[CWG-Stewardship] [IANA-issues] Fwd: Names Community vs the other two communities

Fri Oct 24 14:47:02 UTC 2014

I agree with Becky on the below – and what is true for GAC members is mostly
true for ccTLDs as well, I guess. 

“Don’t get me wrong, if the notion is that the GAC would have a seat on the
Council, I suppose I wouldn’t object, but in my experience members of the
GAC represent their OWN governments, not the GAC generally. “ 

From: cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org
[mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Burr, Becky
Sent: vrijdag 24 oktober 2014 16:20
To: Carolina Aguerre; cwg-stewardship at icann.org
Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] [IANA-issues] Fwd: Names Community vs the
other two communities

Tracy,

First, the total number of completely unaffiliated ccTLDs is somewhere
around 58, not 96.  I suspect that a few of these aren’t actually delegated,
so probably a bit less.  But do we think that all gTLDs participate in the
gNSO?  That would really surprise me.

Second, why couldn’t those that are completely unaffiliated and prefer to
remain that way participate directly (I.e., without the ccNSO or the
regional organization as an intermediary?)  

Finally, I don’t know why this creates the nexus for GAC in future
arrangements?  Some ccTLDs operate under government contracts (for example,
.US).  Our participation in a User’s Council might be affected by the
contract, but I don’t think that means the Department of Commerce should (or
would want to be) a member of the Council.  In a relatively small number of
cases, a government institution actually operates the ccTLD.  In that case,
the government would be a direct consumer of IANA services.  

Don’t get me wrong, if the notion is that the GAC would have a seat on the
Council, I suppose I wouldn’t object, but in my experience members of the
GAC represent their OWN governments, not the GAC generally.  

B

J. Beckwith Burr

Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel and Chief Privacy Officer

1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20006

Office: + 1.202.533.2932  Mobile:  +1.202.352.6367  /
<mailto:becky.burr at neustar.biz> becky.burr at neustar.biz /
<http://www.neustar.biz> www.neustar.biz

From: Carolina Aguerre <carolina at lactld.org>
Date: Friday, October 24, 2014 at 6:50 AM
To: "cwg-stewardship at icann.org" <cwg-stewardship at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] [IANA-issues] Fwd: Names Community vs the
other two communities

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> 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] 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
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>   /  <mailto:becky.burr at neustar.biz>
becky.burr at neustar.biz / www.neustar.biz

From: "Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google" <tracyhackshaw at gmail.com>
Date: Thursday, October 23, 2014 at 5:31 PM
To: Allan MacGillivray <allan.macgillivray at cira.ca>
Cc: Becky Burr <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=AAMD-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8W
DDkMr4k&m=QpQAt_piuchJf9ejWDh3H_z119DN4HT2HzMk0YusRzw&s=MfTsSXzXbuHI0rFcHtno
rPW-C4XKghU8vC-r39Erl4M&e=> >, Guru Acharya <gurcharya at gmail.com>,
"cwg-stewardship at icann.org" <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> 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] 
Sent: October-23-14 4:20 PM
To: Milton L Mueller; Guru Acharya
Cc: Allan MacGillivray; Fouad Bajwa; 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 /
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_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8W
DDkMr4k&m=GgzA5SwJogI0ald8wwDSR-ml1BmbWp0LkVsHeAGs0EU&s=ZpmqRGN-6diwUv7gbTul
gFXccZAa2eMl5e0pxgIPoEk&e=> >
Date: Thursday, October 23, 2014 at 3:41 PM
To: Guru Acharya <gurcharya at gmail.com>, Becky Burr <becky.burr at neustar.biz>
Cc: Allan MacGillivray <allan.macgillivray at cira.ca>, Fouad Bajwa
<fouadbajwa at gmail.com>, "cwg-stewardship at icann.org"
<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> 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>   /  <mailto:becky.burr at neustar.biz>
becky.burr at neustar.biz /  <http://www.neustar.biz> www.neustar.biz

From: Allan MacGillivray < <mailto:allan.macgillivray at cira.ca>
allan.macgillivray at cira.ca>
Date: Thursday, October 23, 2014 at 12:04 PM
To: Becky Burr < <mailto:becky.burr at neustar.biz> becky.burr at neustar.biz>,
Milton L Mueller <
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__mailto-3Amueller-40syr.
edu&d=AAMGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8W
DDkMr4k&m=INYMVpabyaFlLICPn_6grbXytRGxGNbwdxstS1N6kfU&s=xm679ts9ebwDNuRzz6N0
a2u03BsoJV4iMSTlfNWBXKU&e=> mueller at syr.edu>, Fouad Bajwa <
<mailto:fouadbajwa at gmail.com> fouadbajwa at gmail.com>
Cc: " <mailto:cwg-stewardship at icann.org> cwg-stewardship at icann.org" <
<mailto:cwg-stewardship at icann.org> 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: <mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org>
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:  <mailto:cwg-stewardship at icann.org> 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>   /  <mailto:becky.burr at neustar.biz>
becky.burr at neustar.biz /  <http://www.neustar.biz> www.neustar.biz

From: Milton L Mueller <
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__mailto-3Amueller-40syr.
edu&d=AAMFAw&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8W
DDkMr4k&m=9jEM_hACGXiATouHvV-V_jUNH5sc3y-bQFzqRD4_qRU&s=WD5mnQGH8gOzXMllT3aJ
Rt_wLg7aZMZR0oiM_ERgS0g&e=> mueller at syr.edu>
Date: Thursday, October 23, 2014 at 11:17 AM
To: Fouad Bajwa < <mailto:fouadbajwa at gmail.com> fouadbajwa at gmail.com>
Cc: " <mailto:cwg-stewardship at icann.org> cwg-stewardship at icann.org" <
<mailto:cwg-stewardship at icann.org> 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>
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>
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/1B46mlsyZUFF4bZfeWgGCdqIQHCP2BMOy4KZU4RiR
iE8/edit?usp=sharing
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_docume
nt_d_1B46mlsyZUFF4bZfeWgGCdqIQHCP2BMOy4KZU4RiRiE8_edit-3Fusp-3Dsharing&d=AAM
GaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m
=iSr26xOvv_x1A2nuUqvtaRwVOgTvzV0efqUDkGy07cw&s=fUDcpKHcSBfPHc8c3PFUK3EGMl9QA
YJOV5JFJEPECSo&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  <mailto:gurcharya at gmail.com> <gurcharya at gmail.com>

To: 

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_full
screen_apnic_report-2Dianatransition_1&d=AAMGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=6
2cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=iSr26xOvv_x1A2nuUqvtaRwVOgTvzV0
efqUDkGy07cw&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_dra
ft-2Dietf-2Dianaplan-2Dicg-2Dresponse-2D00&d=AAMGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw
&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=iSr26xOvv_x1A2nuUqvtaRwVOgT
vzV0efqUDkGy07cw&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-2D
meissen-2Dproposal_&d=AAMGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8M
o8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=iSr26xOvv_x1A2nuUqvtaRwVOgTvzV0efqUDkGy07cw&s=HC19
PauLIvR68L1aaQZMUV1ysZRdzy1Rku_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
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/iana-issues
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_l
istinfo_iana-2Dissues&d=AAMGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq
8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&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_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4
k&m=iSr26xOvv_x1A2nuUqvtaRwVOgTvzV0efqUDkGy07cw&s=u0-58tAisZxOIbFv-8rGIWKmmQ
0MbrreYyVITk4iFgM&e=> 

_______________________________________________
Iana-issues mailing list
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_l
istinfo_iana-2Dissues&d=AAMGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq
8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=iSr26xOvv_x1A2nuUqvtaRwVOgTvzV0efqUDkGy07cw&s=z-
dUNEELhtQ-yVDbG2261BTmwYXpCqVfPM_t-PljY5Q&e=> 

-- 

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Seun Ojedeji,
Federal University Oye-Ekiti
web:
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.fuoye.edu.ng&d=AAMG
aQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=
iSr26xOvv_x1A2nuUqvtaRwVOgTvzV0efqUDkGy07cw&s=ZYONh-kEmB5dv3rzYIFWLLSMsZ6Joh
vhU3mRuNA0IvA&e=> http://www.fuoye.edu.ng
Mobile: +2348035233535 <tel:%2B2348035233535> 
alt email: <mailto:seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng> 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
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/iana-issues
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_l
istinfo_iana-2Dissues&d=AAMGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq
8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&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.blo
gspot.com_&d=AAMGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxd
YahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=iSr26xOvv_x1A2nuUqvtaRwVOgTvzV0efqUDkGy07cw&s=zkexu-3haN6fn
sOXhCc6YlS9R1_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_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkM
r4k&m=iSr26xOvv_x1A2nuUqvtaRwVOgTvzV0efqUDkGy07cw&s=Q41AU5yY9bUlqSxfJs-fCoCh
4KuNHdFYeG8IwC5gisw&e=> 

_______________________________________________
CWG-Stewardship mailing list
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_l
istinfo_cwg-2Dstewardship&d=AAMGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_G
Rlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=INYMVpabyaFlLICPn_6grbXytRGxGNbwdxstS1N6kfU&
s=i8zyWIAX2_rh8EVJjDDnKtCQtxhae8Qqzt-EA16lRiY&e=> 

_______________________________________________
CWG-Stewardship mailing list
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_l
istinfo_cwg-2Dstewardship&d=AAMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_G
Rlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=GgzA5SwJogI0ald8wwDSR-ml1BmbWp0LkVsHeAGs0EU&
s=0knJhHDN8_VTb0SESfSAujo5jrIrLR9bFwC6kRIu9PY&e=> 

_______________________________________________
CWG-Stewardship mailing list
CWG-Stewardship at icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardsh
ip
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_l
istinfo_cwg-2Dstewardship&d=AAMD-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_G
Rlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=QpQAt_piuchJf9ejWDh3H_z119DN4HT2HzMk0YusRzw&
s=nxFm0ts_S3ChCWzkn3RQczBO3NlPaImRwFjf4LcdtHo&e=> 

-- 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20141024/234ad9b2/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 12816 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20141024/234ad9b2/image001-0001.jpg>