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

Burr, Becky Becky.Burr at neustar.biz
Thu Jul 9 02:27:43 UTC 2015


I  agree Christopher, but everything we have heard says the court issue is manageable. But we keep fixating on it

Sent from my iPad

> On Jul 8, 2015, at 5:23 PM, CW Lists <lists at christopherwilkinson.eu> wrote:
> 
> Becky:
> 
> It matters a great deal. A system, albeit in US jurisdiction, that depends on US courts could not be entertained.
> 
> CW
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> On 08 Jul 2015, at 22:42, "Burr, Becky" <Becky.Burr at neustar.biz> wrote:
>> 
>> 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>
>>>>>>       <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.neustar.bi-20&d=AwIFAw&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=OzOY9t2UnISMzIHGUVIZf0U69CCypY-ncfMxp4YS3Mk&s=mn9UldPS0AEy6lvjqhIt5nuPgf_f2KPjpKVTJjJWB5k&e= >     >
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>       *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= 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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=AwIFAw&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=OzOY9t2UnISMzIHGUVIZf0U69CCypY-ncfMxp4YS3Mk&s=dhHdaibrw12LpqhrNhRuyGzDrJqUDWS0hmMkTn3xR8Q&e= 
> 



More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list