<div dir="ltr"><div>Dear All,</div><div>Once again,</div><div>NOTHING IS AGREED UNTIL EVERY THING IS AGREED .</div><div>EITHER ALL 4 OR NOTHING </div><div>Regards</div><div>Kavouss </div><div> </div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">2016-12-22 17:01 GMT+01:00 parminder <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net" target="_blank">parminder@itforchange.net</a>></span>:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<p><font face="Verdana">Dear Kavouss</font></p>
<p><font face="Verdana">You are right, we should first deal with the
issue of the questionnaire. <br>
</font></p>
<p><font face="Verdana">I agree, as do many others, that there is no
justification to remove the proposed Q 4 from the questionnaire.
The question must go out along with others.</font></p>
<p><font face="Verdana">A question seeking information is only a
question seeking information. People may chose to not respond to
it, or give different responses, likely in opposition to one
another. That is all very fine, and quite expected. But such
forceful arguments to not ask for certain kinds of information
is very disturbing, even alarming. (I have issues with how the
other questions are framed, but I am fine to let them go out
because some people want them to be posed.)<br>
</font></p>
<p><font face="Verdana">Ordinarily, if a good number of participants
here wanted a question, that should be enough to include it.
Here, a majority of those who voted on the issue of this
particular question wanted the question included. That should
have conclusively stopped the debate. But no, not so. There is
persistent effort to censor this question. And this in a process
that is advertised as open, transparent, collaborative, and what
not. There is something very basically wrong here. <br><span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888">
</font></span></font></p><span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888">
<p>parminder <br>
</p></font></span><div><div class="h5">
<div class="m_9073863452087815349moz-cite-prefix">On Thursday 22 December 2016 07:20 PM,
Kavouss Arasteh wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>Dear John.</div>
<div>Dear Parminder,</div>
<div>It is difficult for me to conclude on any solution between
the lines of your discussion.</div>
<div>Could any of you kindly give a resume of the exchanged
views.</div>
<div>We need to look for some compromise solution knowing that
some hard liners like x and y insist to impose their
objections to send Q4.I continue to object to all questions
until all 4 are agreed</div>
<div>Nothing is agreed untill everything is agreed</div>
<div>this is a Global multistakholder Group discussion and NOT
North American Sub-Region multistakholder Group dominated by
certain individuals</div>
<div>Regards</div>
<div>Kavouss <span></span></div>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">2016-12-22 13:06 GMT+01:00 parminder <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net" target="_blank">parminder@itforchange.net</a>></span>:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;padding-left:1ex;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"><span>
<p><br>
</p>
<br>
<div class="m_9073863452087815349m_-6062255183317377725moz-cite-prefix">On
Tuesday 20 December 2016 08:37 PM, John Laprise wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div class="m_9073863452087815349m_-6062255183317377725WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><a name="m_9073863452087815349_m_-6062255183317377725__MailEndCompose"><span style="color:windowtext;font-size:11pt">“</span></a><span><span style="color:windowtext;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-size:11pt">To
turn ones face away and say, nothing can be
done here, to evolve our democratic
international systems, is to vote for a status
quo which serves some, but not others.</span></span><span><span style="color:windowtext;font-size:11pt">”</span></span><span><span style="color:windowtext;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-size:11pt"></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><span style="color:windowtext;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-size:11pt"> </span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><span style="color:windowtext;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-size:11pt">Rather,
it is an acknowledgement of reality. </span></span></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</span> Apologies for appearing to be flippant, but isnt
that what every status quo-ist says. <br>
<span>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div class="m_9073863452087815349m_-6062255183317377725WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><span style="color:windowtext;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-size:11pt">Rule
of law is neither globally strong nor evenly
distributed. I can imagine a world in which
the way forward you describe is plausible but,
regrettably, it is not the one we live in.
Other systems need strengthening and in some
cases even existence before the way forward is
open. It</span></span><span><span style="color:windowtext;font-size:11pt">’</span></span><span><span style="color:windowtext;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-size:11pt">s
not a vote for the status quo but a
recognition of path dependency. </span></span></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</span> I am not asking for a violent deviation from the
path - both options that I propose, a new international
law and immunity under existing US Act carries forward the
path-dependency, and completely safeguard the existing
structures and processes of ICANN, the system I think you
allude to as requiring strengthening. What I propose in
fact further strengthens it, to a considerable extent. The
ICANN system's current jurisdictional oversight by a
single country is its biggest weak point in terms of
international legitimacy. ( A point, unfortunately USians
here seem not able to see and sympathise with.) Imagine an
ICANN with immunity from US jurisdiction; how much
legitimacy, and thus strength, it adds to the system.<span><br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div class="m_9073863452087815349m_-6062255183317377725WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><span style="color:windowtext;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-size:11pt"></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><span style="color:windowtext;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-size:11pt"> </span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><span style="color:windowtext;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-size:11pt">Thanks
for the back rounder Parminder. It was, along
with some parallel research, quite helpful.</span></span></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</span> Thanks John, you are welcome. <br>
<span> <br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div class="m_9073863452087815349m_-6062255183317377725WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><span style="color:windowtext;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-size:11pt">
The problem remains however that there is no
analogous organization to ICANN merely in
terms of its contractual authority.</span></span></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</span> Firstly, if we are hoping that a fully-developed,
well-rounded solution, with everything fully covered by
enough exact precedents, to this complex but very genuine
problem, will simply one day drop in our laps, I assure
you that this is not going to happen. We have to work for
it, join the dots, take risks, make innovations, and so
on. The point is, who is losing and gaining what from the
present dispensation, and who is willing to do what is
required to do. <br>
<br>
Next, I see that organisations like International
Fertilizer and Development Centre, which we cited as an
example of an NPO given jurisdictional immunity, also does
run many projects worldwide. Any such project would
require use of a legal status, entering contracts, and so
on.... We just need to look into it. But if we close our
eyes, and simply refuse to explore options, we are not
going to get anywhere. I am not saying this example will
be an exact fit for our requirement, but we need to see
what is possible, and innovate and evolve over it. <br>
<span> <br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div class="m_9073863452087815349m_-6062255183317377725WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><span style="color:windowtext;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-size:11pt">
I</span></span><span><span style="color:windowtext;font-size:11pt">’</span></span><span><span style="color:windowtext;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-size:11pt">d
also add that many of the benefits of the act
are at the discretion of the US Secretary of
State and can be revoked.</span></span></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</span> Yes, which is why immunity under US Act is less
sustainable option than international law based immunity.
But still better than the present condition. In the<a href="http://www.itforchange.net/sites/default/files/Jurisdiction%20of%20ICANN.pdf" target="_blank"> recent civil society statement on
jurisdiction</a>, we also suggested a method whereby any
such withdrawal of immunity can be made difficult/
ineffectual (see option 3 in the end). <br>
<span> <br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div class="m_9073863452087815349m_-6062255183317377725WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><span style="color:windowtext;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-size:11pt">
The proposed jurisdictional immunity would
also require all governments to sign off on
such status, given ICANN</span></span><span><span style="color:windowtext;font-size:11pt">’</span></span><span><span style="color:windowtext;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-size:11pt">s
reach.</span></span></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</span> I dont see why so. Only US gov needs to agree. <br>
<span>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div class="m_9073863452087815349m_-6062255183317377725WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><span style="color:windowtext;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-size:11pt"></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><span style="color:windowtext;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-size:11pt"> </span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><span style="color:windowtext;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-size:11pt">I
know that there is a significant literature on
international compacts and law. Given the
often decades long time frames for the passage
and acceptance of such law, the Internet as we
know it is unlikely to exist by the time it
comes into force. </span></span></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</span> These are weak excuses. It can be done in 6
months. But in any case, if it satisfies those who want to
move towards international jurisdiction, what do you lose
in allowing to set in motion the process, esp if you think
it would take forever to do anything. Let those who want
have it. In the interim, status quo would stay.<span><br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div class="m_9073863452087815349m_-6062255183317377725WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><span style="color:windowtext;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-size:11pt"></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><span style="color:windowtext;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-size:11pt"> </span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><span style="color:windowtext;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-size:11pt">To
your question about why we do not discuss
jurisdictional immunity under US law: it is
because the domestic political reality of the
situation makes such an eventuality so remote
as to be hypothetical. </span></span></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</span> The same domestic situation makes the continuation
of ICANN under US jurisdiction even less tenable. <br>
<br>
This brings me to a very important point: the job of CCWG,
working on behalf of the global community, is not to
second guess what US gov will accept or not
(unfortunately, that is what it has mostly done). If this
was its real task, we as well may let US gov do what it
may, instead of providing them the cover of legitimacy of
the supposed will of the so called 'global community'
which is what this process does. Our job is to recommend
what we think in is best global interest, and is
ordinarily plausible to do. This is what our job is, and
we must just do that. Let US gov do its job - accept our
recs or not. That burden is upon them - let s not take up
their burden. This aspect of the work of the "community"
groups involved in the transition process has always
greatly bothered me. We must have clarity about - on whose
behalf are we working (i think, for the global community,
but you can clarify) and what our recs must be based on (I
think, on our understanding of what is best for the global
community, and not what we think US gov likes and would
agree to, and what not, but again you can clarify)<span><br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div class="m_9073863452087815349m_-6062255183317377725WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><span style="color:windowtext;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-size:11pt"></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><span style="color:windowtext;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-size:11pt"> </span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><span style="color:windowtext;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-size:11pt">The
described quest is admirable but IMO is a
non-starter. Conditions do not exist presently
to make it a possible.</span></span></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</span> We are part of once in decades constitutional
process about ICANN's structures. If it is not now, it is
never. <br>
<div>
<div class="m_9073863452087815349h5"> <br>
parminder <br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div class="m_9073863452087815349m_-6062255183317377725WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><span style="color:windowtext;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-size:11pt"></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><span style="color:windowtext;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-size:11pt"> </span></span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><span lang="EN-US" style="color:windowtext;font-family:"Garamond",serif">Best regards, </span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><span lang="EN-US" style="color:windowtext;font-family:"Garamond",serif"> </span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><span lang="EN-US" style="color:windowtext;font-family:"Garamond",serif;font-size:16pt">John Laprise, Ph.D.</span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><span lang="EN-US" style="color:windowtext;font-family:"Garamond",serif">Consulting Scholar</span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><span lang="EN-US" style="color:windowtext;font-family:"Garamond",serif"> </span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span></span><a href="http://www.linkedin.com/in/jplaprise/" target="_blank"><span><span lang="EN-US" style="color:rgb(5,99,193);font-family:"Garamond",serif"></span></span></a><a class="m_9073863452087815349m_-6062255183317377725moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.linkedin.com/in/jplaprise/" target="_blank"><a class="m_9073863452087815349moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.linkedin.com/in/" target="_blank">http://www.linkedin.com/in/</a>jpl<wbr>aprise/<span></span><span><span lang="EN-US" style="color:windowtext;font-family:"Garamond",serif"></span></span></a></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><span lang="EN-US" style="color:windowtext;font-family:"Garamond",serif"> </span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><span lang="EN-US" style="color:windowtext;font-family:"Garamond",serif"> </span></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><span style="color:windowtext;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-size:11pt"> </span></span></p>
<span></span>
<div>
<div style="border-width:1pt medium medium;border-style:solid none none;border-color:rgb(225,225,225) currentColor currentColor;padding:3pt 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="color:windowtext;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-size:11pt">From:</span></b><span lang="EN-US" style="color:windowtext;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-size:11pt"> parminder [<a class="m_9073863452087815349m_-6062255183317377725moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net" target="_blank"><a class="m_9073863452087815349moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:parminder@itforchange" target="_blank">mailto:parminder@itforchange</a>.<wbr>net]
<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, December 20, 2016
2:57 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> John Laprise <a class="m_9073863452087815349m_-6062255183317377725moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:jlaprise@gmail.com" target="_blank"><a class="m_9073863452087815349moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:jlaprise@gmail.com" target="_blank"><jlaprise@gmail.com></a>;
<a class="m_9073863452087815349m_-6062255183317377725moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org" target="_blank">accountability-cross-community<wbr>@icann.org</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [CCWG-ACCT]
Jurisdiction Proposed Questions and Poll
Results</a></a></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">On Monday 19 December 2016
08:14 PM, John Laprise wrote:<br>
<br>
</p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5pt;margin-bottom:5pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext;font-size:11pt">Possibilities
of jurisdictional immunity? Could you please
provide examples of organizations that enjoy
such.</span></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
John<br>
The most well known case of jurisdictional
immunity is of course for organisations
incorporated under international law. Unlike
what has been argued here variously, although
international law has to be made by governments
through treaties etc that says nothing about the
actual governance structure of the concerned
organisation, ICANN in this case. International
law can, to take an extreme case, hand over
complete governance of a body created/
incorporated under international law to you and
me... Nothing circumscribes how international
law is written as long as all countries agree to
it. It is entirely possible, and I think
extremely plausible, that they would agree to
write in such law the exact governance structure
of ICANN as it is at present. Right now too,
ICANN exists by and under the strength of its
law of incorporation which is US law. In the
scenario I present, it would just be
international law instead of US law. Yes, there
are matters to worked out in this regard, but if
democracy and self-determination of all people,
equally, is of any importance at all, we can go
through the process, including doing the needed
innovations as needed. The current international
system was not handed over to us by God, it was
evolved by people like us, who responded
appropriately to newer and newer global
challenges, as the one that faces us now. To
turn ones face away and say, nothing can be done
here, to evolve our democratic international
systems, is to vote for a status quo which
serves some, but not others. And these are the
others that are protesting here, and seeking
appropriate change. It is a political issue,
lets not treat it as a technical issue, of what
is argued to be difficult or too "troublesome"
to pursue. <br>
<br>
Next, even without going the international law
route, as has been said many times earlier here,
US law allows even non profits to be given
jurisdictional immunity. The concerned law is
the <u><span style="color:navy"><a href="https://archive.icann.org/en/psc/annex9.pdf" target="_blank">United States
International Organisations Immunities Act</a></span></u>
. And an example of a US non-profit being given
jurisdiction immunity under it is<em><span style="font-size:10pt;font-style:normal">
International Fertilizer and Development
Center. </span></em>This has been discussed
in a report commissioned by ICANN itself which
can be found at <a href="https://archive.icann.org/en/psc/corell-24aug06.html" target="_blank">https://archive.icann.org/en/p<wbr>sc/corell-24aug06.html</a>
. <br>
<br>
I have been unable to understand why can we not
agree to even jurisdictional immunity under
existing US law, which keeps ICANN in the US,
preserves its existing structures, and does go
considerable way to address the concerns about
those who are concerned about application of US
public law on ICANN, and what it may mean for
its global governance work. <br>
<br>
The argument is advanced that this may affect
the operation of the newly instituted community
accountability mechanism. I dont think this is
not true. This mechanism is a matter of internal
ICANN governance system, which is a 'private'
arrangement with choice of law available to it.
It simply has to be put in ICANN bylaws that
ICANN governance processes will be subject to
adjudication by Californian courts as present.
That should do. Of course the mentioned
International Fertilizer and Development Centre
also must be existing with some governance
systems, that admit of external adjudication,
even as it enjoys the benefit of jurisdictional
immunity from US public laws. Such immunity
always only pertains to the policy and such
international core activities of the concerned
organisation, and associated matters. It would
not, for instance, extend to actual crime being
committed by its personnel on its premises. All
such matters of various distinctions get taken
care of when we enter the actual processes of
such immunities etc. Right now, the issue is
only to decide to go down the route, or not.<br>
<br>
parminder <br>
<br>
<br>
</p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5pt;margin-bottom:5pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-size:11pt"> </span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:windowtext;font-family:"Garamond",serif">Best regards, </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:windowtext;font-family:"Garamond",serif"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:windowtext;font-family:"Garamond",serif;font-size:16pt">John Laprise, Ph.D.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:windowtext;font-family:"Garamond",serif">Consulting Scholar</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:windowtext;font-family:"Garamond",serif"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:rgb(5,99,193);font-family:"Garamond",serif"><a href="http://www.linkedin.com/in/jplaprise/" target="_blank">http://www.linkedin.com/in/jpl<wbr>aprise/</a></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:windowtext;font-family:"Garamond",serif"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:windowtext;font-family:"Garamond",serif"> </span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-size:11pt"> </span></p>
<div>
<div style="border-width:1pt medium medium;border-style:solid none none;border-color:rgb(225,225,225) currentColor currentColor;padding:3pt 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="color:windowtext;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-size:11pt">From:</span></b><span lang="EN-US" style="color:windowtext;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-size:11pt"> <a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org" target="_blank">accountability-cross-community<wbr>-bounces@icann.org</a>
[<a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org" target="_blank">mailto:accountability-cross-c<wbr>ommunity-bounces@icann.org</a>]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>parminder<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Monday, December 19, 2016
7:10 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> <a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org" target="_blank">accountability-cross-community<wbr>@icann.org</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [CCWG-ACCT]
Jurisdiction Proposed Questions and Poll
Results</span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On Saturday 17 December
2016 12:40 AM, Mueller, Milton L wrote:</p>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5pt;margin-bottom:5pt">
<pre>SNIP </pre>
<pre>John Laprise's wording was much, much better: </pre>
<pre>"What are the advantages or disadvantages, if any, relating to changing ICANN’s jurisdiction*, particularly with regard to the actual operation of ICANN’s policies and accountability mechanisms?"</pre>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
This formulation does not include
possibilities of jurisdictional immunity. <br>
<br>
Something like <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</p>
<pre>"What are the advantages or disadvantages, if any, relating to changing ICANN’s jurisdiction*, <b><i>or providing possible jurisdictional immunity,</i></b> particularly with regard to the actual operation of ICANN’s policies and accountability mechanisms?"</pre>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
would be better.<br>
<br>
parminder <br>
<br>
<br>
</p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5pt;margin-bottom:5pt">
<pre> </pre>
<pre>______________________________<wbr>_________________</pre>
<pre>Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list</pre>
<pre><a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org" target="_blank">Accountability-Cross-Community<wbr>@icann.org</a></pre>
<pre><a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/l<wbr>istinfo/accountability-cross-c<wbr>ommunity</a></pre>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div></div></div>
______________________________<wbr>_________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
<a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org" target="_blank">Accountability-Cross-Community<wbr>@icann.org</a>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/l<wbr>istinfo/accountability-cross-c<wbr>ommunity</a>
</blockquote></div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div></div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>