<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><div>Jordan</div><div><br></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On 5 March 2015 at 00:27, Mathieu Weill <span dir="ltr">&lt;<a href="mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr" target="_blank">mathieu.weill@afnic.fr</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
  
    
  
  <div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
    Dear colleagues,<br>
    <br>
    We are obviously on sensitive grounds here. We are all well aware
    that to reach our goal, to enhance Icann&#39;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 &quot;no
    formal objection&quot;) prevent from one single government &quot;capturing&quot;
    GAC &quot;special deferrence&quot; advice ? Could that not be considered by
    some as capture (within the GAC) by one government over the &quot;public
    policy&quot; 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 class="h5"><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">&lt;<a href="mailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com" target="_blank">olgacavalli@gmail.com</a>&gt;</span>
            wrote:<br>
            <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
              <div dir="ltr">Dear Jordan,
                <div><br>
                </div>
                <div>could you clarify this sentence please:</div>
                <span>
                  <div><br>
                  </div>
                  <div><span style="border-collapse:collapse;font-size:13px">&quot;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&quot;</span><br>
                  </div>
                  <div><span style="border-collapse:collapse;font-size:13px"><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&#39;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);font-family:helvetica,arial,sans-serif;font-size:16px;line-height:22.399999618530273px">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="direction:ltr;border-bottom-width:1px;border-bottom-style:dotted;color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:helvetica,arial,sans-serif;font-size:16px;line-height:22.399999618530273px">ICANN </abbr><span style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:helvetica,arial,sans-serif;font-size:16px;line-height:22.399999618530273px">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="direction:ltr;border-bottom-width:1px;border-bottom-style:dotted;color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:helvetica,arial,sans-serif;font-size:16px;line-height:22.399999618530273px">ICANN </abbr><span style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:helvetica,arial,sans-serif;font-size:16px;line-height:22.399999618530273px">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;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
              <div dir="ltr">
                <div><span style="border-collapse:collapse;font-size:13px">Best
                    regards</span></div>
                <div><span style="border-collapse:collapse;font-size:13px">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">&lt;<a href="mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz" target="_blank">jordan@internetnz.net.nz</a>&gt;</span>:
                  <div>
                    <div><br>
                      <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
                        <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&#39;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&#39;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">&lt;<a href="mailto:RPEREZGA@minetur.es" target="_blank">RPEREZGA@minetur.es</a>&gt;</span>
                                wrote:<br>
                                <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">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&#39;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
                                      &quot;indifferent&quot; 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&#39;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>
                                       &quot;Primarily this purpose:<br>
                                      ·       Ensure decisions are for
                                      benefit of the public, not just
                                      for a particular set of
                                      stakeholders&quot;<br>
                                      <br>
                                      to<br>
                                      <br>
                                      &quot;Primarily this purpose:<br>
                                      .     Avoid capture of a
                                      particular set of interests&quot;<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>
                                      &gt; I understand from the draft
                                      that therte would be only
                                      &quot;CONSENSUS ADVICE&quot;<br>
                                      &gt; from GAC to ICANN Board<br>
                                      &gt; However, today, GAC could
                                      advise the ICANN Board with advice
                                      on which<br>
                                      &gt; no consensus is reached and
                                      that is an aimportant elements on
                                      which<br>
                                      &gt; the system is working.<br>
                                      &gt; 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 &quot;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&quot;.<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
                                      (&quot;general agreement&quot; AND &quot;the
                                      absence of formal objection&quot;, as
                                      follows:<br>
                                      <br>
                                      &quot;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]&quot;<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&#39;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 class="HOEnZb"><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">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 class="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr">Jordan Carter<br><br>Chief Executive <br><b>InternetNZ</b><br><br>04 495 2118 (office) | +64 21 442 649 (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>