[CCWG-ACCT] Minority statements inclusion in report

[David Post]

Very helpful - thanks. If that was the intent, 
I'd propose that it be communicated to the 
lawyers who will be working on this, as I don't 
think that meaning is the only one that can be 
given to the language that is in there, and its 
an important qualification - especially the last sentence.

David

At 09:59 AM 12/1/2015, Burr, Becky wrote:
>It means that the parties who entered into existing contracts intended
>(and intend) to be bound by those agreements.  It means that neither a
>contracting party or anyone else should be able to bring a free standing
>case that the language, without context, is ultra vires.  It does not,
>however, modify any contracting party’s right to challenge the other
>party’s interpretation of that language.  Nor does it modify the scope of
>ICANN’s Mission.
>
>
>
>
>J. Beckwith Burr
>Neustar, Inc. / Deputy
>General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer
>1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006
>Office: +1.202.533.2932  Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / neustar.biz
><http://www.neustar.biz>
>
>
>
>
>On 12/1/15, 7:41 AM, "David Post" <david.g.post at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >But in all of this discussion, nobody has
> >answered the question I asked several times and
> >will ask again:  if the "grandfathering" of the
> >existing agreements does NOT mean what I think it
> >could mean - a way for ICANN to assert that we
> >are authorizing it to control, through
> >registry-registrar and registrar-registrant
> >contracts, the power to revoke domains based upon
> >conduct or content in a manner inconsistent with
> >the Mission Statement limitations - WHAT DOES IT
> >MEAN?  Why has that language been included in the
> >Report, and what is it intended to accomplish??
> >
> >David
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >At 10:10 PM 11/30/2015, Silver, Bradley wrote:
> >>I disagree completely that the grandfathering of
> >>the provisions of the RAA and RA would
> >>automatically also grandfather any action that
> >>ICANN might take to enforce such agreements.
> >>ICANN's mission is defined first and foremost in
> >>the positive - and the bylaws begin from the
> >>proposition that anything ICANN does must be in
> >>conformity with that. The existing language says
> >>as much.  There is a difference between
> >>provisions relating to illegal activity, and the
> >>regulation of content, but given your motivation
> >>to accomplish "a belated overturning of an abuse
> >>of ICANN's power", I don't think I can convince you of that distinction.
> >>
> >>________________________________________
> >>From: David Post [david.g.post at gmail.com]
> >>Sent: Monday, November 30, 2015 7:04 PM
> >>To: Silver, Bradley
> >>Cc: Burr, Becky; Thomas Rickert; Accountability Cross Community
> >>Subject: RE: [CCWG-ACCT] Minority statements inclusion in report
> >>
> >>At 06:03 PM 11/30/2015, Silver, Bradley wrote:
> >>David,
> >>
> >>I am having some trouble understanding your
> >>examples below.  Is your concern with the
> >>grandfathering of the RAA that it would give
> >>ICANN total freedom in deciding how to respond
> >>to enforcing provisions like 3.18 ­ even such
> >>enforcement was clearly not consistent with its stated mission?
> >>
> >>Yes, that is a very, very serious concern.  I
> >>don't know if I'd say it gives ICANN "total
> >>freedom", but close to it.  If we're
> >>grandfathering in the agreements, then ICANN's
> >>actions to enforce the terms of the agreements
> >>could be seen as having been "grandfathered in"
> >>as well, and - as Becky's defamation example,
> >>and my fraud example, show - that would
> >>encompass many things that we would all agree (I
> >>think) are OUTSIDE the Mission.
> >>
> >>  Or do you believe that to the extent any
> >> enforcement by ICANN of provisions like 3.18
> >> that touch on illegal activity that implicates
> >> “contentâ€Â w would take such a provision
> >> outside the mission?   If it’s the latter,
> >> then it appears you are ae attempting to achieve a
> >> retrospective amendment of the RA and RAA ­ by
> >> redeffining “illegal activitytyâ€Â or
> >> “activity contrary to applicable law lawâ€Â to
> >> specifically exclude any activity which reelates
> >> to the content associated with the Registered Name. Â Â
> >>
> >>Yes, I believe this as well.  I thought we had
> >>widespread agreement on that.  To the extent
> >>enforcement by ICANN of provisions like 3.18
> >>touch on illegal activity that implicates
> >>content is outside the mission.  The Proposal
> >>clearly says:  "ICANN’s Mission does not include
> >>the regulation of services that use the Domain
> >>Name System or the regulation of the content
> >>these services carry or provide."  If
> >>enforcement of the the provision (again, like
> >>the defamation/fraud examples) touches on
> >>"illegal activity that implicates or relates to
> >>content, I do not believe that ICANN can impose
> >>obligations (directly or indirectly) on domain
> >>name holders with respect to that content.  The
> >>RAA ad the RA appear to allow them to do that -
> >>which is why we need to clarify that they're not "grandfathered" in.
> >>
> >>It's funny, because a few hours ago you wrote:
> >>
> >>BS:  I cannot imagine how anyone could force
> >>ICANN to interpret and enforce 3.18 or any other
> >>provision in a manner that doesnt comport with
> >>ICANN̢۪s mission, particularly since we have
> >>languaguage that says: ICANN shall act strictly in
> >>accordance with, and only as reasonably appropriate to achieve its
> >>Mission
> >>
> >>You couldn't imagine doing that - but that's
> >>exactly what you're now, no?  You seem to be
> >>saying that ICANN may, through provisions like
> >>3.18, deprive name holders of their registered
> >>names if their illegal activity implicates
> >>content - even though we have language that
> >>says, clearly (I thought), that ICANN may not regulate content.
> >>
> >>This is precisely what I am concerned with, and
> >>what I would hope we're all concerned
> >>with:  Using the existence of the
> >>(grandfathered) RA/RAA to allow ICANN to
> >>regulate content.  You are convincing me that
> >>this is what you intend with the "grandfather"
> >>language.  If I'm wrong about that, I'd be
> >>interested to know how I'm wrong and, as I asked
> >>earlier, what you think the "grandfather" language accomplishes.
> >>
> >>I don't think I'm proposing a "retrospective
> >>amendment" of the RA and the RAA - more like a
> >>belated overturning of an abuse of ICANN's monopoly power.
> >>
> >>I believe we need to insist on a Mission
> >>Statement that would negate any use of ICANN's
> >>monopoly power to impose an obligation on
> >>registrars to revoke domains based on
> >>allegations of illegal content.  Far from
> >>persuading me that my reading of the grandfather
> >>in" language is "absurd," you are persuading me
> >>that it is precisely what you (ad perhaps
> >>others) have in mind - which illustrates the need for clarification.
> >>
> >>David
> >>
> >>From:
> >>accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org
> >>[
> >>mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org]
> >>On Behalf Of David Post
> >>Sent: Monday, November 30, 2015 5:30 PM
> >>To: Burr, Becky
> >>Cc: NCSG-DISCUSS-LISTSERV.SYR.EDU; Thomas
> >>Rickert; Accountability Cross Community
> >>Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Minority statements inclusion in report
> >>
> >>At 01:55 PM 11/30/2015, Burr, Becky wrote:
> >>
> >>First, we discussed this on several calls (3 or 4), including the last.
> >>Second, on a more substantive note, it is
> >>completely absurd to suggest that grandfathering
> >>the language of existing contracts permits ICANN
> >>to enforce any contract term in any way it likes
> >>and to claim the protection of the picket fence
> >>forever going forward.  Simply put, the drafters
> >>are instructed to ensure that the provisions of
> >>existing contracts are enforceable by their
> >>terms.  As I said on this very topic recently:
> >>
> >>Beyond that, the language of 3.18 in question
> >>imposes obligations on registrars ­ maintain ann
> >>abuse point of contact, invesstigate allegations
> >>regarding illegal activities, take appropriate
> >>action, so I don’t think that amounounts to
> >>regulating registrstrants.  I also agree that there
> >>are situations in which illegal activity could
> >>impact the stability and security of the
> >>Internetâ€Ã¢Ã¢„¢s unique identifieriers (e.g.,
> >>particularly involving malicious DNS exploits,
> >>etc.), so the provision seems to me to be
> >>appropriate in furtherance of ICANN’â„¢s Mission.
>on.
> >>
> >>The problem, of course, is that not all illegal
> >>activity threatens the stability and security of
> >>the DNS; behavior that is illegal in some
> >>jurisdictions is not illegal in all
> >>jurisdictions;  and the legality/illegality of a
> >>particular activity is generally a determination
> >>left to sovereigns or courts.  So, what
> >>constitutes an “ approropriate responseâ€Ã‚
>‚
> >>is going to vary from case to case.
> >>Theoretically, ICANN could choose to enforce the
> >>requirement in a manner that exceeded the scope
> >>of its authority, e.g., it could begin to say
> >>that registrars who do not suspend registrations
> >>in response to allegations that an underlying
> >>site is defamatory are in breach.  But I think
> >>3.18 itself is a legitimate contract provision
> >>that ICANN should be able to enforce.
> >>
> >>But that's the problem, right there.  You say
> >>that if ICANN "exceeds the scope of its
> >>authority" if it "begins to say that registrars
> >>who do not suspend registrations in response to
> >>allegations that an underlying site is defamatory are in breach."
> >>
> >>But why is it so obvious that this exceeds the
> >>scope of its authority?  You will say:  because
> >>we have said elsewhere that ICANN shall not
> >>regulate content, and this regulates content.
> >>
> >>But it is not far-fetched for someone to suggest
> >>that the "grandfathering" language modifies
> >>that, and was included precisely to make it
> >>clear that enforcing the provisions of existing
> >>agreements is WITHIN ICANN's authority.  Under
> >>existing agreements, Registrars are already
> >>obligated to provide "consequences ... including
> >>suspension of domain name registrations" for
> >>"activities contrary to applicable
> >>law."  Defamation is an "activity contrary to
> >>applicable law."  Suspending registrations in
> >>response to allegations that an underlying site
> >>is defamatory is thus within the scope of
> >>(existing) agreements.  If those agreements are
> >>grandfathered in, it looks to me like we're
> >>saying that when ICANN acts as it is authorized
> >>to do within the existing agreements, it is
> >>acting within the scope of its authority.
> >>
> >>David
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>J. Beckwith Burr
> >>Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer
> >>1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006
> >>Office: +1.202.533.2932  Mobile: +1.202.352.6367
> >>/ neustar.biz<http://www.neustar.biz>
> >>
> >>From: David Post <david.g.post at gmail.com<mailto:david.g.post at gmail.com> >
> >>Date: Monday, November 30, 2015 at 1:32 PM
> >>To: Accountability Community <
> >>accountability-cross-community at icann.org<mailt 
> o:accountability-cross-comm>>unity at icann.org>>
> >>Cc: "NCSG-DISCUSS-LISTSERV.SYR.EDU" <
> >>NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU<mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU>>,
> >>Thomas Rickert
> >><thomas at rickert.net<mailto:thomas at rickert.net>>,
> >>Accountability Community <
> >>accountability-cross-community at icann.org<mailt 
> o:accountability-cross-comm>>unity at icann.org>>
> >>Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Minority statements inclusion in report
> >>
> >>
> >>The current Proposal (Annex 5 para 21) states in
> >>a "Note":  "For the avoidance of uncertainty,
> >>the language of existing registry agreements and
> >>registrar accreditation agreements should be grandfathered."
> >>
> >>I don't believe any of the previous circulated
> >>drafts contained this language, and in my
> >>opinion it represents a very serious, and very
> >>substantial, step backwards in this process.
> >>
> >>To begin with, it is not clear what
> >>"grandfathering" these agreements mean.  One
> >>possible implication is that everything within
> >>the existing agreements is within ICANN's
> >>Mission - or to put it differently, that the
> >>language of the Mission Statement should be
> >>interpreted in a manner such that all provisions
> >>of the existing agreements are inside the
> >>"picket fence" of ICANN's enumerated powers. The
> >>opposite implication is possible, too - that
> >>there are elements of the existing agreements
> >>that are NOT within the Mission, but which are
> >>nonetheless being "grandfathered" in so that
> >>they will not be invalidated in the future
> >>(notwithstanding their inconsistency with the Mission).
> >>
> >>I believe that the former interpretation may be
> >>the one that is intended - and I strongly
> >>disagree with that, and strongly dissent. The
> >>existing agreements contain a number of
> >>provisions that are outside the scope of ICANN's
> >>powers as we have defined it in the Mission
> >>Statement.  One most prominent example:  In
> >>Specification 1 of the new gTLD Registry
> >>Agreement, Registry operators agree to a set of
> >>mandatory "public interest commitments" - PICs -
> >>and to adhere to "any remedies ICANN imposes
> >>(which may include any reasonable remedy,
> >>including for the avoidance of doubt, the
> >>termination of the Registry Agreement pursuant
> >>to Section 4.3(e) of the Agreement) following a
> >>determination by any PICDRP panel and to be bound by any such
> >>determination."
> >>
> >>Among the mandatory PICs, the Registry operator
> >>must "include a provision in its
> >>Registry-Registrar Agreement that requires
> >>Registrars to include in their Registration
> >>Agreements a provision prohibiting Registered
> >>Name Holders from ... engaging in activity
> >>contrary to applicable law, and providing
> >>(consistent with applicable law and any related
> >>procedures) consequences for such activities
> >>including suspension of the domain name."
> >>
> >>Prohibiting domain name holders from "engaging
> >>in activity contrary to applicable law" is NOT
> >>within ICANN's scope as defined in the Mission
> >>Statement.  It is neither a matter "for which
> >>uniform or coordinated resolution is reasonably
> >>necessary to facilitate the openness,
> >>interoperability, resilience, security and/or
> >>stability of the DNS," nor was it "developed
> >>through a bottom-up, consensus-based
> >>multi-stakeholder process and designed to ensure
> >>the stable and secure operation of the Internet’s uniqueque names
> >>systems."
> >>
> >>ICANN sh should not have the power to revoke, or to
> >>impose on others the requirement that they
> >>revoke, anyone's continued use of a domain name
> >>because they have "engaged in activity contrary
> >>to applicable law."  Such a provision would
> >>appear to allow ICANN to do what is, elsewhere,
> >>flatly prohibited: to impose regulations on
> >>content.  Activity contrary to applicable law
> >>includes activity that (a) violates consumer
> >>protection law, (b) infringes copyright, (c)
> >>violates anti-fraud laws, (d) infringes
> >>trademarks, (e) violates relevant banking or
> >>securities laws, etc. etc. etc.  At best, this
> >>provision is flatly inconsistent with the
> >>prohibition against regulating content.  At
> >>worst, it can be interpreted to provide an
> >>"exception" to that prohibition - an exception
> >>that will swallow up the prohibition in its entirety.
> >>
> >>David
> >>
> >>At 10:53 AM 11/30/2015, Mueller, Milton L wrote:
> >>
> >>FWIW, Robin’s ds dissent nt is fully in line
> >>with th the official comments submitted by the
> >>Noncommercial Stakeholders Group during the last public comment period.
> >>--MM
> >>
> >>From:
> >>accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.o 
> rg<mailto:accountability-cr>>oss-community-bounces at icann.org>
> >>[
> >>mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org]
> >>On Behalf Of Robin Gross
> >>Sent: Sunday, November 29, 2015 6:41 PM
> >>To: Thomas Rickert
> >>Cc:
> >>accountability-cross-community at icann.org<mailt 
> o:accountability-cross-comm>>unity at icann.org>
> >>Community
> >>Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Minority statements inclusion in report
> >>
> >>Thanks, Thomas.  See below.
> >>
> >>Dissenting Opinion of Member Robin Gross (GNSO-NSCG)
> >>
> >>The CCWG-Accountability make a number of helpful
> >>recommendations to improve organizational
> >>accountability at ICANN, however one aspect of
> >>the plan is deeply flawed: changing the role of
> >>ICANN's Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC)
> >>from purely an “advisory⢀ role to a
> >>†⬠ââ⢂¬œdecision makingâ€Ã‚
> >>role over fundadamentaental matterers at ICANN,
> >>including its governance.  Consequently the
> >>proposal marginalizes the role of Supporting
> >>Organizations (SO’s) comparedred to
> >>todaoday’s ICANN goveNN governance
> >
> >>structure.  p; The degree of governmental
> >>empowerment over ICANN resulting from the
> >>proposal’s„¢s cs community mechanhanism is
> >>dangerous to the success of the proposalâ€Â¬™s
> >>political acceptancence as well as to its
> >>ultultimatte impact on a free and open Internet.
> >>
> >>The creation of a community mechanism to hold
> >>ICANN accountable on key issues made a critical
> >>error by departing from the existing power
> >>balance between SO’â„¢s and nd ACâ€Ã‚¢€™s as
> >>determined by relative boardard
> >>appointmentts.ts.  Instead, the proposed
> >>community mechanism elevates the AC’s
> >>relative to thethe SO̢۪s compared wpared
> >>with today’s b¬„¢s b‰„¢s balance on ICANN's
> >>board of directors,rs, whiich does not currently
> >>provide a decision making role to GAC, and which
> >>retains the primacy of the Supporting
> >>Organizations on key decisions, particularly
> >>those within the SO’s mandate.   The
> >>devaluinging of tf tf the Supporting Organizations
> >>in ICANN’s key dy decisiosions was a common
> >>theme in botboth previous public comment periods,
> >>however the recommendations not only failed to
> >>address this widespread concern, but went even
> >>further in devaluing SO’s in the
> >>communitnity mechanism in the 3r 3rd
> >>rreport.  The community mechanism failed to take
> >>into account the appropriate roles and
> >>responsibilities of the various SO’â„¢s and
> >>ACâ€â„¢€™s, and the dangers angers inherent it in
> >>changing those roles with a “one sizeze
> >>fitsts allâ€Ã‚ approach to critical decision makingg.
> >>
> >>>Additionally, I object to the proposed departure
> >>from ICANN’s typical 30-day pubpublublic
> >>commomment period on the 3rd report for
> >>CCWG-Accountability.  The 3rd report’s
> >>public commomment only ly allallows for 9 days of
> >>public comment after the language translations
> >>are scheduled to be published, which is far too
> >>short of a public comment period for a report of
> >>this significance and with so many important changes since previous
> >>drafts.
> >>
> >>Robin Gross
> >>
> >>On Nov 29, 2015, at 1:29 PM, Thomas Rickert
> >><thomas at rickert.net<mailto:thomas at rickert.net>> wrote:
> >>
> >>Dear Robin,
> >>as discussed during the last CCWG call, minority
> >>statements will be included in the report as
> >>appendices if and when they are received.
> >>
> >>Best,
> >>Thomas
> >>
> >>---
> >>rickert.net<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/ 
> v2/url?u=http-3A__rickert.n>>et_&d=CwMFAw&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahO
> >>P8WDDkMr4k&m=Qv0jYqBGBpDcX5hfJBnWctfriZdKXCzPTTlEhjSanvQ&s=9_5YAupJwVm6qd
> >>9FYkcvB50XsN6XMpB3eFmtm-kYBKI&e=>
> >>
> >>Am 29.11.2015 um 21:37 schrieb Robin Gross
> >><robin at ipjustice.org<mailto:robin at ipjustice.org>>:
> >>Dear Co-Chairs,
> >>I have still not received a response to this
> >>request.  What is the process for submitting
> >>minority statements?  Please advise.
> >>Thanks,
> >>Robin
> >>
> >>
> >>On Nov 11, 2015, at 5:35 PM, Robin Gross
> >><robin at ipjustice.org<mailto:robin at ipjustice.org>> wrote:
> >>
> >>Dear Co-Chairs,
> >>
> >>Could you please advise on the proposed schedule
> >>and process for ensuring that minority
> >>statements will be included in the report [of the executive summary]?
> >>
> >>Thank you,
> >>Robin
> >>_______________________________________________
> >>Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> >>Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org<mailt 
> o:Accountability-Cross-Comm>>unity at icann.org>
> >>https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman
> >>_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIFAw&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_
> >>lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=Ga84YD1sKBy_FJcMc2x
> >>r3-XYk0T3WQk2nZJMKkpAPb8&s=i6nC2zqhagaCM9LBEF9FSM9OQUGbtgjhWtJn0SZDlC0&e=
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>_______________________________________________
> >>Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> >>Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org<mailt 
> o:Accountability-Cross-Comm>>unity at icann.org>
> >>https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman
> >>_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIFAw&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_
> >>lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=Ga84YD1sKBy_FJcMc2x
> >>r3-XYk0T3WQk2nZJMKkpAPb8&s=i6nC2zqhagaCM9LBEF9FSM9OQUGbtgjhWtJn0SZDlC0&e=
> >>
> >>
> >>*******************************
> >>David G Post - Senior Fellow, Open Technology Institute/New America
> >>Foundation
> >>blog (Volokh Conspiracy)
> >>https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.washingtonpost.co
> >>m_people_david-2Dpost&d=CwIFAw&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GR
> >>laq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=Ga84YD1sKBy_FJcMc2xr3-XYk0T3WQk2nZJMKkpAPb
> >>8&s=Fl1398TNk9xv47A5Y-YQRUuFgu3qo_-RqygBmBz0HGc&e=
> >>book (Jefferson's
> >>Moose)
> >>https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__tinyurl.com_c327w2n&d
> >>=CwIFAw&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDD
> >>kMr4k&m=Ga84YD1sKBy_FJcMc2xr3-XYk0T3WQk2nZJMKkpAPb8&s=_Q0ymYbtXLty3FhQE0R
> >>wADIX_JhqTa-NNV50Mv33Lok&e=
> >><https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=ht 
> tp-3A__tinyurl.com_c327w2n->>25A0-25A0-25A0-25A0&d=CwIFAw&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRla
> >>q8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=Ga84YD1sKBy_FJcMc2xr3-XYk0T3WQk2nZJMKkpAPb8&
> >>s=zDK4wmFn0ax2X4_X2uKnRltWXUgu0pnCEALSAlFjb8s&e= >
> >>music
> >>https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__tinyurl.com_davidpost
> >>music&d=CwIFAw&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYa
> >>hOP8WDDkMr4k&m=Ga84YD1sKBy_FJcMc2xr3-XYk0T3WQk2nZJMKkpAPb8&s=ZHsu2Q-waQF0
> >>0_YQQFgDLVgz72r_-yK6t9pTT_XMtQY&e=
> >>publications
> >>etc.
> >>https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.davidpost.com&d=C
> >>wIFAw&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkM
> >>r4k&m=Ga84YD1sKBy_FJcMc2xr3-XYk0T3WQk2nZJMKkpAPb8&s=G_LegHshfen4oqknas8mh
> >>5SMoa7Tql5Pd3ih81h4C7s&e=
> >><https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=ht 
> tp-3A__www.davidpost.com-25>>20-2520-2520-2520-2520-2520_&d=CwIFAw&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOif
> >>zm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=Ga84YD1sKBy_FJcMc2xr3-XYk0T3WQk2nZJ
> >>MKkpAPb8&s=TGSxs1qk0jwLWs_iygOCt836Tu0uITFZ30KYceCmceI&e= >
> >>*******************************
> >>
> >>*******************************
> >>David G Post - Senior Fellow, Open Technology Institute/New America
> >>Foundation
> >>blog (Volokh Conspiracy)
> >>https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.washingtonpost.co
> >>m_people_david-2Dpost&d=CwIFAw&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GR
> >>laq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=Ga84YD1sKBy_FJcMc2xr3-XYk0T3WQk2nZJMKkpAPb
> >>8&s=Fl1398TNk9xv47A5Y-YQRUuFgu3qo_-RqygBmBz0HGc&e=
> >>book (Jefferson's
> >>Moose)
> >>https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__tinyurl.com_c327w2n&d
> >>=CwIFAw&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDD
> >>kMr4k&m=Ga84YD1sKBy_FJcMc2xr3-XYk0T3WQk2nZJMKkpAPb8&s=_Q0ymYbtXLty3FhQE0R
> >>wADIX_JhqTa-NNV50Mv33Lok&e=
> >><https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=ht 
> tp-3A__tinyurl.com_c327w2n->>25A0-25A0-25A0-25A0-25A0-25A0-25A0&d=CwIFAw&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62
> >>cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=Ga84YD1sKBy_FJcMc2xr3-XYk0T3W
> >>Qk2nZJMKkpAPb8&s=zYDKrXjxzRqrC1rhH5SU9Ai0oXotrvB3O6Fa6KDPDqE&e= >
> >>music
> >>https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__tinyurl.com_davidpost
> >>music&d=CwIFAw&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYa
> >>hOP8WDDkMr4k&m=Ga84YD1sKBy_FJcMc2xr3-XYk0T3WQk2nZJMKkpAPb8&s=ZHsu2Q-waQF0
> >>0_YQQFgDLVgz72r_-yK6t9pTT_XMtQY&e=
> >><https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=ht 
> tp-3A__tinyurl.com_davidpos>>tmusic-25A0&d=CwIFAw&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjD
> >>mrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=Ga84YD1sKBy_FJcMc2xr3-XYk0T3WQk2nZJMKkpAPb8&s=tnyTbh
> >>98_SfTnibYSgcu8W0LrUDJhGb82zCoV9lMc_w&e= >
> >>publications
> >>etc.
> >>https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.davidpost.com&d=C
> >>wIFAw&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkM
> >>r4k&m=Ga84YD1sKBy_FJcMc2xr3-XYk0T3WQk2nZJMKkpAPb8&s=G_LegHshfen4oqknas8mh
> >>5SMoa7Tql5Pd3ih81h4C7s&e=
> >><https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=ht 
> tp-3A__www.davidpost.com-25>>20-2520-2520-2520-2520-2520-2520-2520-2520_&d=CwIFAw&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_l
> >>ULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=Ga84YD1sKBy_FJcMc2xr
> >>3-XYk0T3WQk2nZJMKkpAPb8&s=aklCJk-vM6YpEIvurhyChV169C0rSqmp_HYqW8c97y0&e=
> >>>
> >>*******************************
> >>
> >>=================================================================
> >>Reminder: Any email that requests your login
> >>credentials or that asks you to click on a link
> >>could be a phishing attack.  If you have any
> >>questions regarding the authenticity of this
> >>email or its sender, please contact the IT
> >>Service Desk at 212.484.6000 or via email at
> >>ITServices at timewarner.com<mailto:ITServices at timewarner.com>
> >>
> >>
> >>=================================================================
> >>
> >>=================================================================This
> >>message is the property of Time Warner Inc. and
> >>is intended only for the use of theaddressee(s)
> >>and may be legally privileged and/or
> >>confidential. If the reader of this messageis
> >>not the intended recipient, or the employee or
> >>agent responsible to deliver it to the
> >>intendedrecipient, he or she is hereby notified
> >>that any dissemination, distribution, printing,
> >>forwarding,or any method of copying of this
> >>information, and/or the taking of any action in
> >>reliance onthe information herein is strictly
> >>prohibited except by the intended recipient or
> >>those to whomhe or she intentionally distributes
> >>this message. If you have received this
> >>communication inerror, please immediately notify
> >>the sender, and delete the original message and
> >>any copiesfrom your computer or storage system.
> >>Thank
> >>you.=================================================================
> >>
> >>*******************************
> >>David G Post - Senior Fellow, Open Technology Institute/New America
> >>Foundation
> >>blog (Volokh Conspiracy)
> >>https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.washingtonpost.co
> >>m_people_david-2Dpost&d=CwIFAw&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GR
> >>laq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=Ga84YD1sKBy_FJcMc2xr3-XYk0T3WQk2nZJMKkpAPb
> >>8&s=Fl1398TNk9xv47A5Y-YQRUuFgu3qo_-RqygBmBz0HGc&e=
> >>book (Jefferson's
> >>Moose)
> >>https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__tinyurl.com_c327w2n&d
> >>=CwIFAw&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDD
> >>kMr4k&m=Ga84YD1sKBy_FJcMc2xr3-XYk0T3WQk2nZJMKkpAPb8&s=_Q0ymYbtXLty3FhQE0R
> >>wADIX_JhqTa-NNV50Mv33Lok&e=
> >><https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=ht 
> tp-3A__tinyurl.com_c327w2n->>25A0-25A0-25A0-25A0-25A0-25A0-25A0&d=CwIFAw&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62
> >>cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=Ga84YD1sKBy_FJcMc2xr3-XYk0T3W
> >>Qk2nZJMKkpAPb8&s=zYDKrXjxzRqrC1rhH5SU9Ai0oXotrvB3O6Fa6KDPDqE&e= >
> >>music
> >>https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__tinyurl.com_davidpost
> >>music&d=CwIFAw&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYa
> >>hOP8WDDkMr4k&m=Ga84YD1sKBy_FJcMc2xr3-XYk0T3WQk2nZJMKkpAPb8&s=ZHsu2Q-waQF0
> >>0_YQQFgDLVgz72r_-yK6t9pTT_XMtQY&e=
> >><https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=ht 
> tp-3A__tinyurl.com_davidpos>>tmusic-25A0&d=CwIFAw&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjD
> >>mrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=Ga84YD1sKBy_FJcMc2xr3-XYk0T3WQk2nZJMKkpAPb8&s=tnyTbh
> >>98_SfTnibYSgcu8W0LrUDJhGb82zCoV9lMc_w&e= >
> >>publications
> >>etc.
> >>https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.davidpost.com&d=C
> >>wIFAw&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkM
> >>r4k&m=Ga84YD1sKBy_FJcMc2xr3-XYk0T3WQk2nZJMKkpAPb8&s=G_LegHshfen4oqknas8mh
> >>5SMoa7Tql5Pd3ih81h4C7s&e=
> >><https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=ht 
> tp-3A__www.davidpost.com-25>>20-2520-2520-2520-2520-2520-2520-2520-2520_&d=CwIFAw&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_l
> >>ULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=Ga84YD1sKBy_FJcMc2xr
> >>3-XYk0T3WQk2nZJMKkpAPb8&s=aklCJk-vM6YpEIvurhyChV169C0rSqmp_HYqW8c97y0&e=
> >>>
> >>*******************************
> >>
> >>=================================================================
> >>Reminder: Any email that requests your login
> >>credentials or that asks you to click on a link
> >>could be a phishing attack.  If you have any
> >>questions regarding the authenticity of this
> >>email or its sender, please contact the IT
> >>Service Desk at 212.484.6000 or via email at
> >>ITServices at timewarner.com<mailto:ITServices at timewarner.com>
> >>=================================================================
> >
> >*******************************
> >David G Post - Senior Fellow, Open Technology Institute/New America
> >Foundation
> >blog (Volokh Conspiracy)
> >https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.washingtonpost.com
> >_people_david-2Dpost&d=CwIFAw&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRla
> >q8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=Ga84YD1sKBy_FJcMc2xr3-XYk0T3WQk2nZJMKkpAPb8&s
> >=Fl1398TNk9xv47A5Y-YQRUuFgu3qo_-RqygBmBz0HGc&e=
> >book (Jefferson's Moose)
> >https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__tinyurl.com_c327w2n&d=
> >CwIFAw&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkM
> >r4k&m=Ga84YD1sKBy_FJcMc2xr3-XYk0T3WQk2nZJMKkpAPb8&s=_Q0ymYbtXLty3FhQE0RwAD
> >IX_JhqTa-NNV50Mv33Lok&e=
> >music
> >https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__tinyurl.com_davidpostm
> >usic&d=CwIFAw&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahO
> >P8WDDkMr4k&m=Ga84YD1sKBy_FJcMc2xr3-XYk0T3WQk2nZJMKkpAPb8&s=ZHsu2Q-waQF00_Y
> >QQFgDLVgz72r_-yK6t9pTT_XMtQY&e=
> >publications etc.
> >https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.davidpost.com&d=Cw
> >IFAw&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4
> >k&m=Ga84YD1sKBy_FJcMc2xr3-XYk0T3WQk2nZJMKkpAPb8&s=G_LegHshfen4oqknas8mh5SM
> >oa7Tql5Pd3ih81h4C7s&e=
> >*******************************
> >

*******************************
David G Post - Senior Fellow, Open Technology Institute/New America Foundation
blog (Volokh Conspiracy) http://www.washingtonpost.com/people/david-post
book (Jefferson's Moose)  http://tinyurl.com/c327w2n
music http://tinyurl.com/davidpostmusic 
publications etc.  http://www.davidpost.com
*******************************