<html><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body dir="auto"><div>Grec</div><div>Do you mean by lower level consensus and higher level super majority?</div><div>The term higher and lower level are subjective and we should use something which is self describing. By the way , may you give examples of those two levels of agreements you referred to in GNSO policy?'</div><div>Kavouss </div><div> <br><br>Sent from my iPhone</div><div><br>On 5 Mar 2015, at 14:03, Greg Shatan <<a href="mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com">gregshatanipc@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div><div dir="ltr"> i will look forward to the views of the GAC. I hope it is understood that these proposals do not constrain the GAC's ability to have a lower level of agreement before issuing advice (or even to have multiple levels of agreement). I believe that all we are saying is that the current level of deference to GAC advice in the <a href="http://bylaws.is">bylaws.is</a> tied to the current level of agreement used to provide GAC advice. If there's a lower level of agreement used by the GAC for a particular item of advice, it only stands to reason that a lower level of deference should be expected in return.<div><br></div><div>This can already be seen in how the Board deals with GNSO policy recommendations. There are two different levels of agreement for policy recommendations, and each has its own level of deference. It should be the same with GAC advice.</div><div><br></div><div>Greg</div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Mar 5, 2015 at 5:26 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com" target="_blank">kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div>Dear All,</div><div>As I mentioned before , we are now discussing some very delecate issue.</div><div>We need to seek views from GAC before proceeding further</div><div>Regards</div><span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><div>Kavouss </div></font></span></div><div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">2015-03-05 0:32 GMT+01:00 Jordan Carter <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz" target="_blank">jordan@internetnz.net.nz</a>></span>:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr">Dear Mathieu<div><br></div><div>To confirm we at WP1 today agreed to halt any further consideration of this, pending your consultation with the GAC.</div><div><br></div><div>best</div><span><font color="#888888"><div>Jordan</div><div><br></div></font></span></div><div><div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On 5 March 2015 at 00:27, Mathieu Weill <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr" target="_blank">mathieu.weill@afnic.fr</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;padding-left:1ex;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid">
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
Dear colleagues,<br>
<br>
We are obviously on sensitive grounds here. We are all well aware
that to reach our goal, to enhance Icann's accountability in the
context of a successful transition, we need to ensure :<br>
- that we have consensus across all SO/ACs<br>
- that we ensure the absence of capture within Icann. <br>
<br>
This discussion started from the stress test which is precisely
defined at ensuring that Icann is not captured by governments or a
group of governments. The proposal being currently discussed
suggests that Icann Bylaws incorporate a specific decision making
rule (consensus) for GAC Advice to get special deferrence by the
Board. Feedback from some GAC members in the CCWG tend to
demonstrate that the proposal would not get full consensus at this
point. <br>
<br>
We need to recognize that the proposal is consistent with current
practice of the GAC, but also that this current practice has been
discussed in the past within the GAC, and appears to be a point of
discussion between GAC members lately. Consequently, we as CCWG run
the risk of stepping into an internal GAC discussion without
properly understanding the specific context. <br>
<br>
The co-chairs will engage the GAC Chair, Thomas Schneider, on the
issue shortly, as discussed earlier within the CCWG. before doing
that I would appreciate your insights on some aspects of the current
proposal :<br>
- would other definitions of decision making, for example
supermajority requirements such as those existing for some gNSO
decisions, provide sufficient guarantees against capture (2/3 ; 3/4;
...) ? In this case they could replace the proposed definition of
consensus ? <br>
- how does the current proposal (consensus being defined as "no
formal objection") prevent from one single government "capturing"
GAC "special deferrence" advice ? Could that not be considered by
some as capture (within the GAC) by one government over the "public
policy" perspective that the GAC brings into Icann. <br>
<br>
Thanks for your considered responses, and for the very useful debate
on this topic so far. <br>
<br>
Best,<br>
Mathieu<br>
<br>
<br>
Le 04/03/2015 07:14, Jordan Carter a écrit :<div><div><br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">Dear all, dear Olga,
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Apologies for the delay in replying, but here we go:</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On 3 March 2015 at 23:35, Olga
Cavalli <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com" target="_blank">olgacavalli@gmail.com</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;padding-left:1ex;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid">
<div dir="ltr">Dear Jordan,
<div><br>
</div>
<div>could you clarify this sentence please:</div>
<span>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><span style="font-size:13px;border-collapse:collapse">"I
know that the GAC could do this: if it changed the
Operating Principle 47 to allow advice by majority
vote, this would effectively increase governmental
influence in ICANN"</span><br>
</div>
<div><span style="font-size:13px;border-collapse:collapse"><br>
</span></div>
</span></div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>In short: if GAC can choose to decide advice more
easily, and ICANN is obliged to duly take GAC advice into
account, then GAC can choose to increase its influence in
ICANN. GAC should not be able to choose to do this on its
own, is the argument here.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Here's the long version:</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>At the present time GAC advice triggers an obligation
on ICANN to duly take that advice into account, as per the
bylaws:</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><i>Article IX Section 2 Part 1</i></div>
<div><i><br>
</i></div>
<div><i><span style="color:rgb(51,51,51);line-height:22.39px;font-family:helvetica,arial,sans-serif;font-size:16px">j.
The advice of the Governmental Advisory Committee on
public policy matters shall be duly taken into
account, both in the formulation and adoption of
policies. In the event that the </span><abbr title="Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and
Numbers" style="color:rgb(51,51,51);line-height:22.39px;font-family:helvetica,arial,sans-serif;font-size:16px;border-bottom-width:1px;border-bottom-style:dotted;direction:ltr">ICANN </abbr><span style="color:rgb(51,51,51);line-height:22.39px;font-family:helvetica,arial,sans-serif;font-size:16px">Board
determines to take an action that is not consistent
with the Governmental Advisory Committee advice, it
shall so inform the Committee and state the reasons
why it decided not to follow that advice. The
Governmental Advisory Committee and the </span><abbr title="Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and
Numbers" style="color:rgb(51,51,51);line-height:22.39px;font-family:helvetica,arial,sans-serif;font-size:16px;border-bottom-width:1px;border-bottom-style:dotted;direction:ltr">ICANN </abbr><span style="color:rgb(51,51,51);line-height:22.39px;font-family:helvetica,arial,sans-serif;font-size:16px">Board
will then try, in good faith and in a timely and
efficient manner, to find a mutually acceptable
solution.</span> </i></div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>This obligation to look at the advice, and to try and
find a mutual solution, is what gives GAC its influence in
ICANN - its advice cannot be ignored by the Board.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>The GAC in its Operating Principles (#47) specifies
that advice will be made by consensus.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>GAC can change its operating principles.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>If - hypothetically - GAC did change its operating
principles to allow it to give advice to ICANN on a
non-consensus basis - perhaps by voting - then it would be
_lowering the threshold_ at which advice could be given.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>The <b>current</b> combination of ICANN having to give
due heed to GAC advice, and the consensus nature of that
advice, is what gives the GAC its <b>current</b> level of
structural influence in ICANN.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>It seems to me that<b> if the threshold was lowered</b>
for establishing such advice, then that influence would be
<b>increased</b>. Governments would have more influence in
ICANN, because it would be easier to give advice on more
topics without the onerous requirement of consensus being
arrived at.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>In the other direction, if the threshold for advice was
<b>made higher</b> (e.g. if GAC - hypothetically - changed
its operating principles so that it could only offer
consensus advice after agreeing it was consensus at three
GAC meetings in a row, with a quorum of 100 governments
participating), then the level of influence would be <b>reduced</b>.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>The logic behind this proposed change to the ICANN
bylaws is that the <b>current</b> level of GAC advice in
the ICANN environment should be maintained, and that any
changes to it would need to be agreed not just by GAC
(which is the case today), but by the whole community
through a change to the bylaws.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I apologise that this is a long reply, but I cannot
answer clearly more briefly.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Thanks</div>
<div>Jordan</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;padding-left:1ex;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid">
<div dir="ltr">
<div><span style="font-size:13px;border-collapse:collapse">Best
regards</span></div>
<div><span style="font-size:13px;border-collapse:collapse">Olga</span></div>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">2015-03-03 10:28 GMT-03:00
Jordan Carter <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz" target="_blank">jordan@internetnz.net.nz</a>></span>:
<div>
<div><br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;padding-left:1ex;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid">
<div dir="ltr">Thank you very much Julia and
Rafael for these inputs. It is very helpful in
further developing this proposal.
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I think there is an objective question we
need an answer to, which is:</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><b>Which, if any, SOs and ACs have the
ability to change their internal rules or
procedures in a way that affects the whole
ICANN community?</b></div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>From where I sit, I know that the GAC
could do this: if it changed the Operating
Principle 47 to allow advice by majority
vote, this would effectively increase
governmental influence in ICANN and is
solely a GAC decision.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I do not know whether other ACs can do
this, because I do not know whether the
bylaws give a special privileged status to
their advice similar to the status they give
to GAC advice.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I do not know whether other SOs can do
this. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I think in the ccNSO there is no advice
provision, and in terms of policymaking, all
the rules are set out in the PDP which is
part of the bylaws. So any change for ccNSO
influence is a bylaws change, as far as I
know.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>If we have a clearer position of this, it
would be helpful.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><b>Are ICANN staff able to provide this
information?</b></div>
<div><b><br>
</b></div>
<div><b>Is any volunteer member of the WP able
to provide this information?</b></div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I think if we know the answer, we will
have a better basis to proceed.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>My initial thought is that if it is only
GAC that has this ability, then that isn't
something that should be maintained, because
one of the key criteria for the IANA
stewardship transition that NTIA has set out
is that ICANN should not be subject to
*governmental* control in future. An
unlimited ability for governments to
increase their influence in ICANN at their
own discretion could conflict with that
requirement, and mean the IANA stewardship
transition fails.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>That's why resolving this in some way is
part of WorkStream 1 - to be done to allow
transition to proceed.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Looking forward to more discussions!</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>bests</div>
<span><font color="#888888">
<div>Jordan</div>
<div><br>
</div>
</font></span></div>
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div>
<div><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On 3 March 2015
at 21:36, Perez Galindo, Rafael <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:RPEREZGA@minetur.es" target="_blank">RPEREZGA@minetur.es</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;padding-left:1ex;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid">Dear
All<br>
<br>
Spain fully concurs with the views
expressed by Denmark.<br>
<br>
While understanding the need to avoid
capture, no proposal should preempt
the way in which a Committee makes
decisions, which is what this idea
would mean in practice by compelling
the GAC to stick to the consensus rule
if it wants the Board to duly take
into account its advice.<br>
<br>
This proposal goes beyond the scope of
this CCWG unless we engage in
discussion of procedures in all
relevant SOs/ACs, as well.<br>
<br>
At any rate, such a proposal would
strongly affect the GAC role and
should request explicit consent from
the GAC prior to its inclusion in the
report.<br>
<br>
Best regards<br>
<br>
Rafael Pérez Galindo<br>
S. G. de Servicios de la Sociedad de
la Información<br>
Secretaría de Estado de
Telecomunicaciones y para la Sociedad
de la Información<br>
MINISTERIO DE INDUSTRIA, ENERGÍA y
TURISMO<br>
c/ Capitán Haya, 41 Pta. 6ª
Despacho 6.10 (28020 Madrid, España)<br>
<a href="tel:%2B34%2091%203461544" value="+34913461544" target="_blank">+34
91 3461544</a><br>
<a href="tel:%2B34%2091%203461577" value="+34913461577" target="_blank">+34
91 3461577</a><br>
<a href="mailto:rperezga@minetur.es" target="_blank">rperezga@minetur.es</a><br>
<br>
<br>
-----Mensaje original-----<br>
De: <a href="mailto:wp1-bounces@icann.org" target="_blank">wp1-bounces@icann.org</a>
[mailto:<a href="mailto:wp1-bounces@icann.org" target="_blank">wp1-bounces@icann.org</a>]
En nombre de Julia Katja Wolman<br>
Enviado el: martes, 03 de marzo de
2015 12:53<br>
Para: <a href="mailto:wp1@icann.org" target="_blank">wp1@icann.org</a><br>
Asunto: Re: [Party1] template -
consensus defined for ICANN dealing
with GAC advice - draft1<br>
<div>
<div><br>
Dear Malcolm, colleagues,<br>
<br>
This is indeed an interesting
discussion, which is likely to
generate some more comments from
the government side.<br>
<br>
From our (DK) point of view we
fully understand the need to have
a stress test for such a
situation, including mitigating
capture, but it is our general
view that any such proposal should
not lower the current threshold
for the obligation of the ICANN
Board to duly taking into account
GAC advice.<br>
<br>
With regard to Malcolm's
suggestion below, we believe the
text should not be split into two.
To clarify: In practice, the
example you present below where
the other governments would be
"indifferent" actually means that
the other governments actively
chose not to actively support that
specific issue, for different
reasons, and consequently there
would be consensus on advancing
that specific issue as GAC advice.
We would also like to underline
that reaching consensus among
governments is not an easy task
and is a process that requires
deliberations and compromises.
Therefore, we would like keep the
text from the existing consensus
rules in the GAC's Operating
Principles.<br>
<br>
Moreover with regard to the
template, there may be situations
where the GAC could not give
consensus advice to the Board on a
specific issue because of
opposition from one government but
the general view could still be in
the benefit of the public. The
opposite situation could be
interpreted so that a
non-consensus advice always would
be contrary to the public
benefit/interest.<br>
<br>
Consequently in the attached
document we suggest to amend the
following paragraph:<br>
<br>
"Primarily this purpose:<br>
· Ensure decisions are for
benefit of the public, not just
for a particular set of
stakeholders"<br>
<br>
to<br>
<br>
"Primarily this purpose:<br>
. Avoid capture of a
particular set of interests"<br>
<br>
<br>
Best regards,<br>
<br>
Julia<br>
<br>
<br>
Julia Katja Wolman<br>
<br>
DANISH BUSINESS AUTHORITY<br>
<br>
Dahlerups Pakhus<br>
Langelinie Allé 17<br>
DK-2100 København Ø<br>
Telephone: <a href="tel:%2B45%203529%201000" value="+4535291000" target="_blank">+45 3529 1000</a><br>
Direct: <a href="tel:%2B45%2035291308" value="+4535291308" target="_blank">+45 35291308</a><br>
E-mail: <a href="mailto:jukacz@erst.dk" target="_blank">jukacz@erst.dk</a><br>
<a href="http://www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk" target="_blank">www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk</a><br>
<br>
MINISTRY FOR BUSINESS AND GROWTH<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
-----Oprindelig meddelelse-----<br>
Fra: <a href="mailto:wp1-bounces@icann.org" target="_blank">wp1-bounces@icann.org</a>
[mailto:<a href="mailto:wp1-bounces@icann.org" target="_blank">wp1-bounces@icann.org</a>]
På vegne af Malcolm Hutty<br>
Sendt: 2. marts 2015 12:38<br>
Til: Kavouss Arasteh; Jordan
Carter<br>
Cc: <a href="mailto:wp1@icann.org" target="_blank">wp1@icann.org</a><br>
Emne: Re: [Party1] template -
consensus defined for ICANN
dealing with GAC advice - draft1<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
On 01/03/2015 08:01, Kavouss
Arasteh wrote:<br>
> I understand from the draft
that therte would be only
"CONSENSUS ADVICE"<br>
> from GAC to ICANN Board<br>
> However, today, GAC could
advise the ICANN Board with advice
on which<br>
> no consensus is reached and
that is an aimportant elements on
which<br>
> the system is working.<br>
> There are several examples of
such kind of advice.<br>
<br>
Absolutely, this is an important
point. It is of course important
that the Board receive input from
individual governments as well as
other stakeholders. The GAC has
sometimes found it convenient to
convey such input through
consensus documents such as the
communique. When it does so this
essentially means "We have no
consensus on X, but some of our
members would like to express
their own view to you, and we are
agreed that you should be aware of
their view".<br>
<br>
This is entirely appropriate. At
the same time, it is important to
be able to distinguish between a
view that has commanded a
consensus in the GAC and one which
does not; the bylaws provides for
special weight to be given to GAC
views, and that surely means the
former rather than the latter.
This template simply aims to
clarify that.<br>
<br>
As a small tweak, I wonder whether
the template would be improved by
spltting the test into two heads
("general agreement" AND "the
absence of formal objection", as
follows:<br>
<br>
"Consensus advice of the
Governmental Advisory Committee on
public policy matters shall be
duly taken into account, both in
the formulation and adoption of
policies, where consensus is
understood to mean the practice of
adopting decisions by general
agreement and the absence of any
formal objection. [...continues
unchanged]"<br>
<br>
The aim of this change is to
address the position where one
government raises an issue of
interest to them only, and other
governments are indifferent. It
seems to me if only one government
holds a position, and the others
state that they have no view, this
doesn't really constitute a
consensus position, and ought not
to be treated as such.<br>
<br>
Of course, governments that were
largely disinterested would still
be free to give their positive
support anyway, perhaps out of
comity, and so to form a
consensus. This change would
merely say that input would only
be treated as GAC consensus advice
if they chose to do so.<br>
<br>
Malcolm.<br>
--<br>
Malcolm Hutty | tel: <a href="tel:%2B44%2020%207645%203523" value="+442076453523" target="_blank">+44 20 7645 3523</a><br>
Head of Public Affairs | Read
the LINX Public Affairs blog
London Internet Exchange | <a href="http://publicaffairs.linx.net/" target="_blank">http://publicaffairs.linx.net/</a><br>
<br>
London Internet
Exchange Ltd<br>
21-27 St Thomas Street,
London SE1 9RY<br>
<br>
Company Registered in
England No. 3137929<br>
Trinity Court, Trinity
Street, Peterborough PE1 1DA<br>
<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
WP1 mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:WP1@icann.org" target="_blank">WP1@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp1" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp1</a><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
WP1 mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:WP1@icann.org" target="_blank">WP1@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp1" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp1</a><br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
<br clear="all">
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<span>-- <br>
<div>
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div dir="ltr">Jordan Carter<br>
<br>
Chief Executive <br>
<b>InternetNZ</b><br>
<br>
<a href="tel:04%20495%202118" value="+6444952118" target="_blank">04 495 2118</a>
(office) | <a href="tel:%2B64%2021%20442%20649" value="+6421442649" target="_blank">+64 21 442 649</a>
(mob)<br>
<a href="mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz" target="_blank">jordan@internetnz.net.nz</a>
<br>
Skype: jordancarter<br>
<br>
<i>A better world through a better
Internet </i><br>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</span></div>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
WP1 mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:WP1@icann.org" target="_blank">WP1@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp1" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp1</a><br>
<br>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
<br clear="all">
<div><br>
</div>
-- <br>
<div>
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div dir="ltr">Jordan Carter<br>
<br>
Chief Executive <br>
<b>InternetNZ</b><br>
<br>
<a href="tel:04%20495%202118" value="+6444952118" target="_blank">04 495 2118</a> (office) | <a href="tel:%2B64%2021%20442%20649" value="+6421442649" target="_blank">+64 21 442 649</a> (mob)<br>
<a href="mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz" target="_blank">jordan@internetnz.net.nz</a> <br>
Skype: jordancarter<br>
<br>
<i>A better world through a better Internet </i><br>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset></fieldset>
<br>
<pre>_______________________________________________
WP1 mailing list
<a href="mailto:WP1@icann.org" target="_blank">WP1@icann.org</a>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp1" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp1</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div></div><span><font color="#888888"><pre cols="72">--
*****************************
Mathieu WEILL
AFNIC - directeur général
Tél: <a href="tel:%2B33%201%2039%2030%2083%2006" value="+33139308306" target="_blank">+33 1 39 30 83 06</a>
<a href="mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr" target="_blank">mathieu.weill@afnic.fr</a>
Twitter : @mathieuweill
*****************************
</pre>
</font></span></div>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>
WP1 mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:WP1@icann.org" target="_blank">WP1@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp1" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp1</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr">Jordan Carter<br><br>Chief Executive <br><b>InternetNZ</b><br><br>04 495 2118 (office) | <a href="tel:%2B64%2021%20442%20649" value="+6421442649" target="_blank">+64 21 442 649</a> (mob)<br><a href="mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz" target="_blank">jordan@internetnz.net.nz</a> <br>Skype: jordancarter<br><br><i>A better world through a better Internet </i><br><br></div></div></div></div>
</div>
</div></div><br>_______________________________________________<br>
WP1 mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:WP1@icann.org" target="_blank">WP1@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp1" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp1</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>
</div></div><br>_______________________________________________<br>
WP1 mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:WP1@icann.org">WP1@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp1" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp1</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>
</div></blockquote></body></html>