[CCWG-ACCT] Who is managing the lawyers and what have they beenasked to do?
Matthew Shears
mshears at cdt.org
Mon Jul 6 15:41:25 UTC 2015
Have to say that I agree with Greg.
On 7/6/2015 11:28 AM, Greg Shatan wrote:
> I do not share any of those "understandings" or "basic principles".
> Those may be the opinions of some, but they are by no means the
> understandings of the CCWG. I would reject these as basic principles.
>
> Greg
>
> On Mon, Jul 6, 2015 at 11:09 AM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com
> <mailto:seun.ojedeji at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I have no problem with having a new proposal presented. However it
> is important that there some adherence to basic principles on
> proposals that the ccwg would not want to explore. Three areas
> comes to mind:
>
> - Its my understanding that anything that will turn some/all of
> the SO/AC to members and thereby exposing them to legal challenge
> is not acceptable
> - Its my understanding that anything that allows removal of
> individual board member without the approval of the entire(or
> larger part) of the community is not acceptable
> - Its my understanding that a solution that allows direct
> community veto on certain elements like budget, strategic plan et
> all is not acceptable but an indirect enforcement could be
> considered (i.e using a power to get another power executed
> indirectly)
>
> Some/none of the above may be acceptable by us, but my point is
> that there should be some focus going forward, especially if the
> target of ICANN54 is to be meet
>
> Regards
>
>
> On Mon, Jul 6, 2015 at 3:37 PM, Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org
> <mailto:robin at ipjustice.org>> wrote:
>
> I would also like to hear what they propose at this stage. I
> really don't see how it could hurt to have another proposal to
> consider. Larry Strickling did say he wanted us to be sure we
> examined all the options carefully.
>
> Thanks,
> Robin
>
> On Jul 6, 2015, at 7:32 AM, Greg Shatan wrote:
>
>> I agree. We should have the benefit of their thoughts.
>>
>> Greg
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 6, 2015 at 9:38 AM, Jordan Carter
>> <jordan at internetnz.net.nz <mailto:jordan at internetnz.net.nz>>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Well, I would really really like to see what the creative
>> thinking they have done has suggested. I trust our
>> ability as a group to make decisions, and do not believe
>> we should cut off input from any direction...
>>
>> Jordan
>>
>> On 7 July 2015 at 01:13, James Gannon
>> <james at cyberinvasion.net
>> <mailto:james at cyberinvasion.net>> wrote:
>>
>> Hey Avri,
>>
>> Yes the 3rd model was brought up, and the lawyers
>> feel that it might be a cleaner way for us to get the
>> powers that we need.
>> But without a call from the CCWG to present it they
>> feel that its not their position to propose a model
>> on their own initiative.
>>
>> Personally i would like to see what they have come up
>> with but the CCWG would need to ask as an overall
>> group for the chairs to direct them to give some more
>> information on the model if we wanted it.
>> I think if after we hear from them on Tuesdays call
>> we still feel we might have some shortcomings that it
>> might be the time to ask them about the 3rd option.
>>
>> Also +1 I think they are really enjoying the work and
>> are finding themselves getting more and more involved
>> as we go on, which is great for the CCWG as the more
>> background and details they know the better that are
>> able to give us solid well reasoned advice in my
>> opinion.
>>
>> -James
>>
>>
>>> On 6 Jul 2015, at 13:19, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org
>>> <mailto:avri at acm.org>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I have not had a chance to get back to the recording
>>> of the call. Not
>>> sure I will, that time was the time I had for that
>>> call and that is why
>>> i was listening then.
>>>
>>> In any case, the lawyers were talking about a new
>>> model they had come up
>>> with, but not knowing what to do about it since they
>>> had not been asked
>>> for a new model.
>>>
>>> I was told to leave before I got to hear the end of
>>> that story. Or about
>>> the model itself. Anyone who has had a chance to
>>> listen, whatever happened?
>>>
>>> avri
>>>
>>> ps. sometimes i think the lawyers are getting
>>> interested in what we are
>>> doing, almost like stakeholders. not that i expect
>>> them to give up their
>>> hourly rates because they are stakeholders.
>>>
>>> On 06-Jul-15 05:07, James Gannon wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I listened to the last co-chairs lawyers’ call at;
>>>> https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=53782602
>>>> (I’m a glutton for punishment)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It was a short call and I’ll make a particular note
>>>> that Leon and
>>>> Mathieu made a point of not making any decisions on
>>>> behalf of the
>>>> whole group and made it clear anything requiring a
>>>> decision must be
>>>> made by the overall CCWG, so I was happy with that
>>>> side of things
>>>> myself, most of my own fears about not having a
>>>> sub-group are somewhat
>>>> assuaged.
>>>>
>>>> So my paraphrasing and overview is:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> · Lawyers working hard on the models for us
>>>> collaboratively
>>>> between the two firms since BA
>>>>
>>>> · Lawyers are prepping a presentation to
>>>> give to us ASAP
>>>> before Paris if possible, that presentation will
>>>> take the majority of
>>>> a call, it can’t be done quickly, they need about
>>>> 45mins uninterrupted
>>>> to go through the presentation and then would
>>>> likely need Q&A time
>>>> after they present.
>>>>
>>>> · Some small wording/clarifications to come
>>>> back to the CCWG
>>>> to make sure everyone’s on the same page
>>>>
>>>> · Everyone feels Paris will be an important
>>>> time for the
>>>> models, lawyers will be ready for a grilling on the
>>>> details of the
>>>> models from us to flesh out any of our
>>>> concerns/questions
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Note that the above is all my very condensed
>>>> overview of the
>>>> conversations.
>>>>
>>>> It seemed like a productive call to me.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -James
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *From:*accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org
>>>> <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org>
>>>> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org
>>>> <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org>]
>>>> *On Behalf
>>>> Of *Greg Shatan
>>>> *Sent:* Monday, July 06, 2015 5:33 AM
>>>> *To:* Carlos Raul
>>>> *Cc:* accountability-cross-community at icann.org
>>>> <mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
>>>> *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Who is managing the
>>>> lawyers and what have
>>>> they beenasked to do?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Carlos,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> As the legal sub-team was disbanded, your guess is
>>>> as good as mine.....
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Greg
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Jul 6, 2015 at 12:27 AM, Carlos Raul
>>>> <carlosraulg at gmail.com <mailto:carlosraulg at gmail.com>
>>>> <mailto:carlosraulg at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Thank you Greg!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It makes a lot of sense and I guess those are
>>>> all good reasons as
>>>> we hired them in the first place. What are the
>>>> next steps now?
>>>> What happened in the recent call?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Best regards
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez
>>>>
>>>> +506 8837 7176 <tel:%2B506%208837%207176>
>>>> <tel:%2B506%208837%207176>
>>>>
>>>> Skype carlos.raulg
>>>>
>>>> _________
>>>>
>>>> Apartado 1571-1000
>>>>
>>>> *COSTA RICA*
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Jul 6, 2015 at 12:02 AM, Greg Shatan
>>>> <gregshatanipc at gmail.com
>>>> <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com><mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Chris,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That was tried to some extent, at least in
>>>> the CWG.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> There are several substantial problems with
>>>> that approach.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> First, lawyers are not fungible. The
>>>> particular legal skills,
>>>> background and experience required for the
>>>> issues before both
>>>> WGs are fairly specific, and in some cases,
>>>> very specific.
>>>> The primary core competency needed here is
>>>> corporate
>>>> governance. While a number of lawyers in the
>>>> community have a
>>>> reasonable working knowledge of the area, at
>>>> least in their
>>>> home jurisdictions, I don't believe there
>>>> are any who would
>>>> say that this is their primary focus and
>>>> expertise -- at least
>>>> none who identified themselves to either WG.
>>>> The second core
>>>> competency required, especially in the CCWG,
>>>> is non-profit
>>>> law. Again there are a number of lawyers
>>>> with a decent working
>>>> knowledge of this fairly broad field, but
>>>> not as a primary
>>>> focus. There may be a couple of lawyers in
>>>> the community who
>>>> would claim this fairly broad field as a
>>>> primary focus and
>>>> expertise -- but none who became involved
>>>> with either WG.
>>>> This then becomes further narrowed by
>>>> jurisdiction. Since
>>>> ICANN is a California non-profit
>>>> corporation, US corporate
>>>> governance and non-profit experience is more
>>>> relevant than
>>>> experience from other jurisdictions, and
>>>> California law
>>>> corporate governance and non-profit
>>>> experience is more
>>>> relevant than that from other US
>>>> jurisdictions. In my
>>>> experience, the more a US lawyer focuses on
>>>> a particular
>>>> substantive area, the greater their
>>>> knowledge of and comfort
>>>> with state law issues in US state
>>>> jurisdictions other than
>>>> their own (e.g., someone who spend a
>>>> majority of their time
>>>> working in corporate governance will have a
>>>> greater knowledge
>>>> of the law, issues, approaches and trends
>>>> outside their
>>>> primary state of practice, while someone who
>>>> spends a
>>>> relatively small amount of time in the area
>>>> will tend to feel
>>>> less comfortable outside their home
>>>> jurisdiction). (An
>>>> exception is that many US lawyers have
>>>> specific knowledge of
>>>> certain Delaware corporate law issues,
>>>> because Delaware often
>>>> serves as the state of incorporation for
>>>> entities operating
>>>> elsewhere.)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Second, lawyers in the community will seldom
>>>> be seen as
>>>> neutral advisors, no matter how hard they
>>>> try. They will tend
>>>> to be seen as working from their point of
>>>> view or stakeholder
>>>> group or "special interest" or desired
>>>> outcome, even if they
>>>> are trying to be even-handed. Over the
>>>> course of time, this
>>>> balancing act would tend to become more
>>>> untenable.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Third, the amount of time it would take to
>>>> provide truly
>>>> definitive legal advice (research, careful
>>>> drafting,
>>>> discussions with relevant "clients", etc.)
>>>> would be
>>>> prohibitive, even compared to the
>>>> substantial amount of time
>>>> it takes to provide reasonably well-informed
>>>> and competent
>>>> legal-based viewpoints in the course of
>>>> either WG's work.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Fourth, in order to formally counsel the
>>>> community, the lawyer
>>>> or lawyers in question would have to enter
>>>> into a formal
>>>> attorney-client relationship. Under US law, an
>>>> attorney-client relationship may
>>>> inadvertently be created by
>>>> the attorney's actions, so attorneys try to
>>>> be careful about
>>>> not providing formal legal advice without a
>>>> formal engagement
>>>> (sometimes providing an explicit "caveat" if
>>>> they feel they
>>>> might be getting too close to providing
>>>> legal advice). If the
>>>> attorney is employed by a corporation, they
>>>> would likely be
>>>> unable to take on such a representation due
>>>> to the terms of
>>>> their employment, and that is before getting
>>>> to an exploration
>>>> of conflict of interest issues. If the
>>>> attorney is employed
>>>> by a firm, the firm would have to sign off
>>>> on the
>>>> representation, again dealing with potential
>>>> conflict issues.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Fifth, even if the above issues were all
>>>> somehow resolved, it
>>>> would be highly unlikely that any such
>>>> attorney would provide
>>>> substantial amounts of advice, written
>>>> memos, counseling, etc.
>>>> on a pro bono (unpaid) basis, especially
>>>> given the
>>>> time-consuming nature of the work. Pro bono
>>>> advice and
>>>> representation is generally accorded to
>>>> individuals and
>>>> entities that could not otherwise be able to
>>>> pay for it. That
>>>> is clearly not the case here, at least with
>>>> ICANN taking
>>>> financial responsibility. It would likely be
>>>> very difficult
>>>> to justify this to, e.g., a firm's pro bono
>>>> committee, as a
>>>> valid pro bono representation.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Sixth, if ICANN were not taking the role
>>>> they are taking, it
>>>> would be extremely difficult to identify the
>>>> "client" in this
>>>> situation. The "community" is a collection
>>>> of sectors,
>>>> mostly represented by various ICANN-created
>>>> structures, which
>>>> in turn have members of widely varying types
>>>> (individuals,
>>>> corporations, sovereigns, non-profits, IGOs,
>>>> partnerships,
>>>> etc.). This would also make it extremely
>>>> difficult to enter
>>>> into a formal counseling relationship with
>>>> the "community."
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Seventh, this is a sensitive, high-profile,
>>>> transformative set
>>>> of actions we are involved in, which is
>>>> subject to an
>>>> extraordinary amount of scrutiny, not least
>>>> that of the NTIA
>>>> and the US Congress. That eliminates any
>>>> possibility of
>>>> providing informal, off-the-cuff, reasonably
>>>> well-informed but
>>>> not quite expert, "non-advice" advice --
>>>> which might happen in
>>>> a more obscure exercise. There's simply too
>>>> much at stake.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Finally, I would say that a number of
>>>> attorneys involved in
>>>> one or both of the WGs are in fact providing
>>>> a significant
>>>> amount of legal knowledge and experience to
>>>> the WGs, helping
>>>> to frame issues, whether in terms of general
>>>> leadership (e.g.,
>>>> Thomas, Leon, Becky) or more specifically in a
>>>> "lawyer-as-client" capacity -- working with
>>>> outside counsel,
>>>> tackling the more legalistic issues,
>>>> providing as much legal
>>>> background and knowledge as possible without
>>>> providing the
>>>> type of formal legal advice that would tend
>>>> to create an
>>>> attorney-client relationship, etc. So I do
>>>> think that many
>>>> lawyers in the community are giving greatly
>>>> of themselves in
>>>> this process, even though they cannot and
>>>> would not be able to
>>>> formally be engaged by the community as its
>>>> "counsel of record."
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> In sum, it might be a nice thought in
>>>> theory, but it is no way
>>>> a practical possibility.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Greg
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Sat, Jul 4, 2015 at 3:08 AM, CW Lists
>>>> <lists at christopherwilkinson.eu
>>>> <mailto:lists at christopherwilkinson.eu>
>>>> <mailto:lists at christopherwilkinson.eu>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Good morning:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I had decided not to enter this debate.
>>>> But I am bound to
>>>> say that the thought had occurred to me
>>>> at the time, that
>>>> there were more than enough qualified
>>>> lawyers in this
>>>> community that they could perfectly well
>>>> have counselled …
>>>> themselves.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> CW
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 04 Jul 2015, at 08:41, Greg Shatan
>>>> <gregshatanipc at gmail.com
>>>> <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com><mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Wolfgang,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> To your first point, the billing
>>>> rates were clearly
>>>> stated in the law firms' engagement
>>>> letters.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> To your second point, I'm sure we
>>>> could all think of
>>>> other projects and goals where the
>>>> money could have
>>>> been "better spent." You've stated
>>>> yours. But that
>>>> is not the proper test. This was
>>>> and continues to be
>>>> money we need to spend to achieve
>>>> the goals we have
>>>> set. Under different circumstances,
>>>> perhaps it would
>>>> be a different amount (or maybe none
>>>> at all). But it
>>>> was strongly felt at the outset that
>>>> the group needed
>>>> to have independent counsel. Clearly
>>>> that counsel
>>>> needed to have recognized expertise
>>>> in the appropriate
>>>> legal areas. As such, I believe we
>>>> made excellent
>>>> choices and have been very well
>>>> represented.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> As to your "better spent" test, I
>>>> just had to have
>>>> $4000.00 worth of emergency dental
>>>> work done. This
>>>> money definitely could have been
>>>> "better spent" on a
>>>> nice vacation, redecorating our
>>>> living room or on
>>>> donations to my favored charitable
>>>> causes. But I had
>>>> no choice, other than to choose
>>>> which dentist and
>>>> endodontist I went to, and I wasn't
>>>> going to cut
>>>> corners -- the dental work was a
>>>> necessity.
>>>> Similarly, the legal work we are
>>>> getting is a
>>>> necessity and whether we would have
>>>> preferred to spend
>>>> the money elsewhere is not merely
>>>> irrelevant, it is an
>>>> incorrect and inappropriate
>>>> proposition. Many of us
>>>> are investing vast quantities of
>>>> time that could be
>>>> "better spent" elsewhere as well,
>>>> but we are willing
>>>> (grudgingly sometimes) to spend the
>>>> time it takes to
>>>> get it right, because we believe it
>>>> needs to be done.
>>>> This is the appropriate measure,
>>>> whether it comes to
>>>> our time or counsels' time. If we
>>>> believe in this
>>>> project, we have to invest in it,
>>>> and do what it takes
>>>> to succeed.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Of course, this investment has to be
>>>> managed wisely
>>>> and cost-effectively, and by and
>>>> large, I believe the
>>>> CCWG has done that reasonably well
>>>> -- not perfectly,
>>>> but reasonably well and with "course
>>>> corrections"
>>>> along the way intended to improve
>>>> that management.
>>>> It's certainly fair to ask, as Robin
>>>> has done, for a
>>>> better understanding of that
>>>> management as we go
>>>> along. But asserting that the money
>>>> could have been
>>>> "better spent" elsewhere sets up a
>>>> false test that we
>>>> should not use to evaluate this
>>>> important aspect of
>>>> our work. Instead, we need to focus
>>>> on whether the
>>>> money was "well spent" on these
>>>> critical legal
>>>> services. If you have reason to
>>>> believe it was not,
>>>> that could be useful to know. That
>>>> would at least be
>>>> the right discussion to have.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Greg
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Sat, Jul 4, 2015 at 1:13 AM,
>>>> "Kleinwächter,
>>>> Wolfgang"
>>>> <wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de
>>>> <mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
>>>> <mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de>>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> HI,
>>>>
>>>> and please if you ask outside
>>>> lawyers, ask for the
>>>> price tag in advance. Some of
>>>> the money spend fo
>>>> lawyers could have been spend
>>>> better to suppport
>>>> and enable Internet user and
>>>> non-commercial groups
>>>> in developing countries.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Wolfgang
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
>>>> Von:
>>>> accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org
>>>> <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org>
>>>> <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org>
>>>> im Auftrag von Robin Gross
>>>> Gesendet: Fr 03.07.2015 14:57
>>>> An:accountability-cross-community at icann.org
>>>> <mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
>>>> <mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
>>>> Community
>>>> Betreff: [CCWG-ACCT] Who is
>>>> managing the lawyers
>>>> and what have they beenasked to do?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> After the legal sub-team was
>>>> disbanded, I haven't
>>>> been able to follow what
>>>> communications are
>>>> happening with CCWG and the
>>>> independent lawyers we
>>>> retained.
>>>>
>>>> I understand the lawyers are
>>>> currently "working on
>>>> the various models" and will
>>>> present something to
>>>> us regarding that work soon.
>>>> However, *what
>>>> exactly* have the lawyers been
>>>> asked to do and
>>>> *who* asked them? If there are
>>>> written
>>>> instructions, may the group
>>>> please see them? Who
>>>> is now taking on the role of
>>>> managing the outside
>>>> attorneys for this group,
>>>> including providing
>>>> instructions and certifying
>>>> legal work?
>>>>
>>>> Sorry, but I'm really trying to
>>>> understand what is
>>>> happening, and there doesn't
>>>> seem to be much
>>>> information in the public on
>>>> this (or if there is,
>>>> I can't find it). Thanks for
>>>> any information
>>>> anyone can provide.
>>>>
>>>> Best,
>>>> Robin
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Accountability-Cross-Community
>>>> mailing list
>>>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>>>> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
>>>> <mailto: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
>>>> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
>>>> <mailto: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
>>>> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
>>>> <mailto: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
>>>> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>>>
>>>
>>> ---
>>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast
>>> antivirus software.
>>> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>>> <mailto: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
>> <mailto: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
>> <tel:%2B64%2021%20442%20649> (mob)
>> jordan at internetnz.net.nz <mailto:jordan at internetnz.net.nz>
>> Skype: jordancarter
>>
>> /A better world through a better Internet /
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>> <mailto: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
>> <mailto: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
> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>
>
>
>
> --
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> /Seun Ojedeji,
> Federal University Oye-Ekiti
> web: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng
> Mobile: +2348035233535
> //alt email:<http://goog_1872880453>seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng
> <mailto:seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng>/
>
> The key to understanding is humility - my view !
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> <mailto: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
--
Matthew Shears
Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
+ 44 (0)771 247 2987
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150706/c6992edf/attachment.html>
More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community
mailing list