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

Fri Oct 24 23:45:35 UTC 2014

+1 Erick

On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 2:42 PM, Erick Iriarte <eiriarte at iriartelaw.com>
wrote:

> Only to ad to Peter Answer
>
> ccTLDs unaffiliated (free riders ), have direct relation with IANA
> (historically (for first delegation), or for changes in their delegation
> (again with IANA).
>
> The must see the  ccTLD situation more in a complete perspective, in
> special about legislation related with the operation of cctlds in some
> countries , the legal nature of ccTLD, and also the relations with
> governments. For example in Cuba ccTLD .cu (the operation not the ccTLD as
> part of the DNS system) was created by a Resolution of the Government in
> 1996 (IANA did not mentioned in the document:
> http://www.latinoamericann.org/?q=node/1806 ) or the Bolivian ccTLD
> operation was created as civil society then “assimilated” to the government
> (in the information society agency that appear now in IANA as a contact
> (again the creation of cctld .bo operation did not said IANA anywhere:
> http://www.latinoamericann.org/?q=node/1809 )
>
> So, is clear al the ccTLDs have real relation with IANA (appear in the
> root server), but how each cctld sees itself (in special in the cases the
> operation is inside a governmental entity) is different.
>
> Yours,
>
> Erick
>
>
>
> El 24/10/2014, a las 02:20, Peter Van Roste <peter at centr.org> escribió:
>
> 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
> <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  Mobile:  +1.202.352.6367  /
> 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>, 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  Mobile:  +1.202.352.6367  /
> 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_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=GgzA5SwJogI0ald8wwDSR-ml1BmbWp0LkVsHeAGs0EU&s=ZpmqRGN-6diwUv7gbTulgFXccZAa2eMl5e0pxgIPoEk&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 <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  Mobile:  +1.202.352.6367  /
> becky.burr at neustar.biz / www.neustar.biz
>
> *From: *Allan MacGillivray <allan.macgillivray at cira.ca>
> *Date: *Thursday, October 23, 2014 at 12:04 PM
> *To: *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=AAMGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=INYMVpabyaFlLICPn_6grbXytRGxGNbwdxstS1N6kfU&s=xm679ts9ebwDNuRzz6N0a2u03BsoJV4iMSTlfNWBXKU&e=>>,
> Fouad Bajwa <fouadbajwa at gmail.com>
> *Cc: *"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:*cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org [
> mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org
> <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
> *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  Mobile:  +1.202.352.6367  /
> 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=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>
> *Cc: *"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/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> <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_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
>
> 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
> 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-Ekitiweb:      *
> *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 <%2B2348035233535>*
> *alt email:**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_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
> 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
> 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/d48dd236/attachment-0001.html>