[Wp2-compactmission] Let's get cooking
Kavouss Arasteh
kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com
Tue Mar 17 12:02:05 UTC 2015
Dear All,
PLEASE AND PLEASE KINDLY USE ANOTHER TERM INSTEAD OF "COMPACT"
It is misleading, vague, ambiguous.
Regards
Kavouss
2015-03-16 22:36 GMT+01:00 Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org>:
> Thank you very much for this great work. I agree with all the suggestions
> below with the exception of the last one (pasted again immediately below),
> which seems too vague. I agree with an earlier comment in the document
> that we need to make it very difficult for even the community to expand
> ICANN's mission.
>
> Thanks,
> Robin
>
> o The “Restrictions” section of the bylaws could be amended to include a
> corresponding restriction under Article II, Section 2, as follows:
>
>
> § *“ICANN shall not expand or amend its mission, core values, powers or
> restrictions without the support of ICANN’s multi-stakeholder community.”*
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mar 16, 2015, at 2:01 PM, Burr, Becky wrote:
>
>
> *All – I’ve updated this to include work forwarded by Matthew and Keith in
> the course of WP1. That additional info is in teal font below*
>
> *Mission Statement and Core Values Compact*: A clear, concise and
> widely-accepted definition of ICANN’s limited mission, core values, powers
> and restrictions is needed to ensure the future accountability of ICANN’s
> management to the multi-stakeholder community. Accordingly, the ICANN
> Bylaws should be amended to include the Mission Statement and Core Values
> Compact as part of the durable or “golden” provisions that cannot be
> amended [except in specified circumstances]. In addition, the provisions
> should be incorporated by reference into agreements with Contracted
> Parties. These provisions will further be incorporated into the review and
> redress mechanism and serve as a basis to challenge ICANN’s actions/failure
> to act.
>
>
>
>
> ICANN’s mission is to coordinate the global Internet’s systems of unique
> identifiers by:
>
> 1. Coordinating operation of the DNS root server system
> 2. [IP addresses and protocol port and parameter numbers]2- Coordinating
> at the overall level the allocation and assignment of Internet protocol
> (“IP”) addresses and autonomous system (“AS”) numbers.
> 3. Coordinating the allocation and assignment of protocol port and
> parameter numbers.
> 34. Implementing Consensus Policies (as defined in Specification 1)
> that (a) ensure the stable and secure operation of the Internet’s unique
> names systems and (b) that involve issues for which uniform or
> coordinated resolution is reasonably necessary to facilitate openness,
> interoperability, resilience, security and/or stability of the DNS.
>
> In carrying out its mission,* [Note, this added chapeau from Articles of
> Incorporation] *ICANN must operate for the benefit of the Internet
> community as a whole, carrying out its activities in conformity with
> relevant principles of international law and applicable law and
> international conventions and through open and transparent processes that
> enable competition and open entry in Internet-related
> markets. Specifically, ICANN must:
>
> 1. Limit its activities to matters that are (a) within ICANN’s mission
> and (b) require global coordination;
> a. *Alternative from WP1: “Limiting its role to operations, policy
> development and coordination of domain names and related internet
> identifiers as per its mission. Changes to the scope of this mission must
> be determined and agreed to by the broader ICANN community.” [Note, I am
> uncomfortable with expanded scope, whether or not community supports. What
> if community decided, for example, that ICANN should regulate content,
> etc.?]*
> 2. Preserve the operational stability, reliability, security,
> interoperability, resilience, and openness of the DNS and the global I
> nternet
> 3. Operate democratically and transparently, in the public interest,
> and in accordance with multi-stakeholder model [*Alt from WP1: operate
> as a multi-stakeholder, private-sector led organization with input from the
> public, for whose benefit ICANN shall in all events act]*
> 4. Not advance Refrain from advancing the interests of one or more
> interest groups at the expense of others; *[NOTE: I think this needs to
> be refined. Sometimes there will be winners and losers, we don’t want to
> create a monster.]*
> 5. Avoid content regulation;
> 6. Fully rRespect the roles of SOs, ACs, and external expert bodies;
> 7. Continue to S support the bottom up, multistakeholder model of
> policy development consistent with this compact, reflecting the functional,
> geographic, and cultural diversity of the Internet;
> 8. Rely on market mechanisms to promote and sustain a healthy competitive
> environment;
> 9. Apply documented policies consistently, objectively, neutrally and
> fairly;
> 10. Remain accountable through mechanisms defined in the Bylaws;
> 11. Duly consider governmental public policy recommendations that are
> consistent with the Bylaws; and
> 12. Operate with efficiency, excellence and in a fiscally responsible and
> accountable manner.
>
>
> *THE ICANN BYLAWS GO ON TO STATE THE FOLLOWING: *
>
>
> * These core values are deliberately expressed in very general
> terms, so that they may provide useful and relevant guidance in the
> broadest possible range of circumstances. Because they are not narrowly
> prescriptive, the specific way in which they apply, individually and
> collectively, to each new situation will necessarily depend on many factors
> that cannot be fully anticipated or enumerated; and because they are
> statements of principle rather than practice, situations will inevitably
> arise in which perfect fidelity to all eleven core values simultaneously is
> not possible. Any ICANN body making a recommendation or decision shall
> exercise its judgment to determine which core values are most relevant and
> how they apply to the specific circumstances of the case at hand, and to
> determine, if necessary, an appropriate and defensible balance among
> competing values.*
>
>
> *I have always been very uncomfortable with this language, as it could
> form the basis of an exception that swallows the rule. At the same time,
> sometimes balancing will be required. I would be more comfortable with a
> formulation that limits any balancing "must be narrowly tailored and no
> broader than reasonably necessary to address a Substantial and Compelling
> Reason in the Public Interest” where a “Substantial and Compelling Reason
> in the Public Interest” is defined as “a reason that is justified by an
> important, specific, and articulated public interest goal that is within
> ICANN's mission and consistent with a balanced application of this core
> values compact*.”
>
>
>
>
> · Additional suggestions from WP1
>
>
> To implement such clarifications:
>
>
> o A more detailed list of enumerated powers could be incorporated into
> ICANN’s bylaws.
>
>
> § Any powers not enumerated for ICANN would remain outside ICANN’s
> purview.
> § Any changes to the enumerated powers would require community agreement
> via a clearly-defined process for amending ICANN’s bylaws.
>
>
> o The “Powers” section of the bylaws could be amended to refer
> specifically to ICANN’s limited role and responsibilities, but also to
> acknowledge more directly the leadership role of the Supporting
> Organizations in policy development.
>
>
>
>
> o The “Restrictions” section of the bylaws could be amended to include a
> corresponding restriction under Article II, Section 2, as follows:
>
>
> § *“ICANN shall not expand or amend its mission, core values, powers or
> restrictions without the support of ICANN’s multi-stakeholder community.”*
>
>
> 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: <Burr>, Becky Burr <becky.burr at neustar.biz>
> Date: Sunday, March 15, 2015 at 4:52 AM
> To: Matthew Shears <mshears at cdt.org>
> Cc: Keith Drazek <kdrazek at verisign.com>, Alice Jansen <
> alice.jansen at icann.org>, "grace.abuhamad at icann.org" <
> grace.abuhamad at icann.org>
> Subject: Re: [Wp2-compactmission] Let's get cooking
>
> Thanks for reminding me Matthew, will add tomorrow
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Mar 13, 2015, at 6:08 PM, Matthew Shears <mshears at cdt.org> wrote:
>
>
> Thanks Becky - does this include the suggestions that were ported over
> from WP1?
>
> On 3/13/2015 5:21 PM, Burr, Becky wrote:
>
> My email from earlier today on compact/mission stuff
>
> 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: <Burr>, Becky Burr <becky.burr at neustar.biz>
> Date: Friday, March 13, 2015 at 12:11 PM
> To: David Post <david.g.post at gmail.com>
> Cc: Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com>, "
> wp2-compactmission at icann.org" <wp2-compactmission at icann.org>
> Subject: Re: [Wp2-compactmission] Let's get cooking
>
> All – these are the suggested changes that we’ve received to date. The
> changes in red have been specifically proposed by others, while the
> changes and additions in blue reflect my attempt to incorporate more
> general suggestions and contributions.
>
> Please review and share your reactions, keeping in mind that we need to
> deliver a draft to the larger group on March 20 in advance of the
> Istanbul meeting. *Please read all the way down to the bottom, where
> there is an important issue to be considered*.
>
> *Mission Statement and Core Values Compact*: The ICANN Bylaws should be
> amended to include the Mission Statement and Core Values Compact as part of
> the durable or “golden” provisions that cannot be amended [except in
> specified circumstances]. In addition, the provisions should be
> incorporated by reference into agreements with Contracted Parties. These
> provisions will further be incorporated into the review and redress
> mechanism and serve as a basis to challenge ICANN’s actions/failure to act.
>
> ICANN’s mission is to coordinate the global Internet’s systems of unique
> identifiers by:
>
>
> 1. Coordinating operation of the DNS root server system
> 2. [IP addresses and protocol port and parameter numbers]2- Coordinating
> at the overall level the allocation and assignment of Internet protocol
> (“IP”) addresses and autonomous system (“AS”) numbers.
> 3. Coordinating the allocation and assignment of protocol port and
> parameter numbers.
> 34. Implementing Consensus Policies (as defined in Specification 1)
> that (a) ensure the stable and secure operation of the Internet’s unique
> names systems and (b) thatinvolve issues for which uniform or
> coordinated resolution is reasonably necessary to facilitate openness,
> interoperability, resilience, security and/or stability of the DNS.
>
>
> In carrying out its mission,* [Note, this added chapeau from Articles of
> Incorporation] *ICANN must operate for the benefit of the Internet
> community as a whole, carrying out its activities in conformity with
> relevant principles of international law and applicable law and
> international conventions and through open and transparent processes that
> enable competition and open entry in Internet-related markets. Specifically,
> ICANN must:
>
>
> 1. Limit its activities to matters that are (a) within ICANN’s
> mission and (b) require global coordination;
> 2. Preserve the operational stability, reliability, security,
> interoperability, resilience, and openness of the DNS and the global I
> nternet
> 3. Operate democratically and transparently, in the public interest,
> and in accordance with multi-stakeholder model
> 4. Not advance Refrain from advancing the interests of one or more
> interest groups at the expense of others; *[NOTE: I think this needs to
> be refined. Sometimes there will be winners and losers, we don’t want to
> create a monster.]*
> 5. Avoid content regulation;
> 6. Fully rRespect the roles of SOs, ACs, and external expert bodies;
> 7. Continue to S support the bottom up, multistakeholder model of
> policy development consistent with this compact, reflecting the functional,
> geographic, and cultural diversity of the Internet;
> 8. Rely on market mechanisms to promote and sustain a healthy competitive
> environment;
> 9. Apply documented policies consistently, objectively, neutrally and
> fairly;
> 10. Remain accountable through mechanisms defined in the Bylaws;
> 11. Duly consider governmental public policy recommendations that are
> consistent with the Bylaws; and
> 12. Operate with efficiency, excellence and in a fiscally responsible and
> accountable manner.
>
> *THE ICANN BYLAWS GO ON TO STATE THE FOLLOWING: *
>
> * These core values are deliberately expressed in very general
> terms, so that they may provide useful and relevant guidance in the
> broadest possible range of circumstances. Because they are not narrowly
> prescriptive, the specific way in which they apply, individually and
> collectively, to each new situation will necessarily depend on many factors
> that cannot be fully anticipated or enumerated; and because they are
> statements of principle rather than practice, situations will inevitably
> arise in which perfect fidelity to all eleven core values simultaneously is
> not possible. Any ICANN body making a recommendation or decision shall
> exercise its judgment to determine which core values are most relevant and
> how they apply to the specific circumstances of the case at hand, and to
> determine, if necessary, an appropriate and defensible balance among
> competing values.*
>
>
> *I have always been very uncomfortable with this language, as it could
> form the basis of an exception that swallows the rule. At the same time,
> sometimes balancing will be required. I would be more comfortable with a
> formulation that limits any balancing "must be narrowly tailored and no
> broader than reasonably necessary to address a Substantial and Compelling
> Reason in the Public Interest” where a “Substantial and Compelling Reason
> in the Public Interest” is defined as **“a reason that is justified by an
> important, specific, and articulated public interest goal that is within
> ICANN's mission and consistent with a balanced application of this core
> values compact*.”
>
> THOUGHTS?
>
> 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: David Post <david.g.post at gmail.com>
> Date: Friday, March 13, 2015 at 10:04 AM
> To: Becky Burr <becky.burr at neustar.biz>
> Cc: Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com>, "
> wp2-compactmission at icann.org" <wp2-compactmission at icann.org>
> Subject: Re: [Wp2-compactmission] Let's get cooking
>
> I share Paul's concern about this; this is a good opportunity to make, as
> I think Becky is suggesting, the limitations regarding "consensus policies"
> and substantive limitations on the Board's power clearer than perhaps
> they've been; and the clearer they are, the easier it will be to make them
> enforceable by the IRP.
>
> The definition in Spec. 1 doesn't quite do the trick - it refers back to
> the Bylaws, but the "procedure set forth in the Bylaws" doesn't clearly
> specify the nature of the "consensus" that is required (and in any event,
> the Bylaws can be amended from time to time to remove the requirement ...).
>
> So I think the first thing that is needed is a provision in te Bylaws,
> which can only be changed with some supermajority of the Board (plus
> others?), that ICANN can only impose policies on which there is a consensus
> of Internet stakeholders, and, importantly, that it is the Board's
> responsibility to demonstrate that such a consensus has been achieved.
>
> The second set of limitations, which I think also need to be in the
> Bylaws, is the "picket fence." On this, I think Spec 1 does a good job:
>
> 1.2.1 issues for which uniform or coordinated resolution is reasonably
> necessary to facilitate interoperability, security and/or stability of the
> Internet or Domain Name System (“DNS”);
> 1.2.2 functional and performance specifications for the provision of
> Registry Services;
> 1.2.3 Security and Stability of the registry database for the TLD;
> 1.2.4 registry policies reasonably necessary to implement Consensus
> Policies relating to registry operations or registrars;
> 1.2.5 resolution of disputes regarding the registration of domain names
> (as opposed to the use of such domain names); or
> 1.2.6 restrictions on cross-ownership of registry operators and registrars
> or registrar resellers and regulations and restrictions with respect to
> registry operations and the use of registry and registrar data in the event
> that a registry operator and a registrar or registrar reseller are
> affiliated.
>
>
>
> So in answer to Paul's question/concern: if these provisions were in the
> ByLaws, AND there was an IRP that was charged with determining whether the
> Board
> had acted contrary to the provisions of the ByLaws, possessing the power
> to invalidate Board action that it determines is contrary to the Bylaws.
>
> I would say, in those circumstances, the IRP would have sufficient cause
> to invalidate action by the ICANN Board to set up a UDRP-Copyright scheme.
> First, there's no demonstrated consensus that such a thing is desirable (I
> don't believe), and it is not "reasonably necessary to faciltitate
> interoperability, security and/or stability" of the DNS, nor does it meet
> any of the other "picket fence" requirements.
>
> David
>
>
>
> At 04:42 PM 3/10/2015, Burr, Becky wrote:
>
> This is, unfortunately, one of the hardest issues. The
> trademark/cybersquatting issue is something that has more or less fair game
> for ICANN from the beginning, but it’s hard to fit it in (except as a
> legacy) to ICANN’s mission/values. Specification 1, which is part of the
> Registry Agreement and the Registrar Accreditation Agreement go on to say:
>
> “Consensus Policies” are those policies established
> (1) pursuant to the procedure set forth in ICANN’s Bylaws and due process,
> and
> (2) covering those topics listed in Section 1.2 of this Specification.
>
> The Consensus Policy development process and procedure set forth in
> ICANN’s Bylaws may be revised from time to time in accordance with the
> process set forth therein. 1.2. Consensus Policies and the procedures by
> which they are developed shall be designed to produce, to the extent
> possible, a consensus of Internet stakeholders, including the operators of
> gTLDs.
>
> Consensus Policies shall relate to one or more of the following:
> 1.2.1 issues for which uniform or coordinated resolution is reasonably
> necessary to facilitate interoperability, security and/or stability of the
> Internet or Domain Name System (“DNS”);
> 1.2.2 functional and performance specifications for the provision of
> Registry Services;
> 1.2.3 Security and Stability of the registry database for the TLD;
> 1.2.4 registry policies reasonably necessary to implement Consensus
> Policies relating to registry operations or registrars;
> 1.2.5 resolution of disputes regarding the registration of domain names
> (as opposed to the use of such domain names); or
> 1.2.6 restrictions on cross-ownership of registry operators and registrars
> or registrar resellers and regulations and restrictions with respect to
> registry operations and the use of registry and registrar data in the event
> that a registry operator and a registrar or registrar reseller are
> affiliated.
>
> 1.3. Such categories of issues referred to in Section 1.2 of this
> Specification shall include, without limitation:
>
> 1.3.1 principles for allocation of registered names in the TLD (e.g.,
> first-come/first-served, timely renewal, holding period after expiration);
>
> 1.3.2 prohibitions on warehousing of or speculation in domain names by
> registries or registrars; 41
> 1.3.3 reservation of registered names in the TLD that may not be renewed
> due to reasons reasonably related to (i) avoidance of confusion among or
> misleading of users, (ii) intellectual property, or (iii) the technical
> management of the DNS or the Internet (e.g., establishment of reservations
> of names from registration); and
> 1.3.4 maintenance of and access to accurate and up-to-date information
> concerning domain name registrations; and procedures to avoid disruptions
> of domain name registrations due to suspension or termination of operations
> by a registry operator or a registrar, including procedures for allocation
> of responsibility for serving registered domain names in a TLD affected by
> such a suspension or termination.
>
>
>
> 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: Paul Rosenzweig < paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com
> <paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com>>
> Date: Tuesday, March 10, 2015 at 3:16 PM
> To: 'David Post' <david.g.post at gmail.com >, " wp2-compactmission at icann.org
> <wp2-compactmission at icann.org>" < wp2-compactmission at icann.org
> <wp2-compactmission at icann.org>>
> Subject: Re: [Wp2-compactmission] Let's get cooking
>
> I tend to agree on this point with David – the enforceability comes from
> the other mechanisms. The compact defines just the limitations
>
> A test question – David has written about the use of ICANN to enforce
> copyright and trademark law. On the merits I agree with his view that this
> should not be ICANN’s mission, but that is not my test question. My test
> question is the related one: ASSUMING that you agree that copyright
> enforcement is outside ICANN’s remit, does the language below make that
> clear in a way that has sufficiently well defined standards that an outside
> arbiter could adjudicate it?
>
> I tend to think not …
> P
>
> Paul Rosenzweig
> paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com
> <paul.rosenzweigesq at redbranchconsulting.com>
> O: +1 (202) 547-0660
> M: +1 (202) 329-9650
> VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739
> Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066
> Link to my PGP Key
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.redbranchconsulting.com_index.php-3Foption-3Dcom-5Fcontent-26view-3Darticle-26id-3D19-26Itemid-3D9&d=AwMFAw&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=FUDQyZGOC6KZ2pIZmu6r9po-RovCcqF3jtYNkbS7ib8&s=UTtqeB8qZaf5ojmziPKlmE_0QOupg1iTZhktAHou4xY&e=>
>
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.rsaconference.com_events_us15_register-3Futm-5Fsource-3Dinhouse-26utm-5Fmedium-3Demail-26utm-5Fcampaign-3Dsignature-2Dus2015&d=AwMFAw&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=FUDQyZGOC6KZ2pIZmu6r9po-RovCcqF3jtYNkbS7ib8&s=0OCf7iLz0pThVqy-M0dEBOyUh_TqfAhcfPo2Ss1wAjU&e=>
>
> From: David Post [mailto:david.g.post at gmail.com <david.g.post at gmail.com> ]
>
> Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2015 10:14 AM
> To: wp2-compactmission at icann.org
> Subject: Re: [Wp2-compactmission] Let's get cooking
>
> At 08:59 AM 3/10/2015, David W. Maher wrote:
>
>
> Compact with Community
> Strawman: ICANN will limits its scope of activity to issues that are
> within its Mission, and in carrying out its Mission ICANN will conduct
> itself in accordance its Community Compact.
> The Compact will be a contract enforceable by courts having jurisdiction
> over ICANN. The other parties to the contract will be registries,
> registrars and ?????
>
>
> Does this statement re enforceability need to be in the compact statement
> itself? It might be read to imply that it is NOT enforceable, for example,
> by the IRP - which it should be, in my opinion. I think we might want to
> simply state the compact, and leave the enforceability question for
> elsewhere
> David
>
>
>
>
> Mission Statement: in accordance with Bylaws (and something else?),
> ICANN’s mission is to coordinate the global Internet’s systems of unique
> identifiers by:
>
> 1. Coordinating operation of the DNS root server system
> 2. [IP addresses and protocol port and parameter numbers]
> 3. Implementing Consensus Policies (as defined in Specification 1)
> that ensure the stable and secure operation of the Internet’s unique names
> systems and that involve issues for which uniform or coordinated resolution
> is reasonably necessary to facilitate openness, interoperability, security
> and/or stability of the DNS.
>
> Commitments to the Community: In carrying out its mission, ICANN must:
>
> 1. Limit activities to matters that are (a) within ICANN’s mission and
> (b) require global coordination
> 2. Preserve operational stability, reliability, security,
> interoperability and openness of the Internet
> 3. Operate transparently, in the public interest, and in accordance
> with multi-stakeholder model
> 4. Not advance the interests of one or more interest groups at the
> expense of others (avoid regulatory capture)
> 5. Respect the roles of SOs, ACs, and external expert bodies
> 6. Support the bottom up, multistakeholder model of policy development
> consistent with this compact, reflecting the functional, geographic, and
> cultural diversity of the Internet
> 7. Rely on market mechanisms to promote and sustain a competitive
> environment
> 8. Apply documented policies consistently, objectively, neutrally and
> fairly
> 9. Remain accountable through mechanisms defined in Bylaws
> 10. Duly consider governmental public policy recommendations that are
> consistent with the Bylaws
> 11. Operate with excellence and in a fiscally responsible manner
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> Wp2-compactmission mailing list
> Wp2-compactmission at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp2-compactmission
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_wp2-2Dcompactmission&d=AwMFAw&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=zF_B94Xgz6C5LkRWbSwrX9ReNqnJT6wp9glTfmIDWpI&s=KyvCPLxLMe6PSqSvLpFtcrrxxCRgl39w8IJMZJ2U0qo&e=>
>
>
> *******************************
> David G Post - Senior Fellow, Open Technology Institute/New America
> Foundation
> blog (Volokh Conspiracy) http://www.washingtonpost.com/people/david-post
>
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.washingtonpost.com_people_david-2Dpost&d=AwMFAw&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=FUDQyZGOC6KZ2pIZmu6r9po-RovCcqF3jtYNkbS7ib8&s=37xbuZI9HSQtaxCGHwhXwkteY4DqUub48YeETnCHgv8&e=>book
> (Jefferson's Moose) http://tinyurl.com/c327w2n
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__tinyurl.com_c327w2n-25A0-25A0-25A0-25A0-25A0-25A0-25A0&d=AwMFAw&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=FUDQyZGOC6KZ2pIZmu6r9po-RovCcqF3jtYNkbS7ib8&s=HJC9IwteNk0iv4QT8uxzV-69PUukf9dHswDQVL0kjMs&e=>
> music http://tinyurl.com/davidpostmusic
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__tinyurl.com_davidpostmusic-25A0&d=AwMFAw&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=FUDQyZGOC6KZ2pIZmu6r9po-RovCcqF3jtYNkbS7ib8&s=tKAGnd60XF8BuU4YxogwmUVR2jZ-r1DvqtsW5HpJFww&e=>publications
> etc. http://www.davidpost.com
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.davidpost.com-26nbsp-3B-26nbsp-3B-26nbsp-3B-26nbsp-3B-26nbsp-3B-26nbsp-3B-26nbsp-3B-26nbsp-3B-26nbsp-3B_&d=AwMFAw&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=FUDQyZGOC6KZ2pIZmu6r9po-RovCcqF3jtYNkbS7ib8&s=hMrMQ9wJbCYvEAH8qRUuSymsFHvkgjqLWG0wB4MF1kM&e=>
> *******************************
>
>
> *******************************
> David G Post - Senior Fellow, Open Technology Institute/New America
> Foundation
> blog (Volokh Conspiracy) http://www.washingtonpost.com/people/david-post
>
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.washingtonpost.com_people_david-2Dpost&d=AwMFAw&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=zF_B94Xgz6C5LkRWbSwrX9ReNqnJT6wp9glTfmIDWpI&s=pxOSuyD189PFdgsQoabjHEeu8_1YCCgdukWHUBexpXc&e=>book
> (Jefferson's Moose) http://tinyurl.com/c327w2n
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__tinyurl.com_c327w2n-25A0-25A0-25A0-25A0-25A0-25A0-25A0&d=AwMFAw&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=zF_B94Xgz6C5LkRWbSwrX9ReNqnJT6wp9glTfmIDWpI&s=-jl3bguAg2IcZnvXAz_XFP7jkQ8M4zgXRkQWvghPaB8&e=>
> music http://tinyurl.com/davidpostmusic
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__tinyurl.com_davidpostmusic-25A0&d=AwMFAw&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=zF_B94Xgz6C5LkRWbSwrX9ReNqnJT6wp9glTfmIDWpI&s=cdkYwbo7_Wq9fJpMzj4Aci_Sn0T3p1w1Jee9QFweS7I&e=>publications
> etc. http://www.davidpost.com
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.davidpost.com-25C2-25A0-25C2-25A0-25C2-25A0-25C2-25A0-25C2-25A0-25C2-25A0-25C2-25A0-25C2-25A0-25C2-25A0_&d=AwMFAw&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=zF_B94Xgz6C5LkRWbSwrX9ReNqnJT6wp9glTfmIDWpI&s=UFJHgd6XF4Q0q_YiDL6_2-q2u03gT0iLJQlgT2HMRs4&e=>
> *******************************
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wp2-compactmission mailing list
> Wp2-compactmission at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp2-compactmission
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wp2-compactmission mailing list
> Wp2-compactmission at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp2-compactmission
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/wp2-compactmission/attachments/20150317/b85375cd/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Wp2-compactmission
mailing list