[CCWG-ACCT] Who is managing the lawyers and what have they beenasked to do?

Avri Doria avri at acm.org
Tue Jul 7 12:49:59 UTC 2015


Hi,

I do want to point out that I have moved away from the voluntary
community model, though it remains dear to my heart to accepting a form
of designator model.

I also see that the empowered membership models, is in some ways,
similar to the empowered designator model.  Unfortunately it also has
the ability to slide down the slope to a full membership model.  and as
I have argued, I think that leaves ICANN not only without proper checks
and balnces, but into the jaws of the courts.

avri

On 07-Jul-15 08:29, Jordan Carter wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Firstly I think facts speak for themselves, but it is our
> understanding of them - including how they change through the
> accumulation of further facts - that changes over time. And I am not a
> scientist. Nor a lawyer :-)
>
> On Avri's broad point, it does summon up a nub of the debate. I
> reiterate for the record that my concern with ICANN's post-transition
> reality is that power is concentrated from the status quo (NTIA -
> Board, with community advice) into a newly powerful and concentrated
> single entity - the ICANN Board.
>
> The purpose of a membership or designator model is to distribute power
> into the global multistakeholder community, as organised through the
> SO/AC structure, which is how ICANN organises the various stakeholders
> with interests in the DNS.
>
> There's no claim of perfection in such a model. Quite the opposite.
> The whole point of a distribution of power is to share accountability
> and responsibility more broadly.
>
> The "voluntary" model concentrates power in one place to an unhealthy
> degree. It is difficult for me to understand how anyone could accept a
> clear worsening of accountability and concentration of power that it
> represents, compared with the status quo.
>
> Seems to me the sole difference between members and designators comes
> down to how strong you want the authority of the community to be.
> Neither represents "total" power: there is no abrogation in either of
> the Board's responsibility to govern ICANN consistent with its limited
> mission and consistent with the global public interest. 
>
> All that either offers is an acknowledgement that authority in the DNS
> community should lie with stakeholders. Organised through the SOs and ACs.
>
> That's the same as where authority in the RIR community lies.
>
> As I understand it, it is also pretty similar to where authority in
> the protocols community lies.
>
> It isn't clear to me why the names community would settle for a less
> reliable and reputable model.
>
>
> Anyhow, much fodder for thought as we come to Paris. I think we have
> to acknowledge that the differences here are of degree, except in
> regards to the voluntary model. That one stands on its own as a unique
> reallocation of authority into a single place in a manner that would
> create serious risks for all of us in assuring the stability and
> security of the DNS.
>
> best
> Jordan
>
> On 7 July 2015 at 23:52, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org
> <mailto:avri at acm.org>> wrote:
>
>     Hi,
>
>     To start,  I believe that facts are just things that people believe to
>     be the case.  I try not to speak of anything stronger that a belief.
>     Both my personal history and world history, even history of science -
>     that bastion of fact, shows me that yesterday's Fact is often just a
>     matter of prejudice, superstition and point of view.
>
>     In terms of the accountability problem with the membership model,
>     it has
>     been discussed before.  Fairly extensively. Some of the gaps such as
>     those exposed by the UA have been eliminated, but others have
>     not.  Some
>     involve the degree to which the various SOAC are really the solid
>     organizations we portray.  As I wrote in an earlier message where i
>     spoke of the SOAC themselves:
>     > Having been a member or observer of many of these entities I
>     have fond
>     > that they are often disorganized, ruled by a few strong
>     personalities in
>     > a sea of apathy, and given to making up rules on the fly when
>     needed.
>     > They do not even necessarily follow the rules they have agreed
>     to in the
>     > charters, though some do, not all of them.  And for the most
>     part, though
>     > they are supposed to transparent, most aren't.
>
>     Are these structures really fit of unchecked rule?  How can we
>     show that?
>
>     For me the primary deficit is the loss of checks and balances.
>
>     The current system relies on a set of checks and balances between the
>     Board and the rest of the community.  The current problem is that the
>     power of the rest of the community seem too weak to many, allowing the
>     Board to seemingly work  without any checks on its activities.
>
>     By strengthening the community in the designator model, we strengthen
>     the set of checks and balance between the Board and the rest of the
>     community.   By doing so, we increase accountability.
>
>     There is a reciprocity in this notion of accountability, one that does
>     not require external oversight. We vote them in,  can appeal the board
>     in a serious manner and will  even be able to  vote them out by
>     some yet
>     to be determined procedure.  And the Board, can review the degree to
>     which the stakeholder groups are fulfilling their mandate to represent
>     the larger community within the ICANN mission.  In a sense there is
>     mutual reciprocal oversight. The Board and the rest of the community
>     check each other and establish a functional balance.  Most of the this
>     CCWG's activities are working on the details of these check and
>     balances.
>
>     That is other than the grand reorganization of ICANN into a membership
>     organization.  Something that leaves the current check and balances
>     behind and attempts to create a major new structure.
>
>     In the designator model the Board can make decisions and we can appeal
>     them. And we make recommendations and give advise the Board needs to
>     give it serious consideration on penalty of appeal. In extreme
>     case they
>     can be removed from their duties and we can be subjected to 
>     discussions
>     of reorganization.
>
>     Going to the membership model eliminates this balance by giving the
>     putative community representatives supreme power.  How can that
>     power be
>     appealed?  Can membership decisions be appealed, by whom and to whom?
>     Who determines whether the ACSO are adequately representing the global
>     community and living up to their obligations under the bylaws?
>     Membership turns the Board into an administrative unit without
>     sufficient power to act as a check or balance to  the ACSOs.
>
>     Eliminating any checks and balances on the ACSO from the
>     accountability
>     equation seems to be a critical failure to me in the creation of a new
>     accountability regime.  Perhaps if we were going with the individual
>     membership option a degree of accountability to global members
>     could be
>     argued, not sure.  But I believe  that is not what we are working
>     on as
>     that would involve even greater difficulty to get right. We are
>     not even
>     working on a model where organizations that exist on their own come
>     together to form a group.  Our ACSO are artificial organizations
>     created
>     by and within ICANN.  Our multistakeholder model depends on the
>     interaction and interplay of these organization with the Board and on
>     the checks and balances between them.
>
>     Perhaps you have 'fact based' responses to all the possible
>     accountability questions that NTIA might ask us about this new power
>     structure you favor.  I do not believe that you can show how the ACSO
>     will be responsible to the global Internet community.  I do not
>     believe
>     you can show how a rogue set of ACSO can be stopped from doing things
>     that harm the organizations or the Internet without allowing the Board
>     some degree of decision making based on the confluence of
>     recommendations and advice received from the various ACSO and the
>     greater community.
>
>     As was stated in the call by NTIA, it was up to us to show how
>     anything
>     new we created could be held accountable.  As far as I can tell in
>     membership there is no way to hold the members accountable.  In the
>     designator model we show how we are adding accountability
>     measures.  In
>     the membership model we require the ACSO to verify their own
>     representativity, but I have seen no expression of how they can do
>     that
>     or show that it is the case.  When I speak of having a "much higher
>     threshold" in proving ACSO accountabilty to the global public
>     interest,
>     this is what I mean. How are you going to prove, as you say - with the
>     facts that you believe in, that the membership model is more
>     accountable
>     given its unassailable postion in a membership organization.
>
>     I have seen no evidence of membership creating greater
>     accountability to
>     the global public interest.  I cannot state that I believe it is
>     impossible for it to do so, just that I have seen no evidence of it.
>
>     avri
>
>
>     On 06-Jul-15 21:01, Edward Morris wrote:
>     > Hello Avri,
>     >
>     >
>     >     I believe membership raises the issues of accountability to
>     the full
>     >     diversity of stakeholders to a much higher threshold,
>     including the
>     >     issue of the degree to which ICANN is accountable to
>     stakeholders not
>     >     included among our SG/C/RALO/ALS / as well as among
>     parrticpating CCs
>     >     and govts.
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     > Please, if possible, raise your concerns stating fact rather than
>     > belief. Maybe there is something I have missed. There is
>     absolutely no
>     > difference in the openness to non ICANN stakeholders between the
>     > empowered membership and empowered designator models. At least I
>     don't
>     > see any. Both are based upon the current SOAC's. If there is a
>     > difference in this area  I need to and want to be educated. Please
>     > respond with specific and detailed instances or examples of why what
>     > you claim is true is. Vague generalities are not particularly
>     helpful.
>     > Again, I am open to be educated and persuaded but with substantive
>     > fact rather than vague as yet unsubstantiated beliefs.
>     >
>     > No model is as open to non SOAC's as is Malcolm's proposal for
>     > individual membership. That, again, is a membership model. Do you
>     > support this open membership model and if not why not? Would you
>     > prefer other models to be looked at that are not based upon the
>     > SOAC's? I think that would be a very reasonable position and one I
>     > certainly am open to supporting if a workable model would be
>     proposed.
>     > As yet I have not seen one. Have you? Should we try to find one?
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     >     I think enough of the comments bring out questions of
>     >     accountability in
>     >     a mebership organization to make the membership option less than
>     >     optimal.
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     > What comments are you referring to? Certainly not the public
>     comments
>     > which were basically supportive of membership. Are these
>     comments you
>     > refer to  based upon vague generalities or specific problems? If
>     there
>     > are specific problems what specifically are they? Should we not
>     > determine whether there are solutions to those problems rather than
>     > just dismissing the model outright? If not, what are your views
>     as to
>     > the ultimate apparent unenforceability of the designator model in
>     > certain areas? Do you disagree with Paul Rosenzweig when he states
>     > that "a direct community veto of budget and strategic plan remains
>     > essential to accountability"? If not, what do you propose to do in
>     > these areas without membership. Should we simply forget them?
>     >
>     > I do think there may be another option or two out there and
>     hopefully
>     > working with our counsel we'll find them.
>     >
>     > In the interim,  I really am looking to be educated. No one has
>     taught
>     > me more about ICANN since I became involved in it than you Avri. I'm
>     > just not easily persuadable by vague opinions, I'm a fact based sort
>     > of guy. As this process has moved forward I've seen your views and
>     > positions change. To me, that is an admirable  sign of someone truly
>     > looking for an optimal answer rather than one who is clinging to a
>     > defined position. I'm just having some trouble understanding,
>     > factually,  the specific objections you are now raising about
>     > membership. I hope you can help me understand so I can better
>     test and
>     > evaluate my own views..
>     >
>     > Thanks,
>     >
>     > Ed
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     >     On 06-Jul-15 19:05, Edward Morris wrote:
>     >     > +1. Well said.
>     >     >
>     >     >
>     >     > On Mon, Jul 6, 2015 at 9:04 PM, Jonathan Zuck
>     >     <JZuck at actonline.org <mailto:JZuck at actonline.org>
>     <mailto:JZuck at actonline.org <mailto:JZuck at actonline.org>>
>     >     > <mailto:JZuck at actonline.org <mailto:JZuck at actonline.org>
>     <mailto:JZuck at actonline.org <mailto:JZuck at actonline.org>>>> wrote:
>     >     >
>     >     >     Hmm. I think it’s important to bear in mind that there was
>     >     >     overwhelming consensus among the public comments to
>     support the
>     >     >     membership model. The detractors from the model, while
>     important
>     >     >     and perhaps critical, are not in the majority. I’m not
>     sure this
>     >     >     process speaks to how we better use counsel as much as
>     how we
>     >     >     achieve consensus on principles.
>     >     >
>     >     >
>     >     >
>     >     >
>     >     >
>     >     >
>     >     >   
>      *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>>
>     >     >   
>      <mailto: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>>>
>     >     >   
>      [mailto: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>>
>     >     >   
>      <mailto: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 *Seun Ojedeji
>     >     >     *Sent:* Monday, July 6, 2015 3:50 PM
>     >     >     *To:* Becky Burr
>     >     >     *Cc:* accountability-cross-community at icann.org
>     <mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
>     >     <mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org
>     <mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>>
>     >     >     <mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org
>     <mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
>     >     <mailto: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?
>     >     >
>     >     >
>     >     >
>     >     >     Hi Becky,
>     >     >
>     >     >     Thanks for asking, item 3 is actually in connection to
>     the fact
>     >     >     that such veto may not be possible without item 1(as I
>     >     understood
>     >     >     it) and that is why I said an indirect veto can happen not
>     >     that I
>     >     >     was entirely suggesting that those powers be off the
>     table.
>     >     >
>     >     >     It seem however that folks are only looking at the powers
>     >     and not
>     >     >     at what it will take to have them.
>     >     >
>     >     >     By the way, I also did put in a reservation that we
>     may not
>     >     >     necessarily agree with those views but my concern is
>     mainly that
>     >     >     the ccwg does not spend so much time developing proposals
>     >     that we
>     >     >     know has certain implementation requirements that are not
>     >     >     compatible with the ICANN community structure. I think
>     we should
>     >     >     learn from the the past (based on comments from the
>     last PC) and
>     >     >     utilize legal council and volunteer hours more
>     effectively.
>     >     >
>     >     >     FWIW speaking as participant.
>     >     >
>     >     >     Regards
>     >     >
>     >     >     On 6 Jul 2015 8:08 pm, "Burr, Becky"
>     <Becky.Burr at neustar.biz <mailto:Becky.Burr at neustar.biz>
>     >     <mailto:Becky.Burr at neustar.biz <mailto:Becky.Burr at neustar.biz>>
>     >     >     <mailto:Becky.Burr at neustar.biz
>     <mailto:Becky.Burr at neustar.biz>
>     >     <mailto:Becky.Burr at neustar.biz <mailto:Becky.Burr at neustar.biz>>>> wrote:
>     >     >
>     >     >         Seun,
>     >     >
>     >     >
>     >     >
>     >     >         I am not sure why we would take direct
>     budget/strat plan
>     >     veto
>     >     >         off the table.  Could you explain? Thanks.
>     >     >
>     >     >
>     >     >
>     >     >         Becky
>     >     >
>     >     >         J. Beckwith Burr
>     >     >
>     >     >         *Neustar, Inc. /* Deputy General Counsel and Chief
>     >     Privacy Officer
>     >     >
>     >     >         1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20006
>     >     >
>     >     >         Office: + 1.202.533.2932
>     <tel:%2B%201.202.533.2932> <tel:%2B%201.202.533.2932>
>     >     <tel:%2B%201.202.533.2932>  Mobile:
>     >     >         +1.202.352.6367 <tel:%2B1.202.352.6367>
>     >     >         <tel:%2B1.202.352.6367>  / becky.burr at neustar.biz
>     <mailto:becky.burr at neustar.biz>
>     >     <mailto:becky.burr at neustar.biz <mailto:becky.burr at neustar.biz>>
>     >     >         <mailto:becky.burr at neustar.biz
>     <mailto:becky.burr at neustar.biz>
>     >     <mailto:becky.burr at neustar.biz <mailto:becky.burr at neustar.biz>>> /
>     www.neustar.biz <http://www.neustar.biz>
>     >     <http://www.neustar.biz>
>     >     >         <http://www.neustar.biz>
>     >     >
>     >     >
>     >     >
>     >     >         *From: *Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com
>     <mailto:seun.ojedeji at gmail.com>
>     >     <mailto:seun.ojedeji at gmail.com <mailto:seun.ojedeji at gmail.com>>
>     >     >         <mailto:seun.ojedeji at gmail.com
>     <mailto:seun.ojedeji at gmail.com>
>     >     <mailto:seun.ojedeji at gmail.com <mailto:seun.ojedeji at gmail.com>>>>
>     >     >         *Date: *Monday, July 6, 2015 at 11:09 AM
>     >     >         *To: *Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org
>     <mailto:robin at ipjustice.org>
>     >     <mailto:robin at ipjustice.org <mailto:robin at ipjustice.org>>
>     >     >         <mailto:robin at ipjustice.org
>     <mailto:robin at ipjustice.org> <mailto:robin at ipjustice.org
>     <mailto:robin at ipjustice.org>>>>
>     >     >         *Cc: *Accountability Community
>     >     >         <accountability-cross-community at icann.org
>     <mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
>     >     <mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org
>     <mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>>
>     >     >         <mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org
>     <mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
>     >     <mailto: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?
>     >     >
>     >     >
>     >     >
>     >     >         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>
>     <mailto:robin at ipjustice.org <mailto:robin at ipjustice.org>>
>     >     <mailto:robin at ipjustice.org <mailto:robin at ipjustice.org>
>     <mailto: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>
>     >     <mailto:jordan at internetnz.net.nz
>     <mailto:jordan at internetnz.net.nz>>
>     >     >                 <mailto:jordan at internetnz.net.nz
>     <mailto:jordan at internetnz.net.nz>
>     >     <mailto: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>
>     >     <mailto:james at cyberinvasion.net
>     <mailto:james at cyberinvasion.net>>
>     >     >                     <mailto:james at cyberinvasion.net
>     <mailto:james at cyberinvasion.net>
>     >     <mailto: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> <mailto:avri at acm.org <mailto:avri at acm.org>>
>     >     <mailto:avri at acm.org <mailto:avri at acm.org>
>     <mailto: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
>     >     >
>     >     
>     <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_pages_viewpage.action-3FpageId-3D53782602&d=AwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=rX8zWSdUbF0XJ6RQyX5HABE7NaQIgAXHj6WfvEXkLh8&s=5REzt6Gk0Mt5evnhe_F8O87Kpc4hX8wql7vP--WYsnQ&e=>
>     >     >                                 (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>>
>     >     >
>     >      <mailto: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>>>
>     >     >
>     >      [mailto: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>>
>     >     >
>     >      <mailto: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>
>     >     <mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org
>     <mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>>
>     >     >
>     >      <mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org
>     <mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
>     >     <mailto: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 <mailto:carlosraulg at gmail.com>>
>     >     >                               
>      <mailto:carlosraulg at gmail.com <mailto:carlosraulg at gmail.com>
>     >     <mailto:carlosraulg at gmail.com <mailto:carlosraulg at gmail.com>>>
>     >     >                                 <mailto:carlosraulg at gmail.com <mailto: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>
>     >     >                                 <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
>     <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>>
>     >     >                               
>      <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
>     >     <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com
>     <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>>> <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com
>     <mailto: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
>     <mailto:lists at christopherwilkinson.eu>>
>     >     >
>     >      <mailto:lists at christopherwilkinson.eu
>     <mailto:lists at christopherwilkinson.eu>
>     >     <mailto:lists at christopherwilkinson.eu
>     <mailto:lists at christopherwilkinson.eu>>>
>     >     >
>     >     <mailto:lists at christopherwilkinson.eu
>     <mailto: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 <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>>
>     >     >                               
>      <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
>     >     <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com
>     <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>>> <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com
>     <mailto: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
>     <mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de>>
>     >     >
>     >      <mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de
>     <mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
>     >     <mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de
>     <mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de>>>
>     >     >
>     >     <mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de
>     <mailto: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
>     <mailto: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
>     <mailto: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
>     <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
>     <mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>>
>     >     >
>     >      <mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org
>     <mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
>     >     <mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org
>     <mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>>>
>     >     >
>     >     <mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org
>     <mailto: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
>     <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>>
>     >     >
>     >      <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>     <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
>     >     <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>     <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>>>
>     >     >
>     >     <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>     <mailto: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
>     >     >
>     >     
>     <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=AwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=rX8zWSdUbF0XJ6RQyX5HABE7NaQIgAXHj6WfvEXkLh8&s=Yqq66BmsF0-t9R7GjryZsv1k1c4OBxUhFvNoM2kB7g8&e=>
>     >     >
>     >     >
>     >     >
>     >     >
>     >     _______________________________________________
>     >     >
>     >     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
>     <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>>
>     >     >
>     >      <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>     <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
>     >     <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>     <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>>>
>     >     >
>     >     <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>     <mailto: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
>     >     >
>     >     
>     <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=AwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=rX8zWSdUbF0XJ6RQyX5HABE7NaQIgAXHj6WfvEXkLh8&s=Yqq66BmsF0-t9R7GjryZsv1k1c4OBxUhFvNoM2kB7g8&e=>
>     >     >
>     >     >
>     >     >
>     >     >
>     >     >
>     >     >
>     >     >
>     >     _______________________________________________
>     >     >
>     >     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
>     <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>>
>     >     >
>     >      <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>     <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
>     >     <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>     <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>>>
>     >     >
>     >     <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>     <mailto: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
>     >     >
>     >     
>     <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=AwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=rX8zWSdUbF0XJ6RQyX5HABE7NaQIgAXHj6WfvEXkLh8&s=Yqq66BmsF0-t9R7GjryZsv1k1c4OBxUhFvNoM2kB7g8&e=>
>     >     >
>     >     >
>     >     >
>     >     >
>     >     >
>     >     >
>     >     >
>     >     >
>     >      _______________________________________________
>     >     >                                 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
>     <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>>
>     >     >
>     >      <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>     <mailto: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
>     >     >
>     >     
>     <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=AwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=rX8zWSdUbF0XJ6RQyX5HABE7NaQIgAXHj6WfvEXkLh8&s=Yqq66BmsF0-t9R7GjryZsv1k1c4OBxUhFvNoM2kB7g8&e=>
>     >     >
>     >     >
>     >     >
>     >     >                             ---
>     >     >                             This email has been checked for
>     >     viruses by
>     >     >                             Avast antivirus software.
>     >     >                             https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>     >     >
>     >     
>     <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.avast.com_antivirus&d=AwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=rX8zWSdUbF0XJ6RQyX5HABE7NaQIgAXHj6WfvEXkLh8&s=3Kl-xLZ-zsiAfE_l0c-D1OctY2CAccIpPM7a3Zt5pnw&e=>
>     >     >
>     >     >
>     >      _______________________________________________
>     >     >                             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
>     <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>>
>     >     >
>     >      <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>     <mailto: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
>     >     >
>     >     
>     <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=AwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=rX8zWSdUbF0XJ6RQyX5HABE7NaQIgAXHj6WfvEXkLh8&s=Yqq66BmsF0-t9R7GjryZsv1k1c4OBxUhFvNoM2kB7g8&e=>
>     >     >
>     >     >
>     >     >
>     >     >
>     >     >
>     >      _______________________________________________
>     >     >                         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
>     <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>>
>     >     >
>     >      <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>     <mailto: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
>     >     >
>     >     
>     <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=AwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=rX8zWSdUbF0XJ6RQyX5HABE7NaQIgAXHj6WfvEXkLh8&s=Yqq66BmsF0-t9R7GjryZsv1k1c4OBxUhFvNoM2kB7g8&e=>
>     >     >
>     >     >
>     >     >
>     >     >
>     >     >
>     >     >                     --
>     >     >
>     >     >                     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>
>     >     <mailto:jordan at internetnz.net.nz
>     <mailto:jordan at internetnz.net.nz>>
>     >     >                     <mailto:jordan at internetnz.net.nz
>     <mailto:jordan at internetnz.net.nz>
>     >     <mailto: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>
>     >     <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>     <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>>
>     >     >
>     >      <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>     <mailto: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
>     >     >
>     >     
>     <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=AwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=rX8zWSdUbF0XJ6RQyX5HABE7NaQIgAXHj6WfvEXkLh8&s=Yqq66BmsF0-t9R7GjryZsv1k1c4OBxUhFvNoM2kB7g8&e=>
>     >     >
>     >     >
>     >     >
>     >     >               
>      _______________________________________________
>     >     >                 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
>     <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>>
>     >     >               
>      <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>     <mailto: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
>     >     >
>     >     
>     <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=AwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=rX8zWSdUbF0XJ6RQyX5HABE7NaQIgAXHj6WfvEXkLh8&s=Yqq66BmsF0-t9R7GjryZsv1k1c4OBxUhFvNoM2kB7g8&e=>
>     >     >
>     >     >
>     >     >
>     >     >
>     >     >             _______________________________________________
>     >     >             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
>     <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>>
>     >     >           
>      <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>     <mailto: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
>     >     >
>     >     
>     <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=AwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=rX8zWSdUbF0XJ6RQyX5HABE7NaQIgAXHj6WfvEXkLh8&s=Yqq66BmsF0-t9R7GjryZsv1k1c4OBxUhFvNoM2kB7g8&e=>
>     >     >
>     >     >
>     >     >
>     >     >
>     >     >         --
>     >     >
>     >     >
>     >     
>     ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>     >     >
>     >     >             /Seun Ojedeji,
>     >     >             Federal University Oye-Ekiti
>     >     >             web:      //http://www.fuoye.edu.ng
>     >     >
>     >     
>     <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.fuoye.edu.ng&d=AwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=rX8zWSdUbF0XJ6RQyX5HABE7NaQIgAXHj6WfvEXkLh8&s=JO_X0eTa_TpfkJXFV8e7p5fCVLDvN5atmTw0JvZra7w&e=>
>     >     >             //Mobile: +2348035233535 <tel:%2B2348035233535>//
>     >     >             //alt email:seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng
>     <mailto:email%3Aseun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng>
>     >     <mailto:email%3Aseun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng
>     <mailto:email%253Aseun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng>>
>     >     >             <mailto:seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng
>     <mailto:seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng>
>     >     <mailto: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>
>     >     <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>     <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>>
>     >     >     <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>     <mailto: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
>     <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>
>     >     <mailto: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
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> 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
>
> /A better world through a better Internet /
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> 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




More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list