[CWG-Stewardship] [IANA-issues] Fwd: Names Community vs the other two communities
Carolina Aguerre
carolina at lactld.org
Fri Oct 24 10:50:24 UTC 2014
Hi Tracy,
Indeed the numbers raised by Peter are global, thus including the LAC
region and LACTLD
Carolina
On 24/10/2014 05:03 a.m., Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google wrote:
>
> Thank you Peter ... extremely helpful. I assume you also have counted
> those in LACTLD?
>
> So ... 96 ccTLDs could POTENTIALLY not recognize the ccNSO in any
> future organizational arrangement involving the ccNSO as is being
> suggested here.
>
> That is not insubstantial.
>
> I can also imagine that when you factor those that are Government
> affiliated within these 96 ccTLDs, the issues become quite complex as
> they relate to these discussions.
>
> I wonder if this is the nexus for GAC involvement in future
> organizational arrangements ...
>
> However that will still POTENTIALLY leave some ccTLDs out of the
> future arrangements being considered here, save for coercing them into
> joining either the ccNSO or the regional orgs.
>
> Any thoughts?
>
> /t
>
> On Oct 24, 2014 3:20 AM, "Peter Van Roste" <peter at centr.org
> <mailto:peter at centr.org>> wrote:
>
> Thanks Tracy for raising this.
>
> Becky is right, this process is open to all ccTLDs. The regional
> organisations are reaching out to those that are not in the ccNSO
> and to those that are unaffiliated in their respective regions.
>
> However, it should be taken into account when discussing the
> future role the ccNSO could play, that some ccTLDs will not
> recognize the ccNSO as a representative of their interests.
>
> Some stats:
>
> Out of the 248 ccTLDs:
>
> 152 are members of the ccNSO. Most of those are also a member of
> their regional organisation (AfTLD, APTLD, CENTR and APTLD).
>
> 38 ccTLDs are members of their regional organisation but not of
> the ccNSO.
>
> 58 ccTLDs are unaffiliated.
>
> Regards,
>
> Peter Van Roste
>
> General Manager, CENTR
>
> *From:*cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org
> <mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org>
> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org
> <mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Burr, Becky
> *Sent:* donderdag 23 oktober 2014 23:37
> *To:* Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google; Allan MacGillivray
> *Cc:* cwg-stewardship at icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship at icann.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] [IANA-issues] Fwd: Names
> Community vs the other two communities
>
> Some of those who do not participate in the ccNSO do participate
> in regional organizations such as LACTLD and APTLD. We have also
> set up a global list to communicate with ccTLDs that don’t
> participate in either. Note that the ccNSO rules permit cc’s to
> participate fully without actually joining the ccNSO itself.
>
> J. Beckwith Burr
>
> *Neustar, Inc. /* Deputy General Counsel and Chief Privacy Officer
>
> 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20006
>
> Office: + 1.202.533.2932 <tel:%2B%201.202.533.2932> Mobile:
> +1.202.352.6367 <tel:%2B1.202.352.6367> / becky.burr at neustar.biz
> <mailto:becky.burr at neustar.biz> / www.neustar.biz
> <http://www.neustar.biz>
>
> *From: *"Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google" <tracyhackshaw at gmail.com
> <mailto:tracyhackshaw at gmail.com>>
> *Date: *Thursday, October 23, 2014 at 5:31 PM
> *To: *Allan MacGillivray <allan.macgillivray at cira.ca
> <mailto:allan.macgillivray at cira.ca>>
> *Cc: *Becky Burr <becky.burr at neustar.biz
> <mailto:becky.burr at neustar.biz>>, Milton L Mueller
> <mueller at syr.edu <mailto:mueller at syr.edu>>, Guru Acharya
> <gurcharya at gmail.com <mailto:gurcharya at gmail.com>>,
> "cwg-stewardship at icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship at icann.org>"
> <cwg-stewardship at icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship at icann.org>>
> *Subject: *Re: [CWG-Stewardship] [IANA-issues] Fwd: Names
> Community vs the other two communities
>
> What about the ccTLDs who are NOT part of the ccNSO ... has this
> been discussed/dealt with already?
>
>
> On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 4:39 PM, Allan MacGillivray
> <allan.macgillivray at cira.ca <mailto:allan.macgillivray at cira.ca>>
> wrote:
>
> So let’s see if I have got this correct. The idea is that the
> registries would set up a corporation that could contract with
> IANA, either as a stand-alone entity or as a department of ICANN,
> for the performance of the IANA functions – let’s call it
> ‘RegistryCo’ for short. Would there not be liability concerns on
> the part of many registries to being directors of RegistryCo?
> Even if they could be convinced, would those ccTLDs that are
> governments be comfortable with such an approach? And it would
> need some money to get going. Incorporating does take little
> money, but negotiating the contract would be quite another issue.
>
> *From:*Burr, Becky [mailto:Becky.Burr at neustar.biz
> <mailto:Becky.Burr at neustar.biz>]
> *Sent:* October-23-14 4:20 PM
> *To:* Milton L Mueller; Guru Acharya
> *Cc:* Allan MacGillivray; Fouad Bajwa; cwg-stewardship at icann.org
> <mailto:cwg-stewardship at icann.org>
>
>
> *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] [IANA-issues] Fwd: Names
> Community vs the other two communities
>
> Correct. In any case, it takes very little time or money to
> create a light weight legal entity.
>
> J. Beckwith Burr
>
> *Neustar, Inc. /* Deputy General Counsel and Chief Privacy Officer
>
> 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20006
>
> Office: + 1.202.533.2932 <tel:%2B%201.202.533.2932> Mobile:
> +1.202.352.6367 <tel:%2B1.202.352.6367> / becky.burr at neustar.biz
> <mailto:becky.burr at neustar.biz> / www.neustar.biz
> <http://www.neustar.biz>
>
> *From: *Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__mailto-3Amueller-40syr.edu&d=AAMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=GgzA5SwJogI0ald8wwDSR-ml1BmbWp0LkVsHeAGs0EU&s=ZpmqRGN-6diwUv7gbTulgFXccZAa2eMl5e0pxgIPoEk&e=>>
> *Date: *Thursday, October 23, 2014 at 3:41 PM
> *To: *Guru Acharya <gurcharya at gmail.com
> <mailto:gurcharya at gmail.com>>, Becky Burr <becky.burr at neustar.biz
> <mailto:becky.burr at neustar.biz>>
> *Cc: *Allan MacGillivray <allan.macgillivray at cira.ca
> <mailto:allan.macgillivray at cira.ca>>, Fouad Bajwa
> <fouadbajwa at gmail.com <mailto:fouadbajwa at gmail.com>>,
> "cwg-stewardship at icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship at icann.org>"
> <cwg-stewardship at icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship at icann.org>>
> *Subject: *RE: [CWG-Stewardship] [IANA-issues] Fwd: Names
> Community vs the other two communities
>
> No. Guru this is incorrect. Both the CCNSO and the GNSO are made
> up of mostly incorporated legal entities. Certainly the TLD
> registries in both entities are legally incorporated.
>
> *From:*Guru Acharya [mailto:gurcharya at gmail.com]
>
> Even though NFL is an unincorporated association, the 32
> independent teams that comprise the unincorporated association are
> legal entities. These 32 legal entities then collectively enter to
> into pooled-rights contract with any third party.
>
> In comparison, CCNSO and GNSO are not legal entities; and they can
> not form an unincorporated association.
>
> On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 9:39 PM, Burr, Becky
> <Becky.Burr at neustar.biz <mailto:Becky.Burr at neustar.biz>> wrote:
>
> The law varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, but in the
> US, the question is whether there is an enforceable contract
> and not whether one of the contracting parties is a formal
> legal entity. I can assure you, the NFL enforces contracts
> all the time.
>
> J. Beckwith Burr
>
> *Neustar, Inc. /* Deputy General Counsel and Chief Privacy Officer
>
> 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20006
>
> Office: + 1.202.533.2932 <tel:%2B%201.202.533.2932> Mobile:
> +1.202.352.6367 <tel:%2B1.202.352.6367> /
> becky.burr at neustar.biz <mailto:becky.burr at neustar.biz> /
> www.neustar.biz <http://www.neustar.biz>
>
> *From: *Allan MacGillivray <allan.macgillivray at cira.ca
> <mailto:allan.macgillivray at cira.ca>>
> *Date: *Thursday, October 23, 2014 at 12:04 PM
> *To: *Becky Burr <becky.burr at neustar.biz
> <mailto:becky.burr at neustar.biz>>, Milton L Mueller
> <mueller at syr.edu
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__mailto-3Amueller-40syr.edu&d=AAMGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=INYMVpabyaFlLICPn_6grbXytRGxGNbwdxstS1N6kfU&s=xm679ts9ebwDNuRzz6N0a2u03BsoJV4iMSTlfNWBXKU&e=>>,
> Fouad Bajwa <fouadbajwa at gmail.com <mailto:fouadbajwa at gmail.com>>
> *Cc: *"cwg-stewardship at icann.org
> <mailto:cwg-stewardship at icann.org>" <cwg-stewardship at icann.org
> <mailto:cwg-stewardship at icann.org>>
> *Subject: *RE: [CWG-Stewardship] [IANA-issues] Fwd: Names
> Community vs the other two communities
>
> Becky – you raise a very important point as to whether
> unincorporated entities can enter into enforceable contracts.
> If they can, it may simplify things considerably e.g. have
> ccNSO, GNSO, ALAC? 'take over’ the contact with ICANN. I had
> been labouring under the assumption that the ccNSO, GNSO would
> have to incorporate to do this. How can we get clarity on this?
>
> Allan
>
> *From:*cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org
> <mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org>[mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org]
> *On Behalf Of *Burr, Becky
> *Sent:* October-23-14 11:43 AM
> *To:* Milton L Mueller; Fouad Bajwa
> *Cc:* cwg-stewardship at icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship at icann.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] [IANA-issues] Fwd: Names
> Community vs the other two communities
>
> Rather than starting with legal constructs, let’s begin by
> talking about what we need to accomplish requisite
> accountability. To me, we need some independent committee,
> council, unincorporated association, or representative group
> to have a contract with ICANN/IANA for performing IANA
> functions consistent with SLA’s to be negotiated and
> documented. We need this entity, presumably representative of
> IANA service consumers, to have recourse if the SLA’s are not
> met.
>
> If this is correct, then we can look at what kind of legal
> entity we need for the “SLA Council.” Seems to me that the
> core of this group would be registry operators, perhaps with
> representation from other stakeholders like registstrars,
> registrants, etc. Could be stand alone or perhaps housed in
> ISOC or the IETF? I am pretty sure that unincorporated
> associations can enter into enforceable contracts, etc. (For
> example, the National Football League in the US is actually an
> unincorporated association).
>
> Second, we need a mechanism that ensure recourse and redress
> for a registry that is wrongfully revoked, delegated, etc.
> That mechanism can be provided to all through the ICANN
> bylaws, e.g., as an independent review.
>
> J. Beckwith Burr
>
> *Neustar, Inc. /* Deputy General Counsel and Chief Privacy Officer
>
> 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20006
>
> Office: + 1.202.533.2932 <tel:%2B%201.202.533.2932> Mobile:
> +1.202.352.6367 <tel:%2B1.202.352.6367> /
> becky.burr at neustar.biz <mailto:becky.burr at neustar.biz> /
> www.neustar.biz <http://www.neustar.biz>
>
> *From: *Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__mailto-3Amueller-40syr.edu&d=AAMFAw&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=9jEM_hACGXiATouHvV-V_jUNH5sc3y-bQFzqRD4_qRU&s=WD5mnQGH8gOzXMllT3aJRt_wLg7aZMZR0oiM_ERgS0g&e=>>
> *Date: *Thursday, October 23, 2014 at 11:17 AM
> *To: *Fouad Bajwa <fouadbajwa at gmail.com
> <mailto:fouadbajwa at gmail.com>>
> *Cc: *"cwg-stewardship at icann.org
> <mailto:cwg-stewardship at icann.org>" <cwg-stewardship at icann.org
> <mailto:cwg-stewardship at icann.org>>
> *Subject: *Re: [CWG-Stewardship] [IANA-issues] Fwd: Names
> Community vs the other two communities
>
> Fouad:
>
> By the “technical community proposals” I assume you mean the
> protocols community.
>
> What your argument misses is that IANA _/is/_ a separate
> organizational entity for both the numbers and protocols
> communities.
>
> The protocol community has an MoU with ICANN that authorizes
> ICANN to perform the IANA functions for them. That MoU can be
> revoked, and IETF can decide to use someone else. That is the
> perfect accountability mechanism. Now, tell me how the names
> community achieves that same wonderful state? There are two
> ways to do it: pull the IANA out of ICANN, or set up a new
> contracting authority to replace the NTIA, which could
> periodically award the contract to ICANN or to anyone else
> qualified.
>
> No one wants “the IANA technical and policy functions [might]
> fall into the hands and whims of governments.” That in fact is
> a requirement imposed on the transition by the NTIA. But we do
> need to make significant organizational changes if we are to
> meet the requirement of accountability. I think scare talk
> about take overs can divert our attention from needed reforms
> and I would resist that kind of talk.
>
> I don't think that IANA should be evolved as a separate entity
> at all and create new opportunities for bureaucracies for
> governments and industry control.
>
> The technical community proposals are highly reasonable to not
> make such a big fuss out of it and help IANA transition under
> a body that is somewhat messed up but can be improved in the
> long run however, ICANN would need some changes.
>
> The technical community has also shown its concern that it
> doesn't want the IANA technical and policy function to fall
> into the hands of the whims of governments because it
> functions to the technical community's needs adequately in its
> present environment and role.
>
> Your challenge and for the ICG is to propose that most
> transparent and accountable way forward that ensures an open
> and inclusive relationship with the Internet community
> treating stakeholders in their respective roles but not giving
> preference to one group over another another. I don't have to
> go through the Internet Governance ideals over and over again
> here.
>
> First ICANN Board control as the final word for IANA affairs
> would have to be reviewed and should be taken into a broader
> community review process. I do not trust the ICANN Board to be
> able to manage both ICANN and IANA in a transparent and
> accountable way, their progress over the years has had its own
> set of troubles already.
>
> The proposals are interesting but not the final word. The
> final word will remain with NTIA and thats my concern from a
> developing country member citizen perspective. I am going
> through a great deal of suggestions and proposals and all show
> a similar aspect, don't disturb the IANA technical function
> and the policies for IANA developed by the community have work
> so far but require more transparency, accountability and
> functional relationships with the community ensuring open and
> inclusive participation in its policy development processes.
>
> On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 7:27 PM, Seun Ojedeji
> <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com <mailto:seun.ojedeji at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> +1 Option 2 is preferred from my end also. However i also
> added Option 4 as a second preference just incase things
> get delayed with the accountability process.
>
> Cheers!
>
> On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 3:15 PM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond
> <ocl at gih.com <mailto:ocl at gih.com>> wrote:
>
> Hello all,
>
> you might wish to see an expanded set of "Options", in
> a Google Doc which has been shared.
>
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1B46mlsyZUFF4bZfeWgGCdqIQHCP2BMOy4KZU4RiRiE8/edit?usp=sharing
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_document_d_1B46mlsyZUFF4bZfeWgGCdqIQHCP2BMOy4KZU4RiRiE8_edit-3Fusp-3Dsharing&d=AAMGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=iSr26xOvv_x1A2nuUqvtaRwVOgTvzV0efqUDkGy07cw&s=fUDcpKHcSBfPHc8c3PFUK3EGMl9QAYJOV5JFJEPECSo&e=>
>
> So far, I note that the majority of our participants
> on the At-Large IANA Issues WG appears to prefer Option 2.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Olivier
>
>
>
> On 15/10/2014 22:55, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote:
>
> FYI
>
>
>
> -------- Forwarded Message --------
>
> *Subject: *
>
>
>
> [CWG-Stewardship] Names Community vs the other two
> communities
>
> *Date: *
>
>
>
> Thu, 16 Oct 2014 02:40:47 +0530
>
> *From: *
>
>
>
> Guru Acharya <gurcharya at gmail.com>
> <mailto:gurcharya at gmail.com>
>
> *To: *
>
>
>
> cwg-stewardship at icann.org
> <mailto:cwg-stewardship at icann.org>
>
> How the names community approach will differ from
> the approach adopted by the numbers community and
> protocols community?
>
> Numbers Community: APNIC has reached consensus on
> its proposal. According to the proposal, IANA will
> continue to reside in ICANN. It proposes to
> replace NTIA oversight with a Service Level
> Agreement (SLA) and Affirmation of Commitment
> (AOC) between NRO and ICANN.
>
> www.slideshare.net/fullscreen/apnic/report-ianatransition/1
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.slideshare.net_fullscreen_apnic_report-2Dianatransition_1&d=AAMGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=iSr26xOvv_x1A2nuUqvtaRwVOgTvzV0efqUDkGy07cw&s=ipQr6NSV4s2YyeTKtleRzaehK6NnJP70z0QOuy57W7o&e=>
>
> Protocols Community: The IETF draft proposal
> suggests that no structural changes are required
> as a result of the transition. The MOU between
> ICANN and the IETF community will continue to
> govern the existing relationship. Again, IANA will
> continue to reside in ICANN.
>
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response-00
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__tools.ietf.org_html_draft-2Dietf-2Dianaplan-2Dicg-2Dresponse-2D00&d=AAMGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=iSr26xOvv_x1A2nuUqvtaRwVOgTvzV0efqUDkGy07cw&s=hsoL84pOSYzJR4QRMfhJYR6ybddmed3Zi1M-kuVH5uQ&e=>
>
> Therefore, neither the numbers community, nor the
> protocol community appear to be in the direction
> of suggesting a new MS Oversight Entity to replace
> NTIA and its oversight. Merely contracts between
> existing entities will be updated to replace NTIA
> oversight.
>
> Can the names community adopt a similar approach?
> Can a contractual agreement (SLA/AOC/MOU) between
> ICANN and GNSO/CCNSO be expected to replace NTIA
> oversight?
>
> Clearly NO! This approach can not be adopted by
> the names community because the names community
> resides within ICANN, which is also the IANA
> operator. Specifically, GNSO and CCNSO are
> essentially subsets of ICANN, and therefore a
> contractual agreement (SLA/AOC/MOU) between ICANN
> and GNSO/CCNSO can not be expected to replace NTIA
> oversight.
>
> Therefore, it is essential to either
>
> Option (i): create a new legal entity, which has a
> contractual oversight relationship with ICANN.
> This would be similar toÂ
> http://www.internetgovernance.org/2014/08/04/students-school-faculty-on-iana-transition-the-meissen-proposal/
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.internetgovernance.org_2014_08_04_students-2Dschool-2Dfaculty-2Don-2Diana-2Dtransition-2Dthe-2Dmeissen-2Dproposal_&d=AAMGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=iSr26xOvv_x1A2nuUqvtaRwVOgTvzV0efqUDkGy07cw&s=HC19PauLIvR68L1aaQZMUV1ysZRdzy1Rku_FhtwR4P0&e=>
>
> Option (ii): expect ICANN to self-regulate
>
> Option (iii): make a new legal entity comprising
> of CCNSO and GNSO that is structurally independent
> of ICANN and require that new entity to enter into
> a contractual oversight agreement (SLA/AOC/MOU)
> with ICANN.
>
> From the above three options, clearly option (ii)
> is not acceptable because of the lack of trust in
> the ICANN enhanced accountability process.
>
> I also feel that option (iii) is not feasible
> because the CCNSO and GNSO are heavily integrated
> with ICANN and structural separation of these two
> communities from ICANN will be in-feasible.
>
> Also, from the Jordan Carter document, the option
> on page 7 can be discarded, which makes ICANN the
> oversight body, as IANA will continue to reside in
> ICANN, as clearly suggested by the proposals of
> the protocols and numbers community.
>
> Therefore, option (i) is clearly the only option
> available with the names community.
>
> Regards,
>
> Acharya
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> Iana-issues mailing list
>
> Iana-issues at atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:Iana-issues at atlarge-lists.icann.org>
>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/iana-issues <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_iana-2Dissues&d=AAMGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=iSr26xOvv_x1A2nuUqvtaRwVOgTvzV0efqUDkGy07cw&s=z-dUNEELhtQ-yVDbG2261BTmwYXpCqVfPM_t-PljY5Q&e=>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD
>
> http://www.gih.com/ocl.html <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.gih.com_ocl.html&d=AAMGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=iSr26xOvv_x1A2nuUqvtaRwVOgTvzV0efqUDkGy07cw&s=u0-58tAisZxOIbFv-8rGIWKmmQ0MbrreYyVITk4iFgM&e=>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Iana-issues mailing list
> Iana-issues at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> <mailto:Iana-issues at atlarge-lists.icann.org>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/iana-issues
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_iana-2Dissues&d=AAMGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=iSr26xOvv_x1A2nuUqvtaRwVOgTvzV0efqUDkGy07cw&s=z-dUNEELhtQ-yVDbG2261BTmwYXpCqVfPM_t-PljY5Q&e=>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> /Seun Ojedeji,
> Federal University Oye-Ekiti
> web: //http://www.fuoye.edu.ng/
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.fuoye.edu.ng&d=AAMGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=iSr26xOvv_x1A2nuUqvtaRwVOgTvzV0efqUDkGy07cw&s=ZYONh-kEmB5dv3rzYIFWLLSMsZ6JohvhU3mRuNA0IvA&e=>/
> //Mobile: +2348035233535 <tel:%2B2348035233535>//
> //alt email://seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng/
> <mailto:seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng>
>
> The key to understanding is humility - my view !
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Iana-issues mailing list
> Iana-issues at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> <mailto:Iana-issues at atlarge-lists.icann.org>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/iana-issues
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_iana-2Dissues&d=AAMGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=iSr26xOvv_x1A2nuUqvtaRwVOgTvzV0efqUDkGy07cw&s=z-dUNEELhtQ-yVDbG2261BTmwYXpCqVfPM_t-PljY5Q&e=>
>
>
>
> --
> Regards.
> --------------------------
> Fouad Bajwa
> ICT4D and Internet Governance Advisor
> My Blog: Internet's Governance:
> http://internetsgovernance.blogspot.com/
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__internetsgovernance.blogspot.com_&d=AAMGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=iSr26xOvv_x1A2nuUqvtaRwVOgTvzV0efqUDkGy07cw&s=zkexu-3haN6fnsOXhCc6YlS9R1_kJqU41Ly9Qg6NDw8&e=>
> Follow my Tweets: http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__twitter.com_fouadbajwa&d=AAMGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=iSr26xOvv_x1A2nuUqvtaRwVOgTvzV0efqUDkGy07cw&s=Q41AU5yY9bUlqSxfJs-fCoCh4KuNHdFYeG8IwC5gisw&e=>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org <mailto:CWG-Stewardship at icann.org>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_cwg-2Dstewardship&d=AAMGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=INYMVpabyaFlLICPn_6grbXytRGxGNbwdxstS1N6kfU&s=i8zyWIAX2_rh8EVJjDDnKtCQtxhae8Qqzt-EA16lRiY&e=>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org <mailto:CWG-Stewardship at icann.org>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_cwg-2Dstewardship&d=AAMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=GgzA5SwJogI0ald8wwDSR-ml1BmbWp0LkVsHeAGs0EU&s=0knJhHDN8_VTb0SESfSAujo5jrIrLR9bFwC6kRIu9PY&e=>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
--
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20141024/f2f4c345/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Sign_CarolinaAguerre.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 12816 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20141024/f2f4c345/Sign_CarolinaAguerre-0001.jpg>
More information about the CWG-Stewardship
mailing list