<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Like Tatiana, I share the concerns that Anne and Matthew expressed. It also seems necessary to clarify that the proposed new language would change the <b>FoI</b> itself, advocating the use of Ruggie to interpret the Bylaw. The Considerations, which would not be changed under this proposal, stand in direct conflict to that stance:</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><blockquote style="margin:0px 0px 0px 40px;border:none;padding:0px"><div class="gmail_default"><div class="gmail_default"><font face="verdana, sans-serif">With regards to the UN Guiding Principles for Business and Human Rights, <b>no consensus was reached as to their suitability for interpreting the Core Value</b>. However with regard to the implementation of the Core Value <b>certain aspects of the UN Guiding Principles for Business and Human Rights could be considered</b> as a useful guide in the process of applying the Human Rights Core Value. There are <b>certain Guiding Principles that may not be suitable for ICANN</b> and others that might be applicable, depending on the circumstances. However, it is beyond the scope of this document to provide a detailed analysis of the Guiding Principles and their application, or not, in particular situations. </font><span style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">(emphasis added)</span></div></div></blockquote><blockquote style="margin:0px 0px 0px 40px;border:none;padding:0px"><div class="gmail_default"><div class="gmail_default"><font face="verdana, sans-serif"><br></font></div></div></blockquote><font face="verdana, sans-serif"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;display:inline">The Considerations document even expressly recognizes the likelihood of conflicts between Ruggie and the ICANN Bylaws:</div><br></font><blockquote style="margin:0px 0px 0px 40px;border:none;padding:0px"><div class="gmail_default"><div class="gmail_default"><font face="verdana, sans-serif"> </font></div></div></blockquote><blockquote style="margin:0px 0px 0px 40px;border:none;padding:0px"><div class="gmail_default"><div class="gmail_default"><font face="verdana, sans-serif">In any case, a conflict between any Guiding Principle and an ICANN Bylaw provision or Article of Incorporation must be resolved in favor of the Bylaw or Article. The use of the Guiding Principles as potential guidance has to be carefully considered by each SO and AC as well as ICANN the organization. </font></div></div></blockquote><div class="gmail_default"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">For purposes of clarity (which is the purpose of the FoI), any reference to the UNGP in the Bylaws should be appropriately qualified to align it with the Considerations document and to avoid conflict with the HR Bylaw itself. The follow caveat would provide the necessary aid to using Ruggie to interpret the Bylaw:</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><blockquote style="margin:0px 0px 0px 40px;border:none;padding:0px"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:12.8px"><b><i><font face="verdana, sans-serif">Any consideration of the UNGP in interpreting the Bylaw must be expressly limited by </font></i><i style="font-size:12.8px"><font face="verdana, sans-serif">(a) the fact that there is "no consensus" on the UNGP's "suitability for interpreting the Core Value", </font></i><i style="font-size:12.8px"><font face="verdana, sans-serif">(b) the Bylaw's limitation to "applicable law," (c) the Bylaw's injunction that it cannot be used to "obligate ICANN to enforce its human rights obligations or the other human rights obligations of other parties, against other parties, (d) guidance that only "certain aspects" of the UNGP "might be applicable" while others "may not be suitable for ICANN", (e) the recognition that there are conflicts between the UNGP and the Bylaw, and that "a conflict between any Guiding Principle and an ICANN Bylaw provision or Article of Incorporation must be resolved in favor of the Bylaw or Article," and (f) the understanding that the UNGP only applies to ICANN, if at all, in the context of ICANN the organization's activities as a "business" and not in its sui generis mission "t</font><span style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">o ensure the stable and secure operation of the Internet's unique identifier systems" and to adopt policies, enter into contracts and allocate DNS resources in connection with that mission. </span></i></b></div></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:12.8px"><font face="verdana, sans-serif"> (Quoted language from the ICANN Bylaws and the "Considerations" accompanying this Framework of Interpretation.)</font></div></div></blockquote><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">This would avoid ambiguity and conflict between the Bylaw, the FoI, the document being suggested to interpret the Bylaw (i.e., the UNGP), and the underlying considerations taken into account in creating the FoI.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">It occurs to me that if we adopted the proposed language in the FOI, we would need to insert language in the "Considerations" to reflect the proposal's limiting language, e.g.:</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><blockquote style="margin:0 0 0 40px;border:none;padding:0px"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><b style="font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;font-size:16px;text-align:justify"><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:red">The UNGP are relevant for business organizations, and should be applied in that context. To the extent that ICANN the Organization is a business, it should consider, as a business, certain aspects of the UNGP as a useful guide when applying the Human Rights Core Value.</span></i></b></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><b style="font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;font-size:16px;text-align:justify"><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:red"><br></span></i></b></div></blockquote><font color="#000000" face="Arial, sans-serif"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;display:inline"><i style="font-size:14.6667px;font-weight:bold"></i>This raises other concerns. The Human Rights Bylaw is intended as a "floor" and not a "ceiling." ICANN the Organization and the Community can always choose to do more than the Bylaw dictates (within ICANN's remit, of course). The more we use language of limitation, the more we leave the impression that ICANN (the Organization, the Community and the "ecosystem") cannot voluntarily go beyond the strictures of the Bylaw. That would be counterproductive.</div><br></font><div><font color="#000000" face="Arial, sans-serif"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;display:inline"><br></div></font></div><div><font color="#000000" face="Arial, sans-serif"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;display:inline">The HR subgroup in WS2 was tasked with creating the FoI and taking certain "considerations" into account. It was not within our remit to create a roadmap for the voluntary adoption of Human Rights principles, whether culled from Ruggie or otherwise. I understand that some might want to use the power of the Bylaw to force voluntary compliance (that's an oxymoron....), or to turn voluntary compliance into Bylaws-mandated compliance. I don't support that. But neither do I want this effort to limit or appear to limit, in any way, the ability of ICANN (however defined) and its various structures to debate, consider and adopt, in ways that they find best, methods to respect Human Rights.</div></font></div><div><font color="#000000" face="Arial, sans-serif"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;display:inline"><br></div></font></div><div><font color="#000000" face="Arial, sans-serif"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;display:inline">Greg</div></font></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 7:47 AM, Matthew Shears <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:matthew@intpolicy.com" target="_blank">matthew@intpolicy.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p>As Anne, I would like to know both the procedure and
justification for "new language being proposed at the plenary
level with no prior consideration of that language at the
subgroup"?<br>
</p>
I also do not understand why we are characterizing the positions as
"Zero Ruggie" or " All Ruggie". As Anne notes, "David McCauley is
quite right that not all Ruggie principles make sense for ICANN
since it is not a typical "business" and its mission is limited,
especially as to not interfering with content. Much of what is
contained in Ruggie Principles seeks to reach "all business
relationships" and would thus exert influence over content, i.e.
Ruggie would no doubt require putting provisions in Registry
Agreements and Registrar Agreements that change obligations of these
contracted parties to exert influence over registrants regarding
Human Rights principles. ... In the ICANN environment, following
all Ruggie principles creates too broad a sweep by far." These
points were made in the sub-group discussions and on the lists on
numerous occasions. And the work of the sub-group is not Zero
Ruggie - this is a mis-characterization.<br>
<br>
I also do not believe that it is appropriate to rewrite the
“Considerations” document is at the plenary level. The
considerations document as it stands - and agreed by the sub group -
should provide all that is needed in terms of references to Ruggie.<br>
<br>
Matthew<div><div class="h5"><br>
<br>
<div class="m_2260752928253482286moz-cite-prefix">On 02/10/2017 20:54, Aikman-Scalese,
Anne wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div class="m_2260752928253482286WordSection1">
<p class="m_2260752928253482286MsoPlainText">Thomas et al,<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="m_2260752928253482286MsoPlainText">What I am trying to understand is the
procedure involved with new language being proposed at the
plenary level with no prior consideration of that language at
the subgroup. I had made specific proposals to include
certain Ruggie language at the subgroup level with specific
reference to incorporating Ruggie Principle 18 into the
language that is applicable to ICANN the organization. (In
fact, I have been advocating reference to Ruggie 18(b) from
the beginning of participating in WS2-Human Rights.) So if we
are considering new language at the plenary, I want to throw
in my own recommendation that we refer specifically to Ruggie
Principle 18 as a compromise position.<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="m_2260752928253482286MsoPlainText"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="m_2260752928253482286MsoPlainText">I do not understand this black and white
FACE-OFF as to "Zero Ruggie" or " All Ruggie". David McCauley
is quite right that not all Ruggie principles make sense for
ICANN since it is not a typical "business" and its mission is
limited, especially as to not interfering with content. Much
of what is contained in Ruggie Principles seeks to reach "all
business relationships" and would thus exert influence over
content, i.e. Ruggie would no doubt require putting provisions
in Registry Agreements and Registrar Agreements that change
obligations of these contracted parties to exert influence
over registrants regarding Human Rights principles. While
this may be appropriate for a voluntary Public Interest
Commitment on the part of a registry, it is certainly not
appropriate as a “top-down” ICANN org policy. In the ICANN
environment, following all Ruggie principles creates too broad
a sweep by far. In addition, there is no other "business"
that has used Ruggie that follows the multi-stakeholder
bottom-up policy process, a process unique to ICANN. <u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="m_2260752928253482286MsoPlainText"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="m_2260752928253482286MsoPlainText">Mark Carvell got the WS2 drafting team
on a call at one ICANN meeting with someone from the UN (with
experience implementing Ruggie) and I specifically asked
whether she had experience implementing Ruggie with an
organization that operated on the bottom-up Multi-Stakeholder
Model. Jorge Cancio was also in the room on this call and
asked several questions. Her response was (and I paraphrase)
"No, but ICANN is a quasi-governmental organization and has a
lot of power to influence Human Rights going forward". So for
anyone who feels that ICANN is a quasi-governmental
organization, they will push ICANN the organization in this
direction without remembering the applicable law limitation
and the fact that ICANN is NOT A QUASI-GOVERNMENTAL
organization and its policy development is not the top-down
process followed by other non-profits.<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="m_2260752928253482286MsoPlainText"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="m_2260752928253482286MsoPlainText">Certain Ruggie Principles may work well
within the limited mission of ICANN, most notably Principle
18, shown below my signature. Others, as pointed out in a
very thoughtful manner by David McCauley's post to the WS 2 HR
list, are dangerous and would impose limits on content as well
as increased difficulty in enforcing property rights
(including Intellectual Property rights) which are not
consistent with Human Rights. While I may strongly disagree
with certain views that could be posted at second level
domains, ICANN is not the place to try to regulate them. And
I disagree with the proposition that there should be an
absolute right to post anonymously on the Internet as
advocated by Article 19. (Although I agree that monitoring
“hate speech” is a very dangerous road to go down.) It seems
to me the highest principle here is disclosure, in other
words, “Consider the Source”.<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="m_2260752928253482286MsoPlainText"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="m_2260752928253482286MsoPlainText">Regarding the Human Right to privacy,
recently it was noted that the Russian government may have
been the true force and money behind several Facebook ads
attempting to influence U.S. elections. So now Facebook is
cooperating to try to prevent that. Why? Because people
should know the bias associated with statements when there is
no "fact check" in place. There is also no "fact check" on
content posted at second level domains and these are now
“unlimited” in many respects. Shouldn't people know where
these opinions are coming from even if it's not the Russian
government? What if it's Breitbart? How should these
concerns be balanced with the right to privacy of the
individual? (Organizations can easily use individuals to post
ads and advocate opinions. In addition, who decides whether
an association of individuals who believe similarly would have
no right to privacy?) Which second level domains were being
used to influence US elections and do the registrants have a
right to privacy for everything said on those domains as
well? Does it also apply to everything they sell on the
domain to raise money to place their Facebook ads? T-shirts?
Coins? Hats? I would say, “Consider the Source” in all
cases. And be concerned as to why the source does not want
to disclose itself. Take that into account. Is it for
nefarious purposes or is it for legitimate fear of unjust
consequences – e.g. second level registrations at .gay?<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="m_2260752928253482286MsoPlainText"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="m_2260752928253482286MsoPlainText">As an organization, ICANN should not
overreact to Snowden and to unjust laws in "outlier"
governments. Failure to balance privacy rights with other
considerations related to policies that develop trust and
confidence in the worldwide web will not only result in
consumer harm, it could even throw elections. "Consider the
Source" is the best adage for both opinions and products
offered on the Internet. This does not mean that the Spanish
government should be able to shut down .cat, in fact it means
the opposite. Governments who stand for free speech and
privacy (and the legal systems established by those
governments) should be protecting and enforcing those rights.
<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="m_2260752928253482286MsoPlainText"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="m_2260752928253482286MsoPlainText">If the “Considerations” document is now
open to rewriting at the plenary level, then shouldn't we be
considering other alternative proposals that were rejected by
the drafting team? The most important Ruggie Principle for
faithfulness to the ICANN bottom-up Multi-Stakeholder model
appears below my signature, that is Ruggie Principle 18. As
this discussion is being developed further in the plenary,
please keep in mind that Ruggie calls for a Grievance
Procedure and that the Core Value itself contemplates both a
Request for Reconsideration and an Independent Review Panel
process in relation to Human Rights claims.<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="m_2260752928253482286MsoPlainText"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="m_2260752928253482286MsoPlainText">Anne<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="m_2260752928253482286MsoPlainText"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<table class="m_2260752928253482286MsoNormalTable" style="border-collapse:collapse" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" border="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td style="width:3.5in;padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt" valign="top" width="336">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#af272f">Anne
E. Aikman-Scalese</span></b><u></u><u></u></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="width:3.5in;padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt" valign="top" width="336">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#323232">Of
Counsel</span><u></u><u></u></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="width:3.5in;padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt" valign="top" width="336">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#323232"><a href="tel:(520)%20629-4428" value="+15206294428" target="_blank">520.629.4428</a>
office</span><u></u><u></u></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="width:3.5in;padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt" valign="top" width="336"><br>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="width:3.5in;padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt" valign="top" width="336">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#323232"><a href="tel:(520)%20879-4725" value="+15208794725" target="_blank">520.879.4725</a>
fax</span><u></u><u></u></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="width:3.5in;padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt" valign="top" width="336">
<p class="MsoNormal"><a href="mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com" title="Email User" target="_blank"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#323232">AAikman@lrrc.com</span></a><u></u><u></u></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="width:3.5in;padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt" valign="top" width="336">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#323232">_____________________________</span><u></u><u></u></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="width:3.5in;padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt" valign="top" width="336">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif""><img id="m_2260752928253482286Picture_x0020_1" src="cid:part2.2ED98E9F.FA0E1950@intpolicy.com" height="46" width="115" border="0"></span><u></u><u></u></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="width:3.5in;padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt" valign="top" width="336">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#323232">Lewis
Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP</span><u></u><u></u></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="width:3.5in;padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt" valign="top" width="336">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#323232">One
South Church Avenue, Suite 700</span><u></u><u></u></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="width:3.5in;padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt" valign="top" width="336">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#323232">Tucson,
Arizona 85701-1611</span><u></u><u></u></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="width:3.5in;padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt" valign="top" width="336">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"">Ruggie
Principle 18.
<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"">In
order to gauge human rights risks, business
enterprises should identify
<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"">and
assess any actual or potential adverse human rights
impacts with
<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"">which
they may be involved either through their own
activities or as a
<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"">result
of their business relationships. This process
should:
<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"">(a)
<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"">Draw
on internal and/or independent external human rights
<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"">expertise;<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"">(b)
<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"">Involve
meaningful consultation with potentially affected
groups
<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"">and
other relevant stakeholders, as appropriate to the
size of the
<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"">business
enterprise and the nature and context of the
operation.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="width:3.5in;padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt" valign="top" width="336"><br>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="m_2260752928253482286MsoPlainText"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="m_2260752928253482286MsoPlainText">Hi,<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="m_2260752928253482286MsoPlainText"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="m_2260752928253482286MsoPlainText">On 29-Sep-17 19:59, Aikman-Scalese, Anne
wrote:<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="m_2260752928253482286MsoPlainText">> So what was everyone on the plenary
CCWG- ACCT call yesterday
<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="m_2260752928253482286MsoPlainText">> referring to when they objected to
the "compromise text" that was submitted to the CCWG list
without having gone through the usual procedures in the
subgroup?<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="m_2260752928253482286MsoPlainText"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="m_2260752928253482286MsoPlainText">It seems to me that once an issue is
described as having no consensus in a subgroup and there is a
declaration that none is reachable, the next step is to take
the question to the plenary for plenary discussion.<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="m_2260752928253482286MsoPlainText">Seems to me this is especially the case
when a minority view is attached to a proposed recommendation.<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="m_2260752928253482286MsoPlainText"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="m_2260752928253482286MsoPlainText">This is not the first time a knotty
issue has been brought to the plenary or the first time a
subgroup was given the opportunity to reconsider a subgroup
decision that was not accepted at the plenary level.<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="m_2260752928253482286MsoPlainText"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="m_2260752928253482286MsoPlainText">avri<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="m_2260752928253482286MsoPlainText"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="m_2260752928253482286MsoPlainText">______________________________<wbr>_________________<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="m_2260752928253482286MsoPlainText">Ws2-hr mailing list<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="m_2260752928253482286MsoPlainText"><a class="m_2260752928253482286moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Ws2-hr@icann.org" target="_blank">Ws2-hr@icann.org</a><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="m_2260752928253482286MsoPlainText"><a class="m_2260752928253482286moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-hr" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/<wbr>listinfo/ws2-hr</a><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="m_2260752928253482286MsoPlainText"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<br>
<hr>
<font size="1" face="Arial" color="Gray"><br>
This message and any attachments are intended only for the use
of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the
reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended
recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering
the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are
hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying
of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you
have received this communication in error, please notify us
immediately by replying to the sender. The information
transmitted in this message and any attachments may be
privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential
use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic
Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.
<br>
</font>
<br>
<fieldset class="m_2260752928253482286mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre>______________________________<wbr>_________________
Ws2-hr mailing list
<a class="m_2260752928253482286moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Ws2-hr@icann.org" target="_blank">Ws2-hr@icann.org</a>
<a class="m_2260752928253482286moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-hr" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/<wbr>listinfo/ws2-hr</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div></div><span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><pre class="m_2260752928253482286moz-signature" cols="72">--
Matthew Shears
<a class="m_2260752928253482286moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:matthew@intpolicy.com" target="_blank">matthew@intpolicy.com</a>
<a href="tel:+44%207712%20472987" value="+447712472987" target="_blank">+447712472987</a>
<a class="m_2260752928253482286moz-txt-link-freetext">Skype:mshears</a></pre>
</font></span></div>
<br>______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org">Accountability-Cross-<wbr>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/<wbr>listinfo/accountability-cross-<wbr>community</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>