[CCWG-ACCT] Responses to questions from Jones Day

Chris Disspain ceo at auda.org.au
Tue Feb 10 06:19:08 UTC 2015 

> If you do insist on going this route, please make sure that the funds pass through an independent third party, and insist on a full log of calls, meetings and interactions as a condition.


Why?


Cheers,

Chris

On 10 Feb 2015, at 16:54 , Kieren McCarthy <kierenmccarthy at gmail.com> wrote:

> I'm really not sure what to make of these responses. 
> 
> They describe a very pleasant world but it's not one that I recognize in ICANN's internal culture. It is really striking to me that there continues to be such a gulf between how people think the organization works and what really happens.
> 
> Needless to say, I think having ICANN pay for legal advice that is likely to contradict its own lawyers' advice on a topic that is of supreme importance to the organization is, at best, foolish.
> 
> And that's not accounting for how bad it looks externally. Any congressional aide or journalist looking at such an arrangement would immediately call into question its validity. And the man in the street would agree.
> 
> If you do insist on going this route, please make sure that the funds pass through an independent third party, and insist on a full log of calls, meetings and interactions as a condition.
> 
> 
> Kieren
> 
> 
> -
> [sent through phone]
> 
> 
> On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 6:56 PM, Beran Gillen - Yahoo <berangillen at yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
> Couldn't have said it better Avri, we are in the driving seat. Who pays for it should have no influence on what is being done or who does it. 
> 
> Regards 
> 
> Beran 
> 
> "There is nothing more difficult to arrange and more dangerous to carry through than initiating change..." Machiavelli 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
> On 10 Feb 2015, at 10:32, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> I tend to agree if we are the customer and that is made clear, it does not matter who pays the bill.
>> 
>> Just like when the state pays for my legal defender i expect them to serve my interests.  
>> 
>> avri
>> 
>> On 10-Feb-15 09:42, Chris Disspain wrote:
>>> All,
>>> 
>>> I can feel a slippery slope ahead. Whoever pays ‘influences’? Surely not. Lawyers are perfectly capable of providing independent advice on law. Where there are several possibilities they are perfectly capable of laying them out. What you don’t want is rhetoric or too much advice. In other words you don’t want the lawyers to say you can do a) or b) but WE prefer a). A law firm will respond to the specific instructions they receive. They have an obligation to do so. 
>>> 
>>> The danger is that anyone who doesn’t like the advice will claim it is skewed in favour of X or Y. If that's then case I suggest each group goes and gets its own advice and then we share notes. 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Cheers,
>>> 
>>> Chris (a lawyer)
>>> 
>>> On 10 Feb 2015, at 12:27 , Roelof Meijer <Roelof.Meijer at sidn.nl> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> I am not a suspicious guy and could live with ICANN paying the bill. However, due to the fact that we need the whole community to have trust in the expert (legal) advice we use as a working group, I am in favor of another solution than ICANN paying the bill.
>>>> 
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> 
>>>> Roelof
>>>> 
>>>> From: Jordan Carter <jordan at internetnz.net.nz>
>>>> Date: dinsdag 10 februari 2015 09:20
>>>> To: Kieren McCarthy <kieren at kierenmccarthy.com>
>>>> Cc: Lisse Eberhard <directors at omadhina.net>, CCWG Accountability <accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
>>>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Responses to questions from Jones Day
>>>> 
>>>> Kieran, all:
>>>> 
>>>> Do you think the payment issue outranks the fact that this CCWG's team doing legal will be the effective client? That is, do you think the CCWG can rely on advice that it briefs out and manages the relationships for, regardless of who ends up paying the bill?
>>>> 
>>>> I am not a lawyer but your last point seems important to me.
>>>> 
>>>> best,
>>>> Jordan
>>>> 
>>>> On 10 February 2015 at 02:25, Kieren McCarthy <kieren at kierenmccarthy.com> wrote:
>>>>> I can't for the life of me understand why this group is prepared to accept ICANN paying for external legal advice on a topic of the highest possible interest to ICANN.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Considering the importance of this topic, I am pretty sure that the various internet organizations who depend so heavily on ICANN would be willing to pay into a fund to cover independent legal advice. 
>>>>> 
>>>>> I also think it would be advisable for whoever is contracted to provide this advice to be obligated to report any and all approaches and conversations with third parties in order to limit the opportunity for behind-the-scenes influencing. 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Kieren
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Sun, Feb 8, 2015 at 1:14 AM, Phil Corwin <psc at vlaw-dc.com> wrote:
>>>>>> +1. ICANN has tripled its staff in 2.5 years. Surely it can provide the resources that this CCWG needs to retain independent legal advice.  Until it does this CCWG should be in a holding pattern and if that delays the transition so be it.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal
>>>>>> Virtualaw LLC
>>>>>> 1155 F Street, NW
>>>>>> Suite 1050
>>>>>> Washington, DC 20004
>>>>>> 202-559-8597/Direct
>>>>>> 202-559-8750/Fax
>>>>>> 202-255-6172/Cell
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Twitter: @VLawDC
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Sent from my iPad
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> > On Feb 8, 2015, at 5:08 PM, Matthew Shears <mshears at cdt.org> wrote:
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > Completely agree:
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > I'd really like to see ICANN demonstrate it is as concerned with helping the CCWG secure our independent legal resources "in the most efficient and cost-effective manner" as it was in sharing its own views and positions.
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > Matthew
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >> On 2/8/2015 9:03 AM, Drazek, Keith wrote:
>>>>>> >> Hi all,
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> If everyone recognizes the Jones Day submission as input/advocacy from an interested party and not legal advice to the CCWG, and that it carries no greater weight than our yet-to-be-received independent advice, I have no idea what with ICANN putting its cards on the table.
>>>>>> >> I'm
>>>>>> >> Despite the appearance of an attempt to influence the discussion through first-mover advantage, this could help us identify early conflicts of opinion and identify                                             where we need to focus our energies.
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> That said, I'd really like to see ICANN demonstrate it is as concerned with helping the CCWG secure our independent legal resources "in the most efficient and cost-effective manner" as it was in sharing its own views and positions.
>>>>>> >> I'm at a
>>>>>> >> It appears there was more urgency for the latter.
>>>>>> >> I'm
>>>>>> >> Regards,
>>>>>> >> Keith
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> Sent from my iPhone
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >>> On Feb 8, 2015, at 4:25 PM, Edward Morris <egmorris1 at toast.net> wrote:
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> >>> One of the reasons many of us opposed inclusion of ICANN staff members as participants in the accountability and transition working groups, is that disagreement with staff positions  could prove problematic for those opposing ICANN positions. As a sitting member of the GNSO Council, elected by my community, I would suggest Samantha that you, as an ICANN staff member, are not tasked with determining what is and is not an acceptable opinion or post on this list.
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> >>> For the record, despite your assertion, I have not seen anyone declare the Jones Day opinion "incompetent". I certainly have not. I will, however, repeat my claim: it is a one sided document that uses legal opinion to support the known preferences of a interested party (ICANN). It is not a neutral opinion that we as community members can rely upon in making our decisions. I look forward to receiving one so I can discharge my responsibility in helping your employer, Samantha, meet it's obligations to the both community and to the N.T.I.A.
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> >>> Edward Morris
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> >>> Sent from my iPad
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> >>>> On Feb 8, 2015, at 7:40 AM, Samantha Eisner <Samantha.Eisner at icann.org> wrote:
>>>>>> >>>>
>>>>>> >>>> Kevin, a skilled attorney in California corporate structures as well as
>>>>>> >>>> governance issues, provided these responses to the CCWG questions as a
>>>>>> >>>> mode of giving input into the process.  Kevin has just arrived here in
>>>>>> >>>> Singapore and will be available to discuss these answers; if modifications
>>>>>> >>>> or clarifications are needed, they can be provided.  These responses, many
>>>>>> >>>> of which provide a transparent view on advice or positions that ICANN has
>>>>>> >>>> taken in the past on these issues, are being provided to help narrow and
>>>>>> >>>> clarify the issues for which external advice may be sought.  From the
>>>>>> >>>> ICANN side, we are very interested in making sure that the CCWG gets the
>>>>>> >>>> input that it needs and in the most efficient and cost-effective manner;
>>>>>> >>>> ICANN’s transparency on this issue will allow for other counsel to be able
>>>>>> >>>> to provide advice in a  quicker, more timely manner.
>>>>>> >>>>
>>>>>> >>>> As we go down the legal advice path, each of us are likely to see answers
>>>>>> >>>> that we may not agree with; while we do not have to accept positions with
>>>>>> >>>> which we take issue, we do need to afford the appropriate respect to those
>>>>>> >>>> providing responses.  Suggestions of “incompetence” are not acceptable.
>>>>>> >>>>
>>>>>> >>>>
>>>>>> >>>>> On 2/8/15, 2:06 PM, "Edward Morris" <egmorris1 at toast.net> wrote:
>>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>>> >>>>> I agree Becky. This work product is pure advocacy that ignores
>>>>>> >>>>> substantial portions of the statutes it claims to explain. It's actually
>>>>>> >>>>> quite remarkable in that way.
>>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>>> >>>>> I only hope we are able to retain competent independent legal consultant
>>>>>> >>>>> to guide us in this work. I would classify the Jones Day document as no
>>>>>> >>>>> more than the representation of a  policy position of an interested party
>>>>>> >>>>> drafted by an attorney , not as anything I'd consider valid legal advice.
>>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>>> >>>>> Sent from my iPad
>>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>>> >>>>>> On Feb 8, 2015, at 5:03 AM, Burr, Becky <Becky.Burr at neustar.biz> wrote:
>>>>>> >>>>>>
>>>>>> >>>>>> The questions and answers are interesting as advocacy but cannot be
>>>>>> >>>>>> considered legal advice for our work
>>>>>> >>>>>>
>>>>>> >>>>>> Sent from my iPad
>>>>>> >>>>>>
>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Feb 8, 2015, at 12:19 PM, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía
>>>>>> >>>>>>> <leonfelipe at sanchez.mx> wrote:
>>>>>> >>>>>>>
>>>>>> >>>>>>> Dear all,
>>>>>> >>>>>>>
>>>>>> >>>>>>> Answering your questions:
>>>>>> >>>>>>>
>>>>>> >>>>>>> Keith.- The questions were presented by the Co-Chairs at our Frankfut
>>>>>> >>>>>>> meeting as a high-level first approach to what we should be focusing on
>>>>>> >>>>>>> achieving. They were also discussed at the CCWG call of January 27.  We
>>>>>> >>>>>>> then asked Staff to pass the questions through ICANN legal so they
>>>>>> >>>>>>> referred this questions to Jones Day. The document are the responses
>>>>>> >>>>>>> prepared by Kevin Espinola of Jones Day.  The goal was to get a very
>>>>>> >>>>>>> rapid
>>>>>> >>>>>>> response on some basic questions the group wanted answers on.
>>>>>> >>>>>>>
>>>>>> >>>>>>> Jordan.- I believe Adam has clarified where the questions came from and
>>>>>> >>>>>>> how they got into Jones Day for response which is in line with what I
>>>>>> >>>>>>> have
>>>>>> >>>>>>> replied to Keith.
>>>>>> >>>>>>>
>>>>>> >>>>>>> Phil.- Nobody said this was the advice we are taking. Please see this
>>>>>> >>>>>>> document as one more input document tat will feed our work, just as the
>>>>>> >>>>>>> CWG legal document has fed it. This is NOT intended to be taken as the
>>>>>> >>>>>>> legal advice we¹re looking for although in the end it might (or might
>>>>>> >>>>>>> not)
>>>>>> >>>>>>> be compatible with what we need.
>>>>>> >>>>>>>
>>>>>> >>>>>>> I hope this clarifies the doubts and concerns raised so far.
>>>>>> >>>>>>>
>>>>>> >>>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>> >>>>>>>
>>>>>> >>>>>>>
>>>>>> >>>>>>>
>>>>>> >>>>>>> León
>>>>>> >>>>>>>
>>>>>> >>>>>>>> El 08/02/2015, a las 12:05, Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el at lisse.NA>
>>>>>> >>>>>>>> escribió:
>>>>>> >>>>>>>>
>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Phil,
>>>>>> >>>>>>>>
>>>>>> >>>>>>>> opinions of dependent lawyers are as interesting as the ones of
>>>>>> >>>>>>>> independent ones :-)-O
>>>>>> >>>>>>>>
>>>>>> >>>>>>>> el
>>>>>> >>>>>>>>
>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 2015-02-08 11:48 , Jordan Carter wrote:
>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Phil, yes - the CCWG agreed with that in Frankfurt. It was felt it
>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> might
>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> be helpful to understand the view of the company and its
>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> representatives
>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> as well as an independent view, if I recall correctly.
>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Jordan
>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>
>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 8 February 2015 at 11:36, Phil Corwin <psc at vlaw-dc.com
>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> <mailto:psc at vlaw-dc.com>> wrote:
>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>
>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Jones Day cannot be regarded as an objective and neutral source of
>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> legal advice or opinions on anything related to ICANN. Indeed, any
>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> statement made by Jones Day must be regarded as the views of ICANN,
>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> its long-standing client.
>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>
>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone.
>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>
>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal
>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Virtualaw LLC
>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 1155 F Street, NW. Suite 1050
>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Washington, DC 20004
>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 202-559-8597/Direct
>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 202-559-8750/Fax
>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 202-255-6172/Cell
>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Twitter: @VLawDC
>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>
>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey
>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> *From: *Drazek, Keith
>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> *Sent: *Sunday, February 8, 2015 11:14 AM
>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> *To: *León Felipe Sánchez Ambía
>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> *Cc: *CCWG Accountability
>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> *Subject: *Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Responses to questions from Jones Day
>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>
>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>
>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Leon,
>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>
>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Do I understand you correctly that Jones Day developed both the
>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> questions and the answers? Did the CCWG request this?
>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>
>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Keith
>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>
>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>
>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Feb 8, 2015, at 10:18 AM, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía
>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> <leonfelipe at sanchez.mx <mailto:leonfelipe at sanchez.mx>> wrote:
>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>
>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Dear all,
>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Please find attached the responses from Jones Day for questions
>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> prepared by Kevin Espinola. I would like to ask you to please
>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> review the document so we can further discuss it in our session
>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> tomorrow.
>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I would also like to remind the group that this is a first step
>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> which runs parallel to what the legal sub-team is doing in
>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> coordination with the CWG “legal client”. The aim is to have this
>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> responses reviewed by the legal sub-team as well as by the larger
>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> CCWG so we can determine how to better validate this responses
>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> with the external legal advisors when we engage with said external
>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> advice.
>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I look forward to a fruitful session with all of you.
>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> León
>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> <Accountability Questions for CCWG - from Jones Day.pdf>
>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>
>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mail
>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> man_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=AwIF-g&c=MOptNlVtIET
>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> eDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=qwBRSEcol5
>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> r4bZKf-_y9unJDayHfowmd9pjeG40pqTY&s=WWqaMuLlBAG_Gr0RU6ekSk08rpZDmHGFN6
>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> WV735dTxo&e=
>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>
>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>
>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>
>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>
>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Jordan Carter
>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>
>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Chief Executive
>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> *InternetNZ*
>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>
>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 04 495 2118 (office) | +64 21 442 649 (mob)
>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> jordan at internetnz.net.nz <mailto:jordan at internetnz.net.nz>
>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Skype: jordancarter
>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>
>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> /To promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and protect its
>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> potential./
>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>
>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>
>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>
>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>
>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mail
>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> man_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=AwIF-g&c=MOptNlVtIET
>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> eDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=qwBRSEcol5
>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> r4bZKf-_y9unJDayHfowmd9pjeG40pqTY&s=WWqaMuLlBAG_Gr0RU6ekSk08rpZDmHGFN6
>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> WV735dTxo&e=
>>>>>> >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>>>>>> >>>>>>>>
>>>>>> >>>>>>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailm
>>>>>> >>>>>>>> an_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=AwIF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeD
>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=qwBRSEcol5r4b
>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ZKf-_y9unJDayHfowmd9pjeG40pqTY&s=WWqaMuLlBAG_Gr0RU6ekSk08rpZDmHGFN6WV73
>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 5dTxo&e=
>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> >>>>>>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>>>>>> >>>>>>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>>>>>> >>>>>>>
>>>>>> >>>>>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailma
>>>>>> >>>>>>> n_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=AwIF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDAL
>>>>>> >>>>>>> C_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=qwBRSEcol5r4bZKf
>>>>>> >>>>>>> -_y9unJDayHfowmd9pjeG40pqTY&s=WWqaMuLlBAG_Gr0RU6ekSk08rpZDmHGFN6WV735dTx
>>>>>> >>>>>>> o&e=
>>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> >>>>>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>>>>>> >>>>>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>>>>>> >>>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>>>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> >>>>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>>>>>> >>>>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>>>>>> >>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>>>>>> >>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> >>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>>>>>> >>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>>>>>> >>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>>>>>> >> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> >> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>>>>>> >> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>>>>>> >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > _______________________________________________
>>>>>> > Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>>>>>> > Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>>>>>> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>>>>>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>>>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>>>>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> -- 
>>>> Jordan Carter
>>>> 
>>>> Chief Executive 
>>>> InternetNZ
>>>> 
>>>> 04 495 2118 (office) | +64 21 442 649 (mob)
>>>> jordan at internetnz.net.nz
>>>> Skype: jordancarter
>>>> 
>>>> To promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and protect its potential.
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>>>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150210/39ff4353/attachment.html>

More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list