[CCWG-ACCT] Who is managing the lawyers and what have they beenasked to do?
Burr, Becky
Becky.Burr at neustar.biz
Wed Jul 8 20:42:13 UTC 2015
Avri -
Does it matter to you if the jaws are the jaws of a court or the jaws of
the IRP?
B
J. Beckwith Burr
Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel and Chief Privacy Officer
1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20006
Office: + 1.202.533.2932 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 /
becky.burr at neustar.biz / www.neustar.biz
On 7/7/15, 8:49 AM, "Avri Doria" <avri at acm.org> wrote:
>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 am not a
>> scientist. Nor a lawyer :-)
>>
>> On Avri's broad point, it does summn 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 advie) 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 auhority 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 towhere 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 oe stands on its own as a unique
>> reallocation of authority into a single place in a manner that would
>> ceate 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 anthing stronger that a belief.
>> Both my personal history and world histoy, even history of science
>>-
>> that bastion of fact, shows me that yesterda'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 Iwrote 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 se 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, hough 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 andthe 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
>> disussions
>> of reorganization.
>>
>> Going to the membership model eliminaes 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 tht you can show how the
>>ACSO
>> will be responsible to the global Internet community. I 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
>> > ifference 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 general > 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 modip 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 o >
>> >
>> >
>> > I think enough of the comments bring out questions of
>> > accountability in
>> > p 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 proboblems what specifically are they? Should we not
>> > determine whether there are solution to those problems rather
>ht? 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
>> > tese 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 it¹s 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. I¹m 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: > <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.bi > >
>> > >
>> > > *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 alloof
>> > > 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, t 7:32 AM, Greg Shatan wrote:
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > I agree. We should have the benefit of
>>their
>> > thoughts.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > >> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > On Mon, Jul 6, 2015 at 9:38 AM, Jordan
>>Carter
>> > > <jordant.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
>> <mailtberinvasion.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
>> > > 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 wilt time was the
>> time
>> > I had
>> > > for that call and that is why
>> > > i was listening then.
>> > >
>> > > In any case, th 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
>> > > lawyers¹ call at;
>> > >
>> >
>>
>>https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_
>>pages_viewpage.action-3FpageId-3D53782602&d=AwIF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lUL
>>rw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=WFn00v80Cv5VwEgmjVcgIG
>>rVjb75abO-S6JrONX7jKM&s=zSmXcLCXRxT8cvoxbhuDA2mgEJqygwNhe2KdqzxJaeo&e=
>> > >
>> >
>>
>><https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org
>>_pages_viewpage.action-3FpageId-3D53782602&d=AwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lU
>>Lrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=rX8zWSdUbF0XJ6RQyX5HA
>>BE7NaQIgAXHj6WfvEXkLh8&s=5REzt6Gk0Mt5evnhe_F8O87Kpc4hX8wql7vP--WYsnQ&e=>
>> > > (I¹m a glutton for
>>punishment)
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > It was a short call and
>> I¹ll 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, ost 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 can¹t 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 everyone¹s 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 S
>> > > 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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman
>>_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=AwIF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_
>>lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=WFn00v80Cv5VwEgmjVc
>>gIGrVjb75abO-S6JrONX7jKM&s=DC5pn-5lpgvzOQxAsZqlWqzOlPswPciKtm5wFUyXD0M&e=
>>
>> > >
>> >
>>
>><https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailma
>>n_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=AwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC
>>_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=rX8zWSdUbF0XJ6RQyX
>>5HABE7NaQIgAXHj6WfvEXkLh8&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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman
>>_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=AwIF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_
>>lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=WFn00v80Cv5VwEgmjVc
>>gIGrVjb75abO-S6JrONX7jKM&s=DC5pn-5lpgvzOQxAsZqlWqzOlPswPciKtm5wFUyXD0M&e=
>>
>> > >
>> >
>>
>><https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailma
>>n_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=AwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC
>>_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=rX8zWSdUbF0XJ6RQyX
>>5HABE7NaQIgAXHj6WfvEXkLh8&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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman
>>_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=AwIF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_
>>lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=WFn00v80Cv5VwEgmjVc
>>gIGrVjb75abO-S6JrONX7jKM&s=DC5pn-5lpgvzOQxAsZqlWqzOlPswPciKtm5wFUyXD0M&e=
>>
>> > >
>> >
>>
>><https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailma
>>n_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=AwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC
>>_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=rX8zWSdUbF0XJ6RQyX
>>5HABE7NaQIgAXHj6WfvEXkLh8&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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman
>>_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=AwIF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_
>>lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=WFn00v80Cv5VwEgmjVc
>>gIGrVjb75abO-S6JrONX7jKM&s=DC5pn-5lpgvzOQxAsZqlWqzOlPswPciKtm5wFUyXD0M&e=
>>
>> > >
>> >
>>
>><https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailma
>>n_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=AwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC
>>_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=rX8zWSdUbF0XJ6RQyX
>>5HABE7NaQIgAXHj6WfvEXkLh8&s=Yqq66BmsF0-t9R7GjryZsv1k1c4OBxUhFvNoM2kB7g8&e
>>=>
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > ---
>> > > This email has been checked for
>> > viruses by
>> > > Avast antivirus software.
>> > >
>>https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.avast.com_antivi
>>rus&d=AwIF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahO
>>P8WDDkMr4k&m=WFn00v80Cv5VwEgmjVcgIGrVjb75abO-S6JrONX7jKM&s=Q-EfGqsIXHQHXx
>>CJSGykpbyacYgkUcq9pi2aLeVDt5U&e=
>> > >
>> >
>>
>><https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.avast.com_antiv
>>irus&d=AwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYah
>>OP8WDDkMr4k&m=rX8zWSdUbF0XJ6RQyX5HABE7NaQIgAXHj6WfvEXkLh8&s=3Kl-xLZ-zsiAf
>>E_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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman
>>_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=AwIF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_
>>lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=WFn00v80Cv5VwEgmjVc
>>gIGrVjb75abO-S6JrONX7jKM&s=DC5pn-5lpgvzOQxAsZqlWqzOlPswPciKtm5wFUyXD0M&e=
>>
>> > >
>> >
>>
>><https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailma
>>n_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=AwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC
>>_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=rX8zWSdUbF0XJ6RQyX
>>5HABE7NaQIgAXHj6WfvEXkLh8&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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman
>>_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=AwIF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_
>>lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=WFn00v80Cv5VwEgmjVc
>>gIGrVjb75abO-S6JrONX7jKM&s=DC5pn-5lpgvzOQxAsZqlWqzOlPswPciKtm5wFUyXD0M&e=
>>
>> > >
>> >
>>
>><https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailma
>>n_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=AwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC
>>_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=rX8zWSdUbF0XJ6RQyX
>>5HABE7NaQIgAXHj6WfvEXkLh8&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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman
>>_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=AwIF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_
>>lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=WFn00v80Cv5VwEgmjVc
>>gIGrVjb75abO-S6JrONX7jKM&s=DC5pn-5lpgvzOQxAsZqlWqzOlPswPciKtm5wFUyXD0M&e=
>>
>> > >
>> >
>>
>><https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailma
>>n_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=AwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC
>>_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=rX8zWSdUbF0XJ6RQyX
>>5HABE7NaQIgAXHj6WfvEXkLh8&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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman
>>_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=AwIF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_
>>lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=WFn00v80Cv5VwEgmjVc
>>gIGrVjb75abO-S6JrONX7jKM&s=DC5pn-5lpgvzOQxAsZqlWqzOlPswPciKtm5wFUyXD0M&e=
>>
>> > >
>> >
>>
>><https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailma
>>n_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=AwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC
>>_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=rX8zWSdUbF0XJ6RQyX
>>5HABE7NaQIgAXHj6WfvEXkLh8&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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman
>>_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=AwIF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_
>>lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=WFn00v80Cv5VwEgmjVc
>>gIGrVjb75abO-S6JrONX7jKM&s=DC5pn-5lpgvzOQxAsZqlWqzOlPswPciKtm5wFUyXD0M&e=
>>
>> > >
>> >
>>
>><https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailma
>>n_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=AwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC
>>_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=rX8zWSdUbF0XJ6RQyX
>>5HABE7NaQIgAXHj6WfvEXkLh8&s=Yqq66BmsF0-t9R7GjryZsv1k1c4OBxUhFvNoM2kB7g8&e
>>=>
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > --
>> > >
>> > >
>> >
>>
>>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > >
>> > > /Seun Ojedeji,
>> > > Federal University Oye-Ekiti
>> > > web:
>>//https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.fuoye.edu.ng&d=
>>AwIF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDk
>>Mr4k&m=WFn00v80Cv5VwEgmjVcgIGrVjb75abO-S6JrONX7jKM&s=0jeGeVlvL9OdHuagA8IF
>>L55Qf0dISl0O2YMMYr2hgTc&e=
>> > >
>> >
>>
>><https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.fuoye.edu.ng&d=A
>>wMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkM
>>r4k&m=rX8zWSdUbF0XJ6RQyX5HABE7NaQIgAXHj6WfvEXkLh8&s=JO_X0eTa_TpfkJXFV8e7p
>>5fCVLDvN5atmTw0JvZra7w&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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman
>>_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=AwIF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_
>>lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=WFn00v80Cv5VwEgmjVc
>>gIGrVjb75abO-S6JrONX7jKM&s=DC5pn-5lpgvzOQxAsZqlWqzOlPswPciKtm5wFUyXD0M&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>>
>> > >
>>
>>https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman
>>_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=AwIF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_
>>lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=WFn00v80Cv5VwEgmjVc
>>gIGrVjb75abO-S6JrONX7jKM&s=DC5pn-5lpgvzOQxAsZqlWqzOlPswPciKtm5wFUyXD0M&e=
>>
>> >
>> >
>> > ---
>> > This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus
>> software.
>> >
>>https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.avast.com_antivi
>>rus&d=AwIF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahO
>>P8WDDkMr4k&m=WFn00v80Cv5VwEgmjVcgIGrVjb75abO-S6JrONX7jKM&s=Q-EfGqsIXHQHXx
>>CJSGykpbyacYgkUcq9pi2aLeVDt5U&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>>
>> >
>>
>>https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman
>>_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=AwIF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_
>>lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=WFn00v80Cv5VwEgmjVc
>>gIGrVjb75abO-S6JrONX7jKM&s=DC5pn-5lpgvzOQxAsZqlWqzOlPswPciKtm5wFUyXD0M&e=
>>
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>> ---
>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>>
>>https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.avast.com_antivi
>>rus&d=AwIF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahO
>>P8WDDkMr4k&m=WFn00v80Cv5VwEgmjVcgIGrVjb75abO-S6JrONX7jKM&s=Q-EfGqsIXHQHXx
>>CJSGykpbyacYgkUcq9pi2aLeVDt5U&e=
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
>>
>>https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman
>>_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=AwIF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_
>>lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=WFn00v80Cv5VwEgmjVc
>>gIGrVjb75abO-S6JrONX7jKM&s=DC5pn-5lpgvzOQxAsZqlWqzOlPswPciKtm5wFUyXD0M&e=
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Jordan Carter
>>
>> Chief Executive
>> *InternetNZ*
>>
>> 04 495 2118 (office) | +64 21 442 649 (mob)
>> jordan at internetnz.net.nz <mailto:jordan at internetnz.net.nz>
>> Skype: jordancarter
>>
>> /A better world through a better Internet /
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>>
>>https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman
>>_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=AwIF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_
>>lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=WFn00v80Cv5VwEgmjVc
>>gIGrVjb75abO-S6JrONX7jKM&s=DC5pn-5lpgvzOQxAsZqlWqzOlPswPciKtm5wFUyXD0M&e=
>>
>
>
>---
>This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.avast.com_antivir
>us&d=AwIF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8
>WDDkMr4k&m=WFn00v80Cv5VwEgmjVcgIGrVjb75abO-S6JrONX7jKM&s=Q-EfGqsIXHQHXxCJS
>GykpbyacYgkUcq9pi2aLeVDt5U&e=
>
>_______________________________________________
>Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_
>listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=AwIF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lU
>Lrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=WFn00v80Cv5VwEgmjVcgIG
>rVjb75abO-S6JrONX7jKM&s=DC5pn-5lpgvzOQxAsZqlWqzOlPswPciKtm5wFUyXD0M&e=
More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community
mailing list