this particular point, show me in the<br>
>>>> transcripts, recordings or meeting notes. Bullet point 6 of<br>
>>>> paragraph 27 confirms nothing of the sort -- it just simply<br>
>>>> parrots the parenthetical. I think we can all agree that there<br>
>>>> was no debate on this particular point, and that the reference<br>
>>>> to "Chartering Organizations' approval" was not intended to<br>
>>>> create a special threshold just for the FOI, and that any<br>
>>>> contention otherwise is simply a misreading of the CCWG Proposal.<br>
>>>> <br>
>>>> I hope that is "clear and unequivocal" enough.<br>
>>>> <br>
>>>> On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 5:49 PM, Seun Ojedeji<br>
>>>> <<a href="/compose?To=seun.ojedeji@gmail.com">seun.ojedeji@gmail.com</a> <mailto:<a href="/compose?To=seun.ojedeji@gmail.com">seun.ojedeji@gmail.com</a>>> wrote:<br>
>>>> <br>
>>>> I think we can just agree that paragraph 6(which you<br>
>>>> referenced) poorly summarised paragraph 23, a section of<br>
>>>> which I quote below :<br>
>>>> <br>
>>>> "...This Bylaw provision will not enter into force until (1)<br>
>>>> a Framework of<br>
>>>> Interpretation for Human Rights (FOI-HR) is developed by the<br>
>>>> CCWG-Accountability as a<br>
>>>> consensus recommendation in Work Stream 2 (including<br>
>>>> Chartering Organizations’ approval)<br>
>>>> and (2) the FOI-HR is approved by the ICANN Board using the<br>
>>>> same process and criteria it has<br>
>>>> committed to use to consider the Work Stream 1 recommendations.”<br>
>>>> <br>
>>>> OR the summary was indeed referring to the approval process<br>
>>>> to be used by the board as I think that was quite a huge<br>
>>>> debate during the discussion and bullet point 6 of paragraph<br>
>>>> 28 of the report confirms that. Below:<br>
>>>> <br>
>>>> "Considering how, if at all, this Bylaw will affect how<br>
>>>> ICANN’s operations are carried out once an FOI-HR is<br>
>>>> developed by the CCWG-Accountability as a consensus<br>
>>>> recommendation in Work Stream 2 *(including Chartering<br>
>>>> Organizations’ approval)* and the *FOI-HR is approved by the<br>
>>>> ICANN Board using the same process and criteria it has<br>
>>>> committed to use to consider the Work Stream 1 recommendations*"<br>
>>>> <br>
>>>> Pay attention to the sections stared! Again that same bullet<br>
>>>> point repeated the phrase "(including Chartering<br>
>>>> Organizations’ approval)". You may also want to note that<br>
>>>> paragraph 23 was actually a proposed bylaw text and not just<br>
>>>> one of those texts that can be taken lightly.<br>
>>>> <br>
>>>> I hope that is "clear and unequivocal" enough<br>
>>>> <br>
>>>> Regards<br>
>>>> Sent from my LG G4<br>
>>>> Kindly excuse brevity and typos<br>
>>>> <br>
>>>> On 2 May 2016 9:20 p.m., "Greg Shatan"<br>
>>>> <<a href="/compose?To=gregshatanipc@gmail.com">gregshatanipc@gmail.com</a> <mailto:<a href="/compose?To=gregshatanipc@gmail.com">gregshatanipc@gmail.com</a>>><br>
>>>> wrote:<br>
>>>> <br>
>>>> I am also referring to what we [said/wrote]* in the<br>
>>>> report, which is the following:<br>
>>>> <br>
>>>> "The proposed draft Bylaw also clarifies that no IRP<br>
>>>> challenges can be made on the grounds of this Bylaw<br>
>>>> until a Framework of Interpretation on Human Rights<br>
>>>> (FOI-HR) is developed and approved as part of Work<br>
>>>> Stream 2 activities. It further clarifies that<br>
>>>> *acceptance of the **FOI**-HR will require the same<br>
>>>> process as for Work Stream 1 recommendations* (as agreed<br>
>>>> for all Work Stream 2 recommendations)."<br>
>>>> <br>
>>>> We said ... er sorry .. wrote this *_three_* times in<br>
>>>> the report, and we need to give this effect. The<br>
>>>> language in the draft circulated for comment is<br>
>>>> inconsistent with this statement, to the extent that it<br>
>>>> appears to require the positive approval of all<br>
>>>> Chartering Organizations, which would be a<br>
>>>> _different_ process than the one used for Work Stream 1<br>
>>>> recommendations. As such, the draft needs to be corrected.<br>
>>>> <br>
>>>> I was on the calls and email exchanges when the<br>
>>>> parenthetical about the chartering organizations was<br>
>>>> inserted in the "bylaws" language in the Proposal. All<br>
>>>> that was meant by the insertion was to clarify that the<br>
>>>> FoI did not go straight from Working Group approval to<br>
>>>> the Board, but had to be reviewed by the Chartering<br>
>>>> Organizations first, just as the WS1 recommendations<br>
>>>> were reviewed. There was never any discussion or intent<br>
>>>> to imply that a higher standard of approval was needed<br>
>>>> for the FoI vs. all other CCWG recommendations. <br>
>>>> <br>
>>>> If anyone can find a clear and unequivocal statement<br>
>>>> that shows the CCWG meant to have a heightened standard<br>
>>>> for the FoI, I'll reconsider my view. However, I'm<br>
>>>> confident there is no such statement. We spent many,<br>
>>>> many hours of discussing and drafting sections on levels<br>
>>>> of approval for the Empowered Community and relating to<br>
>>>> levels of approval within the GAC. As such, it defies<br>
>>>> logic to claim that the simple insertion of a<br>
>>>> parenthetical, without any specific discussion or<br>
>>>> explanation of a heightened standard, created a<br>
>>>> requirement for unanimous and/or positive approval.<br>
>>>> <br>
>>>> Greg<br>
>>>> <br>
>>>> ______<br>
>>>> * You are inventing a dichotomy where there is none. In<br>
>>>> either case, I was referring to the report, not to some<br>
>>>> verbal utterance. I'm sorry if my somewhat colloquial<br>
>>>> use of "said" confused you. It's perfectly acceptable<br>
>>>> to use "said" to refer to a written document, at least<br>
>>>> in everyday usage.<br>
>>>> <br>
>>>> On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 11:10 AM, Seun Ojedeji<br>
>>>> <<a href="/compose?To=seun.ojedeji@gmail.com">seun.ojedeji@gmail.com</a> <mailto:<a href="/compose?To=seun.ojedeji@gmail.com">seun.ojedeji@gmail.com</a>>><br>
>>>> wrote:<br>
>>>> <br>
>>>> Depends on how you are interpreting the word<br>
>>>> "bundle"; the WS1 was presented as a single<br>
>>>> document, while some COs decided to approve/respond<br>
>>>> recommendation by recommendation, others approved<br>
>>>> the document as a whole. Perhaps a simple<br>
>>>> application of the report(if you want to avoid round<br>
>>>> trips proposed in the report without distorting the<br>
>>>> intent) will be to highlight FoI as a single<br>
>>>> recommendation in WS2 which gives the COs the option<br>
>>>> to approve/reject it out rightly and then the CCWG<br>
>>>> can determine what to do with the FoI based on the<br>
>>>> outcome of the COs approval process.<br>
>>>> <br>
>>>> On your second point, at this juncture I am not<br>
>>>> talking about what we said but rather about what we<br>
>>>> WROTE in the report, which is what anyone who have<br>
>>>> not followed the process would rely upon. So do you<br>
>>>> want to reflect "what we said" or "what we wrote"<br>
>>>> either of them is fine by me but we should be clear<br>
>>>> on the path we have chosen, knowing it's<br>
>>>> implications as well.<br>
>>>> <br>
>>>> Regards<br>
>>>> <br>
>>>> Sent from my LG G4<br>
>>>> Kindly excuse brevity and typos<br>
>>>> <br>
>>>> On 2 May 2016 3:51 p.m., "Greg Shatan"<br>
>>>> <<a href="/compose?To=gregshatanipc@gmail.com">gregshatanipc@gmail.com</a><br>
>>>> <mailto:<a href="/compose?To=gregshatanipc@gmail.com">gregshatanipc@gmail.com</a>>> wrote:<br>
>>>> <br>
>>>> At no point did we say that the FoI would be<br>
>>>> bundled with other WS2 recommendations as a<br>
>>>> complete package. Indeed, we've never said that<br>
>>>> any of the WS2 projects had to be bundled with<br>
>>>> others.<br>
>>>> <br>
>>>> At no point did we say that there would be a<br>
>>>> special process for approving the FoI. It<br>
>>>> should be the same as WS1, which contemplates a<br>
>>>> review by the Chartering Organizations, and then<br>
>>>> allows the CCWG to forward recommendation to the<br>
>>>> Board even if less than all of the COs approve<br>
>>>> of the recommendation.<br>
>>>> <br>
>>>> As long as we can find ways to reflect that<br>
>>>> clearly, we will be carrying out the intent of<br>
>>>> the Proposal.<br>
>>>> <br>
>>>> Greg<br>
>>>> <br>
>>>> On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 10:43 AM, Seun Ojedeji<br>
>>>> <<a href="/compose?To=seun.ojedeji@gmail.com">seun.ojedeji@gmail.com</a><br>
>>>> <mailto:<a href="/compose?To=seun.ojedeji@gmail.com">seun.ojedeji@gmail.com</a>>> wrote:<br>
>>>> <br>
>>>> Hello Thomas,<br>
>>>> <br>
>>>> If I process this correctly, it implies<br>
>>>> approval of the FoI will be done based on<br>
>>>> ratification process in the CCWG charter,<br>
>>>> which is different from approval of the<br>
>>>> whole WS2 package as per the charter.<br>
>>>> <br>
>>>> If that is it, then I will say it's somewhat<br>
>>>> closer to what was proposed in the report<br>
>>>> (even though the report did not mention that<br>
>>>> CO ratification of FoI is based on the charter).<br>
>>>> <br>
>>>> Regards<br>
>>>> Sent from my LG G4<br>
>>>> Kindly excuse brevity and typos<br>
>>>> <br>
>>>> On 2 May 2016 3:24 p.m., "Thomas Rickert"<br>
>>>> <<a href="/compose?To=thomas@rickert.net">thomas@rickert.net</a><br>
>>>> <mailto:<a href="/compose?To=thomas@rickert.net">thomas@rickert.net</a>>> wrote:<br>
>>>> <br>
>>>> Hi all,<br>
>>>> Tijani has proposed a solution at the<br>
>>>> end of his latest e-mail:<br>
>>>> <br>
>>>> I understand that the first proposal<br>
>>>> made the approval of all the chartering<br>
>>>> organizations necessary, The<br>
>>>> modification should keep the reference<br>
>>>> to the ratification of the chartering<br>
>>>> organizations and add "as defined in the<br>
>>>> CCWG charter“.<br>
>>>> <br>
>>>> Would that be a way forward?<br>
>>>> <br>
>>>> Best,<br>
>>>> Thomas<br>
>>>> <br>
>>>> <br>
>>>> <br>
>>>>> Am 02.05.2016 um 16:19 schrieb Seun<br>
>>>>> Ojedeji <<a href="/compose?To=seun.ojedeji@gmail.com">seun.ojedeji@gmail.com</a><br>
>>>>> <mailto:<a href="/compose?To=seun.ojedeji@gmail.com">seun.ojedeji@gmail.com</a>>>:<br>
>>>>> <br>
>>>>> Hello Niels,<br>
>>>>> <br>
>>>>> I think we may just be playing around<br>
>>>>> with words here, definitely you<br>
>>>>> understand Tijani's concern ;-). Let<br>
>>>>> me attempt to spell out(even though I<br>
>>>>> have done this before) my<br>
>>>>> understanding of the report which I<br>
>>>>> must say is obvious:<br>
>>>>> <br>
>>>>> 1. The report clearly used the phrase<br>
>>>>> "...*including* approval of chartering<br>
>>>>> organisations"<br>
>>>>> <br>
>>>>> 2. Equating that to mean that it's<br>
>>>>> equivalent to the CO approval within<br>
>>>>> CCWG may be out of order because as<br>
>>>>> per the charter irrespective of number<br>
>>>>> of support from CO, the package goes<br>
>>>>> to board for approval.<br>
>>>>> <br>
>>>>> 3. The intent of item 2 above is not<br>
>>>>> the same thing as item 1; What I<br>
>>>>> understand is that the FoI as a<br>
>>>>> critical document it is needs to be<br>
>>>>> developed during WS2, approved by the<br>
>>>>> CO and incoporated into the WS2<br>
>>>>> proposal which is then sent to COs for<br>
>>>>> approval as a complete package.<br>
>>>>> <br>
>>>>> That said, i will again say that if<br>
>>>>> the goal is to reflect what was<br>
>>>>> written in the report then we are out<br>
>>>>> of order. However we may just agree<br>
>>>>> that what we have done is correcting a<br>
>>>>> *mistake* in the report through the<br>
>>>>> bylaw. In that case, we should present<br>
>>>>> it as such and not on claims that the<br>
>>>>> report did not say approval of CO is<br>
>>>>> required.<br>
>>>>> <br>
>>>>> Regards<br>
>>>>> <br>
>>>>> Sent from my LG G4<br>
>>>>> Kindly excuse brevity and typos<br>
>>>>> <br>
>>>>> On 2 May 2016 9:40 a.m., "Niels ten<br>
>>>>> Oever" <<a href="/compose?To=lists@nielstenoever.net">lists@nielstenoever.net</a><br>
>>>>> <mailto:<a href="/compose?To=lists@nielstenoever.net">lists@nielstenoever.net</a>>> wrote:<br>
>>>>> <br>
>>>>> Hi Tijani,<br>
>>>>> <br>
>>>>> But the chartering organizations<br>
>>>>> are mentioned in the charter of the<br>
>>>>> CCWG, so am not sure if I<br>
>>>>> understand your concern.<br>
>>>>> <br>
>>>>> Best,<br>
>>>>> <br>
>>>>> Niels<br>
>>>>> <br>
>>>>> On 05/02/2016 10:22 AM, Tijani BEN<br>
>>>>> JEMAA wrote:<br>
>>>>>> Hi Niels,<br>
>>>>>> <br>
>>>>>> The last modification of the<br>
>>>>> bylaws proposed by the lawyers<br>
>>>>> didn’t make<br>
>>>>>> any reference to the chartering<br>
>>>>> organizations approval while it is<br>
>>>>>> clearly mentioned in the CCWG<br>
>>>>> last proposal ratified by the<br>
>>>>> chartering<br>
>>>>>> organizations.<br>
>>>>>> <br>
>>>>>> Have a nice day<br>
>>>>> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------<br>
>>>>>> *Tijani BEN JEMAA*<br>
>>>>>> Executive Director<br>
>>>>>> Mediterranean Federation of<br>
>>>>> Internet Associations (*FMAI*)<br>
>>>>>> Phone: +216 98 330 114<br>
>>>>> <tel:%2B216%2098%20330%20114><br>
>>>>>> +216 52 385 114<br>
>>>>> <tel:%2B216%2052%20385%20114><br>
>>>>> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------<br>
>>>>>> <br>
>>>>>>> Le 2 mai 2016 à 09:11, Niels<br>
>>>>> ten Oever <<a href="/compose?To=lists@nielstenoever.net">lists@nielstenoever.net</a><br>
>>>>> <mailto:<a href="/compose?To=lists@nielstenoever.net">lists@nielstenoever.net</a>><br>
>>>>>>> <mailto:<a href="/compose?To=lists@nielstenoever.net">lists@nielstenoever.net</a><br>
>>>>> <mailto:<a href="/compose?To=lists@nielstenoever.net">lists@nielstenoever.net</a>>>><br>
>>>>> a écrit :<br>
>>>>>>> Dear Tijani and Kavouss,<br>
>>>>>>> <br>
>>>>>>> Could you please indicate where<br>
>>>>> the proposed text is not<br>
>>>>> consistent with<br>
>>>>>>> the report? Concrete references<br>
>>>>> would be helpful for me to better<br>
>>>>>>> understand your point.<br>
>>>>>>> <br>
>>>>>>> Thanks in advance,<br>
>>>>>>> <br>
>>>>>>> Niels<br>
>>>>>>> <br>
>>>>>>> <br>
>>>>>>> <br>
>>>>>>> On 05/02/2016 09:38 AM, Kavouss<br>
>>>>> Arasteh wrote:<br>
>>>>>>>> Tijani +1<br>
>>>>>>>> I fully agree with Tijani<br>
>>>>>>>> People misuse the opportunity<br>
>>>>> to make modifications that were<br>
>>>>> not agreed<br>
>>>>>>>> during the lkast 16 months<br>
>>>>>>>> NO CHANGE NO MODIFICATIONS.<br>
>>>>>>>> During the WSIS I WILL tell<br>
>>>>> everybody that there is no<br>
>>>>> supervision nor<br>
>>>>>>>> control on what we have agreed<br>
>>>>> and the people will make whatever<br>
>>>>> change<br>
>>>>>>>> they wish without the<br>
>>>>> agreements of the others<br>
>>>>>>>> KAVOUSS<br>
>>>>>>>> <br>
>>>>>>>> 2016-05-02 8:14 GMT+02:00<br>
>>>>> Tijani BEN JEMAA<br>
>>>>> <<a href="/compose?To=tijani.benjemaa@topnet.tn">tijani.benjemaa@topnet.tn</a><br>
>>>>> <mailto:<a href="/compose?To=tijani.benjemaa@topnet.tn">tijani.benjemaa@topnet.tn</a>><br>
>>>>> <mailto:<a href="/compose?To=tijani.benjemaa@topnet.tn">tijani.benjemaa@topnet.tn</a><br>
>>>>> <mailto:<a href="/compose?To=tijani.benjemaa@topnet.tn">tijani.benjemaa@topnet.tn</a>>><br>
>>>>> <mailto:<a href="/compose?To=tijani.benjemaa@topnet.tn">tijani.benjemaa@topnet.tn</a><br>
>>>>> <mailto:<a href="/compose?To=tijani.benjemaa@topnet.tn">tijani.benjemaa@topnet.tn</a>>>>:<br>
>>>>>>>> Mathieu and all,<br>
>>>>>>>> <br>
>>>>>>>> The modification proposed<br>
>>>>> doesn’t reflect the CCWG last proposal<br>
>>>>>>>> approved by the chartering<br>
>>>>> organization. I don’t think we are<br>
>>>>>>>> allowed to write bylaws<br>
>>>>> that are not the exact<br>
>>>>> interpretation of the<br>
>>>>>>>> approved document that had<br>
>>>>> the CCWG consensus and the charting<br>
>>>>>>>> organizations ratification.<br>
>>>>> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------<br>
>>>>>>>> *Tijani BEN JEMAA*<br>
>>>>>>>> Executive Director<br>
>>>>>>>> Mediterranean Federation of<br>
>>>>> Internet Associations (*FMAI*)<br>
>>>>>>>> Phone: +216 98 330 114<br>
>>>>> <tel:%2B216%2098%20330%20114><br>
>>>>>>>> +216 52 385 114<br>
>>>>> <tel:%2B216%2052%20385%20114><br>
>>>>> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------<br>
>>>>>>>> <br>
>>>>>>>>> Le 2 mai 2016 à 04:23,<br>
>>>>> Kavouss Arasteh<br>
>>>>> <<a href="/compose?To=kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com">kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com</a><br>
>>>>> <mailto:<a href="/compose?To=kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com">kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com</a>><br>
>>>>> <mailto:<a href="/compose?To=kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com">kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com</a><br>
>>>>> <mailto:<a href="/compose?To=kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com">kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com</a>>><br>
>>>>> <mailto:<a href="/compose?To=kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com">kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com</a><br>
>>>>> <mailto:<a href="/compose?To=kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com">kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com</a>>>><br>
>>>>> a écrit :<br>
>>>>>>>>> Mathieu,<br>
>>>>>>>>> Tks<br>
>>>>>>>>> Pls NOTE MY SERIOUS<br>
>>>>> OBJECTIONS to:<br>
>>>>>>>>> 1.NOT MENTIONING REFERNCE<br>
>>>>> TO THE APPROVAL OF CHARTERING<br>
>>>>>>>>> ORGANIZATIONBS in HR<br>
>>>>>>>>> 2. GIVE GIVE A BLANKET<br>
>>>>> AGREEMENT TO THE DOCUMENTS WHICH<br>
>>>>> YET TO BE<br>
>>>>>>>>> DRAFTED.<br>
>>>>>>>>> 3. Making so many changes<br>
>>>>> to the Third proposals . We must avoid<br>
>>>>>>>>> having a new proposal<br>
>>>>>>>>> Kavouss<br>
>>>>>>>>> <br>
>>>>>>>>> <br>
>>>>>>>>> 2016-05-01 22:42 GMT+02:00<br>
>>>>> Mathieu Weill<br>
>>>>> <<a href="/compose?To=mathieu.weill@afnic.fr">mathieu.weill@afnic.fr</a><br>
>>>>> <mailto:<a href="/compose?To=mathieu.weill@afnic.fr">mathieu.weill@afnic.fr</a>><br>
>>>>> <mailto:<a href="/compose?To=mathieu.weill@afnic.fr">mathieu.weill@afnic.fr</a><br>
>>>>> <mailto:<a href="/compose?To=mathieu.weill@afnic.fr">mathieu.weill@afnic.fr</a>>><br>
>>>>> <mailto:<a href="/compose?To=mathieu.weill@afnic.fr">mathieu.weill@afnic.fr</a><br>
>>>>> <mailto:<a href="/compose?To=mathieu.weill@afnic.fr">mathieu.weill@afnic.fr</a>>>>:<br>
>>>>>>>>> Dear colleagues,<br>
>>>>>>>>> <br>
>>>>>>>>> Please find below for<br>
>>>>> your consideration some<br>
>>>>> suggestions from<br>
>>>>>>>>> our lawyers for<br>
>>>>> clarification of the bylaw<br>
>>>>> language regarding<br>
>>>>>>>>> the Human rights FoI.<br>
>>>>> This follows our request during the<br>
>>>>>>>>> previous call.<br>
>>>>>>>>> <br>
>>>>>>>>> Best,<br>
>>>>>>>>> <br>
>>>>>>>>> Mathieu Weill<br>
>>>>>>>>> ---------------<br>
>>>>>>>>> Depuis mon mobile,<br>
>>>>> désolé pour le style<br>
>>>>>>>>> Début du message<br>
>>>>> transféré :<br>
>>>>>>>>>> *Expéditeur:*<br>
>>>>> "Gregory, Holly"<br>
>>>>> <<a href="/compose?To=holly.gregory@sidley.com">holly.gregory@sidley.com</a><br>
>>>>> <mailto:<a href="/compose?To=holly.gregory@sidley.com">holly.gregory@sidley.com</a>><br>
>>>>> <mailto:<a href="/compose?To=holly.gregory@sidley.com">holly.gregory@sidley.com</a><br>
>>>>> <mailto:<a href="/compose?To=holly.gregory@sidley.com">holly.gregory@sidley.com</a>>><br>
>>>>> <mailto:<a href="/compose?To=holly.gregory@sidley.com">holly.gregory@sidley.com</a><br>
>>>>> <mailto:<a href="/compose?To=holly.gregory@sidley.com">holly.gregory@sidley.com</a>>>><br>
>>>>>>>>>> *Date:* 1 mai 2016<br>
>>>>> 19:10:53 UTC+2<br>
>>>>>>>>>> *Destinataire:*<br>
>>>>> "'Mathieu Weill'"<br>
>>>>> <<a href="/compose?To=mathieu.weill@afnic.fr">mathieu.weill@afnic.fr</a><br>
>>>>> <mailto:<a href="/compose?To=mathieu.weill@afnic.fr">mathieu.weill@afnic.fr</a>><br>
>>>>> <mailto:<a href="/compose?To=mathieu.weill@afnic.fr">mathieu.weill@afnic.fr</a><br>
>>>>> <mailto:<a href="/compose?To=mathieu.weill@afnic.fr">mathieu.weill@afnic.fr</a>>><br>
>>>>> <mailto:<a href="/compose?To=mathieu.weill@afnic.fr">mathieu.weill@afnic.fr</a><br>
>>>>> <mailto:<a href="/compose?To=mathieu.weill@afnic.fr">mathieu.weill@afnic.fr</a>>>>,<br>
>>>>> "'Thomas Rickert'"<br>
>>>>>>>>>> <<a href="/compose?To=thomas@rickert.net">thomas@rickert.net</a><br>
>>>>> <mailto:<a href="/compose?To=thomas@rickert.net">thomas@rickert.net</a>><br>
>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:<a href="/compose?To=thomas@rickert.net">thomas@rickert.net</a><br>
>>>>> <mailto:<a href="/compose?To=thomas@rickert.net">thomas@rickert.net</a>>><br>
>>>>> <mailto:<a href="/compose?To=thomas@rickert.net">thomas@rickert.net</a><br>
>>>>> <mailto:<a href="/compose?To=thomas@rickert.net">thomas@rickert.net</a>>>>,<br>
>>>>> León Felipe<br>
>>>>>>>>>> Sánchez Ambía<br>
>>>>> <<a href="/compose?To=leonfelipe@sanchez.mx">leonfelipe@sanchez.mx</a><br>
>>>>> <mailto:<a href="/compose?To=leonfelipe@sanchez.mx">leonfelipe@sanchez.mx</a>><br>
>>>>> <mailto:<a href="/compose?To=leonfelipe@sanchez.mx">leonfelipe@sanchez.mx</a><br>
>>>>> <mailto:<a href="/compose?To=leonfelipe@sanchez.mx">leonfelipe@sanchez.mx</a>>><br>
>>>>> <mailto:<a href="/compose?To=leonfelipe@sanchez.mx">leonfelipe@sanchez.mx</a><br>
>>>>> <mailto:<a href="/compose?To=leonfelipe@sanchez.mx">leonfelipe@sanchez.mx</a>>>>,<br>
>>>>> "<a href="/compose?To=bylaws%2dcoord@icann.org">bylaws-coord@icann.org</a><br>
>>>>> <mailto:<a href="/compose?To=bylaws%2dcoord@icann.org">bylaws-coord@icann.org</a>><br>
>>>>> <mailto:<a href="/compose?To=bylaws%2dcoord@icann.org">bylaws-coord@icann.org</a><br>
>>>>> <mailto:<a href="/compose?To=bylaws%2dcoord@icann.org">bylaws-coord@icann.org</a>>><br>
>>>>> <mailto:<a href="/compose?To=bylaws%2dcoord@icann.org">bylaws-coord@icann.org</a><br>
>>>>> <mailto:<a href="/compose?To=bylaws%2dcoord@icann.org">bylaws-coord@icann.org</a>>>"<br>
>>>>> <<a href="/compose?To=bylaws%2dcoord@icann.org">bylaws-coord@icann.org</a><br>
>>>>> <mailto:<a href="/compose?To=bylaws%2dcoord@icann.org">bylaws-coord@icann.org</a>><br>
>>>>> <mailto:<a href="/compose?To=bylaws%2dcoord@icann.org">bylaws-coord@icann.org</a><br>
>>>>> <mailto:<a href="/compose?To=bylaws%2dcoord@icann.org">bylaws-coord@icann.org</a>>><br>
>>>>> <mailto:<a href="/compose?To=bylaws%2dcoord@icann.org">bylaws-coord@icann.org</a><br>
>>>>> <mailto:<a href="/compose?To=bylaws%2dcoord@icann.org">bylaws-coord@icann.org</a>>>><br>
>>>>>>>>>> *Cc:* ACCT-Staff<br>
>>>>> <<a href="/compose?To=acct%2dstaff@icann.org">acct-staff@icann.org</a><br>
>>>>> <mailto:<a href="/compose?To=acct%2dstaff@icann.org">acct-staff@icann.org</a>><br>
>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:<a href="/compose?To=acct%2dstaff@icann.org">acct-staff@icann.org</a><br>
>>>>> <mailto:<a href="/compose?To=acct%2dstaff@icann.org">acct-staff@icann.org</a>>><br>
>>>>> <mailto:<a href="/compose?To=acct%2dstaff@icann.org">acct-staff@icann.org</a><br>
>>>>> <mailto:<a href="/compose?To=acct%2dstaff@icann.org">acct-staff@icann.org</a>>>>,<br>
>>>>> "Rosemary E. Fei"<br>
>>>>>>>>>> <<a href="/compose?To=rfei@adlercolvin.com">rfei@adlercolvin.com</a><br>
>>>>> <mailto:<a href="/compose?To=rfei@adlercolvin.com">rfei@adlercolvin.com</a>><br>
>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:<a href="/compose?To=rfei@adlercolvin.com">rfei@adlercolvin.com</a><br>
>>>>> <mailto:<a href="/compose?To=rfei@adlercolvin.com">rfei@adlercolvin.com</a>>><br>
>>>>> <mailto:<a href="/compose?To=rfei@adlercolvin.com">rfei@adlercolvin.com</a><br>
>>>>> <mailto:<a href="/compose?To=rfei@adlercolvin.com">rfei@adlercolvin.com</a>>>>,<br>
>>>>> "<a href="/compose?To=ICANN@adlercolvin.com">ICANN@adlercolvin.com</a><br>
>>>>> <mailto:<a href="/compose?To=ICANN@adlercolvin.com">ICANN@adlercolvin.com</a>><br>
>>>>> <mailto:<a href="/compose?To=ICANN@adlercolvin.com">ICANN@adlercolvin.com</a><br>
>>>>> <mailto:<a href="/compose?To=ICANN@adlercolvin.com">ICANN@adlercolvin.com</a>>><br>
>>>>> <mailto:<a href="/compose?To=ICANN@adlercolvin.com">ICANN@adlercolvin.com</a><br>
>>>>> <mailto:<a href="/compose?To=ICANN@adlercolvin.com">ICANN@adlercolvin.com</a>>>"<br>
>>>>> <<a href="/compose?To=ICANN@adlercolvin.com">ICANN@adlercolvin.com</a><br>
>>>>> <mailto:<a href="/compose?To=ICANN@adlercolvin.com">ICANN@adlercolvin.com</a>><br>
>>>>> <mailto:<a href="/compose?To=ICANN@adlercolvin.com">ICANN@adlercolvin.com</a><br>
>>>>> <mailto:<a href="/compose?To=ICANN@adlercolvin.com">ICANN@adlercolvin.com</a>>><br>
>>>>> <mailto:<a href="/compose?To=ICANN@adlercolvin.com">ICANN@adlercolvin.com</a><br>
>>>>> <mailto:<a href="/compose?To=ICANN@adlercolvin.com">ICANN@adlercolvin.com</a>>>>,<br>
>>>>>>>>>> Sidley ICANN CCWG<br>
>>>>> <<a href="/compose?To=sidleyicannccwg@sidley.com">sidleyicannccwg@sidley.com</a><br>
>>>>> <mailto:<a href="/compose?To=sidleyicannccwg@sidley.com">sidleyicannccwg@sidley.com</a>><br>
>>>>> <mailto:<a href="/compose?To=sidleyicannccwg@sidley.com">sidleyicannccwg@sidley.com</a><br>
>>>>> <mailto:<a href="/compose?To=sidleyicannccwg@sidley.com">sidleyicannccwg@sidley.com</a>>><br>
>>>>> <mailto:<a href="/compose?To=sidleyicannccwg@sidley.com">sidleyicannccwg@sidley.com</a><br>
>>>>> <mailto:<a href="/compose?To=sidleyicannccwg@sidley.com">sidleyicannccwg@sidley.com</a>>>>,<br>
>>>>> "<a href="/compose?To=Samantha.Eisner@icann.org">Samantha.Eisner@icann.org</a><br>
>>>>> <mailto:<a href="/compose?To=Samantha.Eisner@icann.org">Samantha.Eisner@icann.org</a>><br>
>>>>> <mailto:<a href="/compose?To=Samantha.Eisner@icann.org">Samantha.Eisner@icann.org</a><br>
>>>>> <mailto:<a href="/compose?To=Samantha.Eisner@icann.org">Samantha.Eisner@icann.org</a>>><br>
>>>>> <mailto:<a href="/compose?To=Samantha.Eisner@icann.org">Samantha.Eisner@icann.org</a><br>
>>>>> <mailto:<a href="/compose?To=Samantha.Eisner@icann.org">Samantha.Eisner@icann.org</a>>>"<br>
>>>>> <<a href="/compose?To=Samantha.Eisner@icann.org">Samantha.Eisner@icann.org</a><br>
>>>>> <mailto:<a href="/compose?To=Samantha.Eisner@icann.org">Samantha.Eisner@icann.org</a>><br>
>>>>> <mailto:<a href="/compose?To=Samantha.Eisner@icann.org">Samantha.Eisner@icann.org</a><br>
>>>>> <mailto:<a href="/compose?To=Samantha.Eisner@icann.org">Samantha.Eisner@icann.org</a>>> <mailto:<a href="/compose?To=Samantha.Eisner@icann.org">Samantha.Eisner@icann.org</a><br>
>>>>> <mailto:<a href="/compose?To=Samantha.Eisner@icann.org">Samantha.Eisner@icann.org</a>>>><br>
>>>>>>>>>> *Objet:* *Human<br>
>>>>> Rights Transition Provision: <br>
>>>>> Bylaws Section<br>
>>>>>>>>>> 27.3(a)*<br>
>>>>>>>>>> <br>
>>>>>>>>>> <br>
>>>>>>>>>> Dear Co-Chairs and<br>
>>>>> Bylaws Coordinating Group:<br>
>>>>>>>>>> On the CCWG call last<br>
>>>>> week, there was a discussion of the<br>
>>>>>>>>>> Bylaws language<br>
>>>>> regarding the transition provision<br>
>>>>> on Human<br>
>>>>>>>>>> Rights*//*[27.3(a)]<br>
>>>>> and it was suggested that the<br>
>>>>> language be<br>
>>>>>>>>>> clarified to ensure<br>
>>>>> that the same approval process<br>
>>>>> used for<br>
>>>>>>>>>> Work Stream 1 would<br>
>>>>> apply. We propose the following<br>
>>>>>>>>>> clarifying edits. We<br>
>>>>> suggest that you share this with the<br>
>>>>>>>>>> CCWG and if there is<br>
>>>>> agreement, the following proposed edit<br>
>>>>>>>>>> should be included in<br>
>>>>> the CCWG’s public comment:____<br>
>>>>>>>>>> Redline:____<br>
>>>>>>>>>> <br>
>>>>>>>>>> *Section 27.3. HUMAN<br>
>>>>> RIGHTS____*<br>
>>>>>>>>>> __ __<br>
>>>>>>>>>> <br>
>>>>>>>>>> (a) The Core Value<br>
>>>>> set forth in Section 1.2(b)(viii)<br>
>>>>> shall<br>
>>>>>>>>>> have no force or<br>
>>>>> effect unless and until a framework of<br>
>>>>>>>>>> interpretation for<br>
>>>>> human rights (“*FOI-HR*”) is<br>
>>>>> approved by<br>
>>>>>>>>>> (i) approved for<br>
>>>>> submission to the Board by the<br>
>>>>>>>>>> CCWG-Accountability<br>
>>>>> as a consensus recommendation in Work<br>
>>>>>>>>>> Stream 2, and (ii)<br>
>>>>> approved by each of the<br>
>>>>>>>>>> CCWG-Accountability’s<br>
>>>>> chartering organizations and (iii) the<br>
>>>>>>>>>> Board, (in each<br>
>>>>> thecase of the Board, using the<br>
>>>>> same process<br>
>>>>>>>>>> and criteria used by<br>
>>>>> the Boardto consider the as for Work<br>
>>>>>>>>>> Stream 1<br>
>>>>> Recommendations).____<br>
>>>>>>>>>> __ __<br>
>>>>>>>>>> <br>
>>>>>>>>>> (b) No person or<br>
>>>>> entity shall be entitled to invoke the<br>
>>>>>>>>>> reconsideration<br>
>>>>> process provided in Section 4.2,<br>
>>>>> or the<br>
>>>>>>>>>> independent review<br>
>>>>> process provided in Section 4.3, based<br>
>>>>>>>>>> solely on the<br>
>>>>> inclusion of the Core Value set<br>
>>>>> forth in<br>
>>>>>>>>>> Section 1.2(b)(viii)<br>
>>>>> (i) until after the FOI-HR<br>
>>>>> contemplated<br>
>>>>>>>>>> by Section 27.3(a) is<br>
>>>>> in place or (ii) for actions of ICANN<br>
>>>>>>>>>> or the Board that<br>
>>>>> occurred prior to the____<br>
>>>>>>>>>> effectiveness of the<br>
>>>>> FOI-HR.____<br>
>>>>>>>>>> Clean:____<br>
>>>>>>>>>> <br>
>>>>>>>>>> *Section 27.3. HUMAN<br>
>>>>> RIGHTS____*<br>
>>>>>>>>>> __ __<br>
>>>>>>>>>> <br>
>>>>>>>>>> (a) The Core Value<br>
>>>>> set forth in Section 1.2(b)(viii)<br>
>>>>> shall<br>
>>>>>>>>>> have no force or<br>
>>>>> effect unless and until a framework of<br>
>>>>>>>>>> interpretation for<br>
>>>>> human rights (“*FOI-HR*”) is (i)<br>
>>>>> approved<br>
>>>>>>>>>> for submission to the<br>
>>>>> Board by the CCWG-Accountability as a<br>
>>>>>>>>>> consensus<br>
>>>>> recommendation in Work Stream 2<br>
>>>>> and (ii) approved<br>
>>>>>>>>>> by the Board, in each<br>
>>>>> case, using the same process and<br>
>>>>>>>>>> criteria as for Work<br>
>>>>> Stream 1 Recommendations.____<br>
>>>>>>>>>> __ __<br>
>>>>>>>>>> <br>
>>>>>>>>>> (b) No person or<br>
>>>>> entity shall be entitled to invoke the<br>
>>>>>>>>>> reconsideration<br>
>>>>> process provided in Section 4.2,<br>
>>>>> or the<br>
>>>>>>>>>> independent review<br>
>>>>> process provided in Section 4.3, based<br>
>>>>>>>>>> solely on the<br>
>>>>> inclusion of the Core Value set<br>
>>>>> forth in<br>
>>>>>>>>>> Section 1.2(b)(viii)<br>
>>>>> (i) until after the FOI-HR<br>
>>>>> contemplated<br>
>>>>>>>>>> by Section 27.3(a) is<br>
>>>>> in place or (ii) for actions of ICANN<br>
>>>>>>>>>> or the Board that<br>
>>>>> occurred prior to the____<br>
>>>>>>>>>> effectiveness of the<br>
>>>>> FOI-HR.____<br>
>>>>>>>>>> Kind regards, ____<br>
>>>>>>>>>> <br>
>>>>>>>>>> __ __<br>
>>>>>>>>>> <br>
>>>>>>>>>> Holly and Rosemary____<br>
>>>>>>>>>> <br>
>>>>>>>>>> __ __<br>
>>>>>>>>>> <br>
>>>>>>>>>> __ __<br>
>>>>>>>>>> <br>
>>>>>>>>>> *HOLLY* *J. GREGORY*<br>
>>>>>>>>>> Partner and Co-Chair<br>
>>>>>>>>>> Corporate Governance<br>
>>>>> & Executive Compensation Practice<br>
>>>>> Group____<br>
>>>>>>>>>> *Sidley Austin LLP*<br>
>>>>>>>>>> 787 Seventh Avenue<br>
>>>>>>>>>> New York, NY 10019<br>
>>>>>>>>>> +1 212 839 5853<br>
>>>>> <tel:%2B1%20212%20839%205853><br>
>>>>> <a href="/compose?To=holly.gregory@sidley.com">holly.gregory@sidley.com</a><br>
>>>>> <mailto:<a href="/compose?To=holly.gregory@sidley.com">holly.gregory@sidley.com</a>><br>
>>>>> <mailto:<a href="/compose?To=holly.gregory@sidley.com">holly.gregory@sidley.com</a><br>
>>>>> <mailto:<a href="/compose?To=holly.gregory@sidley.com">holly.gregory@sidley.com</a>>><br>
>>>>> <mailto:<a href="/compose?To=holly.gregory@sidley.com">holly.gregory@sidley.com</a><br>
>>>>> <mailto:<a href="/compose?To=holly.gregory@sidley.com">holly.gregory@sidley.com</a>>><br>
>>>>>>>>>> <a href="http://www.sidley.com" target="_blank" >www.sidley.com</a><br>
>>>>> <<a href="http://www.sidley.com/" target="_blank" >http://www.sidley.com/</a>><br>
>>>>>>>>>> <<a href="http://www.sidley.com/" target="_blank" >http://www.sidley.com/</a>><br>
>>>>> <<a href="http://www.sidley.com/" target="_blank" >http://www.sidley.com/</a>>____<br>
>>>>> <a href="http://www.sidley.com/files/upload/signatures/SA-autosig.png" target="_blank" >http://www.sidley.com/files/upload/signatures/SA-autosig.png</a><br>
>>>>> <<a href="http://www.sidley.com/" target="_blank" >http://www.sidley.com/</a>> *SIDLEY<br>
>>>>> AUSTIN LLP*____<br>
>>>>>>>>>> __ __<br>
>>>>> ****************************************************************************************************<br>
>>>>>>>>>> This e-mail is sent<br>
>>>>> by a law firm and may contain<br>
>>>>> information<br>
>>>>>>>>>> that is privileged or<br>
>>>>> confidential.<br>
>>>>>>>>>> If you are not the<br>
>>>>> intended recipient, please delete the<br>
>>>>>>>>>> e-mail and any<br>
>>>>> attachments and notify us<br>
>>>>>>>>>> immediately.<br>
>>>>> ****************************************************************************************************<br>
>>>>> _______________________________________________<br>
>>>>> Accountability-Cross-Community<br>
>>>>> mailing list<br>
>>>>> <a href="/compose?To=Accountability%2dCross%2dCommunity@icann.org">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><br>
>>>>> <mailto:<a href="/compose?To=Accountability%2dCross%2dCommunity@icann.org">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a>><br>
>>>>> <mailto:<a href="/compose?To=Accountability%2dCross%2dCommunity@icann.org">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><br>
>>>>> <mailto:<a href="/compose?To=Accountability%2dCross%2dCommunity@icann.org">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a>>><br>
>>>>> <mailto:<a href="/compose?To=Accountability%2dCross%2dCommunity@icann.org">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><br>
>>>>> <mailto:<a href="/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>
>>>>> Accountability-Cross-Community<br>
>>>>> mailing list<br>
>>>>> <a href="/compose?To=Accountability%2dCross%2dCommunity@icann.org">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><br>
>>>>> <mailto:<a href="/compose?To=Accountability%2dCross%2dCommunity@icann.org">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a>><br>
>>>>> <mailto:<a href="/compose?To=Accountability%2dCross%2dCommunity@icann.org">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><br>
>>>>> <mailto:<a href="/compose?To=Accountability%2dCross%2dCommunity@icann.org">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a>>><br>
>>>>> <mailto:<a href="/compose?To=Accountability%2dCross%2dCommunity@icann.org">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><br>
>>>>> <mailto:<a href="/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>
>>>>>>>> Accountability-Cross-Community<br>
>>>>> mailing list<br>
>>>>> <a href="/compose?To=Accountability%2dCross%2dCommunity@icann.org">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><br>
>>>>> <mailto:<a href="/compose?To=Accountability%2dCross%2dCommunity@icann.org">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a>><br>
>>>>> <mailto:<a href="/compose?To=Accountability%2dCross%2dCommunity@icann.org">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><br>
>>>>> <mailto:<a href="/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>
>>>>>>> Niels ten Oever<br>
>>>>>>> Head of Digital<br>
>>>>>>> <br>
>>>>>>> Article 19<br>
>>>>>>> <a href="http://www.article19.org" target="_blank" >www.article19.org</a><br>
>>>>> <<a href="http://www.article19.org/" target="_blank" >http://www.article19.org/</a>><br>
>>>>> <<a href="http://www.article19.org/" target="_blank" >http://www.article19.org/</a>><br>
>>>>>>> PGP fingerprint 8D9F C567<br>
>>>>> BEE4 A431 56C4<br>
>>>>>>> 678B 08B5<br>
>>>>> A0F2 636D 68E9<br>
>>>>> _______________________________________________<br>
>>>>>>> Accountability-Cross-Community<br>
>>>>> mailing list<br>
>>>>> <a href="/compose?To=Accountability%2dCross%2dCommunity@icann.org">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><br>
>>>>> <mailto:<a href="/compose?To=Accountability%2dCross%2dCommunity@icann.org">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a>><br>
>>>>> <mailto:<a href="/compose?To=Accountability%2dCross%2dCommunity@icann.org">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><br>
>>>>> <mailto:<a href="/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>
>>>>> Niels ten Oever<br>
>>>>> Head of Digital<br>
>>>>> <br>
>>>>> Article 19<br>
>>>>> <a href="http://www.article19.org" target="_blank" >www.article19.org</a><br>
>>>>> <<a href="http://www.article19.org/" target="_blank" >http://www.article19.org/</a>><br>
>>>>> <br>
>>>>> PGP fingerprint 8D9F C567 BEE4<br>
>>>>> A431 56C4<br>
>>>>> 678B 08B5 A0F2<br>
>>>>> 636D 68E9<br>
>>>>> _______________________________________________<br>
>>>>> Accountability-Cross-Community<br>
>>>>> mailing list<br>
>>>>> <a href="/compose?To=Accountability%2dCross%2dCommunity@icann.org">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><br>
>>>>> <mailto:<a href="/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>
>>>>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing<br>
>>>>> list<br>
>>>>> <a href="/compose?To=Accountability%2dCross%2dCommunity@icann.org">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><br>
>>>>> <mailto:<a href="/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>
>>>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>
>>>> <a href="/compose?To=Accountability%2dCross%2dCommunity@icann.org">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><br>
>>>> <mailto:<a href="/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>
>>>> <br>
>>>> <br>
>>>> <br>
>>>> <br>
>>>> _______________________________________________<br>
>>>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>
>>>> <a href="/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>
>>> Niels ten Oever<br>
>>> Head of Digital<br>
>>> <br>
>>> Article 19<br>
>>> <a href="http://www.article19.org" target="_blank" >www.article19.org</a><br>
>>> <br>
>>> PGP fingerprint 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4<br>
>>> 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9<br>
>>> _______________________________________________<br>
>>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>
>>> <a href="/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>
>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>
>> <a href="/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>
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>
> <a href="/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>
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>
<a href="/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>
<base target="_self" href="https://e-aj.my.com/" />
</div>
</div>
</blockquote></BODY></HTML>