[CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues

Burr, Becky Becky.Burr at neustar.biz
Fri Feb 5 15:51:14 UTC 2016


Sorry guys - I did not change my proposal - which has always been that the
"GAC cannot act in a decision-making role with respect to an exercise of
community power designed to challenge the Board¹s implementation of GAC
Advice.²  That is clearly stated in the note Jorge copied below.  I see no
principled basis for further restricting my proposed compromise to limit
this to the IRP.
 



J. Beckwith Burr 
Neustar, Inc. / Deputy
General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer
1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006
Office: +1.202.533.2932  Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / neustar.biz
<http://www.neustar.biz>




On 2/5/16, 10:18 AM, "Olga Cavalli" <olgacavalli at gmail.com> wrote:

>Brett
>there was no vote on the call yesteday
>best
>Olga
>
>> El 5 feb 2016, a las 11:43 a.m., Schaefer, Brett
>><Brett.Schaefer at heritage.org> escribió:
>> 
>> Kavouss,
>> 
>> Becky responded to this yesterday:
>> 
>> Julia ­ I inadvertently narrowed the proposal that was on the table
>>when I typed this up.  My proposal from the beginning related to Board
>>action on GAC Advice.  I will resend my original email demonstrating
>>this.
>> 
>> I expect she will follow up soon.
>> 
>> Speaking for myself, I do not support language the restricts the GAC
>>carve out to IRP.
>> 
>> I am willing to support the compromise, including the 60 percent, but
>>it has to be as a package including the most recent version of Becky's
>>text which we discussed and "voted" on in the call yesterday.
>> 
>> If we are opening the package back up, I doubt we would resolve this by
>>Tuesday or the next Tuesday or the one after that. We have arrived at a
>>tentative agreement, I suggest we not abandon it.
>> 
>> Best,
>> 
>> Brett
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Feb 5, 2016, at 3:41 AM, Kavouss Arasteh
>><kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>> wrote:
>> 
>> Dear Beckie
>> As I mentioned in my earlier message, my GAC colleagues have serious
>>concerns about your revised text as currently contained in the Package,
>> Jorge has kindly picked up your initial proposal and send it to us
>> May I request you to kindly replace your current text with your initial
>>one as reproduced by Jorge and PUT A REVISED TEXT for the package on the
>>mailing list for our Monday discussion.
>> As far as I understand, at least those GAC members spoken could be more
>>comfortable to your initial text due to the fact the yr revised text
>>went much beyond your the objectives of your initial text the concept if
>>which if combined with 60% was acceptable to many people.
>> Awaiting your action , I remain
>> Regards
>> Kavousd
>> 
>> 
>> Sent from my iPhone
>> 
>> On 5 Feb 2016, at 12:10,
>><Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>>
>><Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>> wrote:
>> 
>> Dear Kavouss, Julia and Becky
>> 
>> This is the original proposal by Becky we were referring to (highlights
>>are mine, but text is unchanged):
>> 
>> ==
>> 
>> Von: 
>>accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cr
>>oss-community-bounces at icann.org>
>>[mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] Im Auftrag von
>>Burr, Becky
>> Gesendet: Freitag, 29. Januar 2016 21:05
>> An: Greg Shatan 
>><gregshatanipc at gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>>; Mueller,
>>Milton L <milton at gatech.edu<mailto:milton at gatech.edu>>
>> Cc: 
>>accountability-cross-community at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-comm
>>unity at icann.org>
>> Betreff: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Recommendation 11, 2/3 board threshold, GAC
>>consensus, and finishing
>> 
>> I have a proposal for discussion.
>> 
>> Start from the premise that ICANN may implement GAC Advice only
>>consistent with the Bylaws, including the Mission.  What if we accept
>>the 2/3rd rejection language but also provide that the GAC cannot act in
>>a decision-making role with respect to an exercise of community power
>>designed to challenge the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice.  In
>>other words, the GAC  would not be counted in the ³no more than two
>>SO/ACs objecting² threshold to a community IRP challenge to the Board¹s
>>implementation of GAC Advice alleged to exceed the scope of ICANN¹s
>>Mission.
>> 
>> I think this addresses the two bites at the apple problem we might
>>otherwise have, and provides a safety valve to counter balance the
>>2/3rds rejection threshold.
>> 
>> Just a thought -
>> 
>> ===
>> 
>> Regards
>> 
>> Jorge
>> 
>> 
>> ________________________________
>> Brett Schaefer
>> Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs
>> Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis Institute for National
>>Security and Foreign Policy
>> The Heritage Foundation
>> 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE
>> Washington, DC 20002
>> 202-608-6097
>> 
>>heritage.org<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__heritage
>>.org_&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYa
>>hOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2HozbeOZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=08yolhJ2mGNu
>>8PN0GVUckj832KfhW8hnHwzonGIi4pw&e= >
>> Von: Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com]
>> Gesendet: Freitag, 5. Februar 2016 11:41
>> An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM
>><Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>>
>> Cc: <jukacz at erst.dk<mailto:jukacz at erst.dk>>
>><jukacz at erst.dk<mailto:jukacz at erst.dk>>;
>><accountability-cross-community at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-com
>>munity at icann.org>>
>><accountability-cross-community at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-com
>>munity at icann.org>>; Becky Burr
>><Becky.Burr at neustar.biz<mailto:Becky.Burr at neustar.biz>>; Thomas Rickert
>><thomas at rickert.net<mailto:thomas at rickert.net>>; Mathieu Weill
>><Mathieu.Weill at afnic.fr<mailto:Mathieu.Weill at afnic.fr>>; León Felipe
>>Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe at sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe at sanchez.mx>>;
>>Schneider Thomas BAKOM
>><Thomas.Schneider at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Thomas.Schneider at bakom.admin.ch>>
>> Betreff: Re: AW: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation
>>1 and 11 issues
>> 
>> Dear Beckie,
>> Pls note several concerns and questions raised by some GAC member
>>requesting to replace your text in the "package" with your initial Text
>>. This may help GAC colleagues to favourably review the"page deal" if
>>includes your original text.
>> Regards
>> Kavouss
>> 
>> Sent from my iPhone
>> 
>> On 5 Feb 2016, at 11:26,
>><Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>>
>><Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>> wrote:
>> Dear Kavouss
>> 
>> In fact, that (constraining the carve-out to the exercise of community
>>IRP) would be a very sensible starting point and would avoid many
>>concerns which are being raised (at least) in my national consultations.
>> 
>> Regards
>> 
>> Jorge
>> 
>> Von: Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com]
>> Gesendet: Freitag, 5. Februar 2016 11:25
>> An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM
>><Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>>
>> Cc: <jukacz at erst.dk<mailto:jukacz at erst.dk>>
>><jukacz at erst.dk<mailto:jukacz at erst.dk>>;
>><accountability-cross-community at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-com
>>munity at icann.org>>
>><accountability-cross-community at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-com
>>munity at icann.org>>
>> Betreff: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1
>>and 11 issues
>> 
>> Dear All,
>> Why Not taking initial Beckie,s
>> Proposal , as I mentioned in the call and do not  get into other
>>questions resulted from het revised text.
>> Julia realised this and raised it before our devoted call
>> Regards
>> Kavousd
>> 
>> Sent from my iPhone
>> 
>> On 5 Feb 2016, at 10:58,
>><Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>>
>><Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>> wrote:
>> Dear all
>> 
>> I agree that Julia raises a very significant point here, which probably
>>did not get enough attention due to the other discussions we were having
>>yesterday.
>> 
>> A carve-out that excludes the GAC from the exercise of any community
>>decisions related to Board implementation seems overbroad and mean a
>>complete exclusion of the GAC from any community decisions which are
>>relevant to it.
>> 
>> This change in Becky¹s initial proposal (where the carve-out was
>>directly linked to the community IRP) is very significant.
>> 
>> Regards
>> 
>> Jorge
>> 
>> Von: 
>>accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cr
>>oss-community-bounces at icann.org>
>>[mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] Im Auftrag von
>>Julia Katja Wolman
>> Gesendet: Donnerstag, 4. Februar 2016 10:34
>> An: 'CCWG Accountability'
>><accountability-cross-community at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-com
>>munity at icann.org>>
>> Betreff: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1
>>and 11 issues
>> 
>> Dear Co-Chairs, Kavouss, Becky, all
>> 
>> Thank you for putting together the different pieces of text in order to
>>develop a compromise. It is our understanding that the proposed text
>>for modification of rec 1 was the one proposed by Becky (email of 2
>>February) and is the text, which has been the focus of our discussion:
>> 
>> ³
>> Burr Proposal:
>> 
>> 
>> ?         Modify Rec #1/Annex 1:  Add the following to the end of
>>Paragraph 23.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> The GAC may not, however, participate as a decision maker in the
>>Empowered Community¹s consideration of the exercise a community power
>>for the purpose of challenging or blocking the Board¹s implementation of
>>GAC Advice in a manner alleged to violate the Bylaws. In such cases, the
>>GAC remains free to participate in community deliberations in an
>>advisory capacity, but its views will not count towards or against
>>otherwise agreed thresholds needed to initiate a conference call,
>>convene a Community Forum, or exercise a specific Community Power.  This
>>carve out preserves the ICANN Board¹s unique obligation to work with the
>>GAC try to find a mutually acceptable solution to implementation of GAC
>>Advice supported by consensus (as defined in Rec. #11) while protecting
>>the community¹s power to challenge Board decisions that would cause
>>ICANN to violate its Bylaws.²
>> 
>> However, the latest text proposal in the email below uses the text
>>suggested by Brett  (email of 2 February). Our understanding is that the
>>above initial text from Becky refers to a Board decision based on GAC
>>advice, which would violate ICANN¹s Bylaws and that it refers to the
>>community IRP to challenge such a Board decision based on GAC advice. As
>>such, Becky¹s initial text proposal (above) should be the text to be
>>considered at today¹s call.
>> 
>> Best regards,
>> 
>> 
>> Finn and Julia
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Julia Katja Wolman
>> 
>> DANISH BUSINESS AUTHORITY
>> 
>> Dahlerups Pakhus
>> Langelinie Allé 17
>> DK-2100 København Ø
>> Telephone: +45 3529 1000
>> Direct: +45 35291308
>> E-mail: jukacz at erst.dk<mailto:jukacz at erst.dk>
>> 
>>www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-
>>3A__www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOif
>>zm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2HozbeOZXYoAVUioSUB1PWw
>>WVyBult8&s=EjeWDl2T5TA3BJzYGL6fNcerDy-BOaHwVO2GfVt0NJE&e= >
>> 
>> MINISTRY FOR BUSINESS AND GROWTH
>> 
>> P Please consider the environment before printing this email.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Fra: 
>>accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cr
>>oss-community-bounces at icann.org>
>>[mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] På vegne af
>>Burr, Becky
>> Sendt: 4. februar 2016 00:19
>> Til: Kavouss Arasteh;
>>accountability-cross-community at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-comm
>>unity at icann.org>; Mathieu Weill; Thomas Rickert; León Felipe Sánchez
>>Ambía
>> Emne: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11
>>issues
>> 
>> Thank you Kavouss for this suggested approach.  We have all been
>>working very hard and in good faith for over a year to develop a
>>consensus proposal.  My understanding is that this is designed to
>>resolve all open issues in Recommendation 1 and 11.  I am supportive of
>>this package deal, as described below (the description below was also
>>included in Kavouss¹ email).  I appreciate the collaborative spirit we
>>have brought to the table and hope we can use our Dedicated Rec. 11 call
>>tomorrow to reach consensus!
>> 
>> 
>> 1. Modify Rec #1/Annex 1 and Rec #2/Annex 2
>> ·      Add the following to the end of Paragraph 23 in Rec #1/Annex 1:
>> 
>> The GAC may not, however, participate as a decision maker in the
>>Empowered Community¹s consideration of the exercise a community power
>>for the purpose of challenging or blocking the Board¹s implementation of
>>GAC Advice. In such cases, the GAC remains free to participate in
>>community deliberations in an advisory capacity, but its views will not
>>count towards or against otherwise agreed thresholds needed to initiate
>>a conference call, convene a Community Forum, or exercise a specific
>>Community Power.  This carve out preserves the ICANN Board¹s unique
>>obligation to work with the GAC try to find a mutually acceptable
>>solution to implementation of GAC Advice supported by consensus (as
>>defined in Rec. #11) while protecting the community¹s power to challenge
>>such Board decisions.
>> ·      Modify the Table in Rec. #2/Annex 2 to reflect this carve out
>>and add the following language to cover situations that would otherwise
>>require the support of four SOs or ACs:
>> 
>> The CCWG-Accountability also recommends that in a situation where the
>>GAC may not participate as a Decisional AC because the community power
>>is proposed to be used to challenge the Board¹s implementation of GAC
>>Advice and the threshold is set at four in support, the power will still
>>be validly exercised if three are in support and no more than one
>>objects.
>> 2.   Modify Recommendation 11 to reflect 60% threshold for rejection of
>>GAC advice by Board, with note to drafters that supermajority
>>requirement is not intended to create any presumption or modify the
>>standard applied by the Board in reviewing GAC Advice.
>>     3. During dedicated Recommendation 11 meetings (4 February and 8
>>February)
>> 
>>  *    Discuss and accept Recommendation 1 with change described above
>>as first final reading;
>>  *    Discuss and accept Recommendation 2 with change described above
>>as first final reading; and
>>  *   Discuss and accept Recommendation 11 with changes described above
>>as first final reading.
>> 4.   Submit the package deal to the CCWG for final consideration (2nd
>>final reading) at its conference call scheduled for 9 February, noting
>>delicate balance requiring compromise on all sides to reach consensus
>>and recommending adoption ³as is² (assuming consensus on Dedicated
>>Recommendation 11 calls).
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> J. Beckwith Burr
>> Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer
>> 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006
>> Office: +1.202.533.2932  Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 /
>>neustar.biz<http://www.neustar.biz>
>> 
>> From: Kavouss Arasteh
>><kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>>
>> Date: Wednesday, February 3, 2016 at 4:56 PM
>> To: Accountability Community
>><accountability-cross-community at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-com
>>munity at icann.org>>, Becky Burr
>><becky.burr at neustar.biz<mailto:becky.burr at neustar.biz>>, Mathieu Weill
>><Mathieu.Weill at afnic.fr<mailto:Mathieu.Weill at afnic.fr>>, Thomas Rickert
>><thomas at rickert.net<mailto:thomas at rickert.net>>, León Felipe Sánchez
>>Ambía <leonfelipe at sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe at sanchez.mx>>
>> Subject: <no subject>
>> 
>> 
>> Dear Esteemed and respectful  CCWG Colleagues
>> 
>> First of all, allow me to share the following thought with you:
>> We are in a crucial time for the CCWG requiring to act in a coordinated
>> manner  on the upcoming Devoted Calls with the aim of assisting the
>>CCWG  in finalizing Recommendation 11,including some adjustments in
>>Recommendation 1  which enable CCWG to assemble the Supplementary
>>Report. This Report needs to be  issued  well in advance of the
>>Marrakech meeting if the overall timeline for IANA stewardship
>>transition is to be maintained. Given that the CCWG is working hard to
>>agree a compromise in the current round of virtual meetings,
>> 
>> I wish to reiterate what I mentioned at various occasions that we need
>>to be pragmatic and tolerable, to be more open to any possible set of
>>solution with a view to find a compromise and not merely insist on the
>>wishes, requirements and expectations of every single SO and AC but on
>>the contrary make utmost efforts to satisfy ,to the extent practiceable
>>and possible  the entire community.
>> 
>> We are aware of the sensitive elements of Recommendation 1 as well as
>>those of Recommendation 11
>> 
>> We have made considerable progress to almost bring the views of the
>>interested parties together.
>> 
>> However, there are some more bits to be done. In ICT network
>>connection, the Last kilometer or perhaps last hundred meters of the
>>connection  are sometimes more complex to  compared with the entire
>>network to provide an overall inclusive connection.
>> 
>> We have succeeded to find workable solutions for many of these last
>>kilometers in various area .It remains to finish that last kilometer
>>which located in a rocky and mountainous area
>> 
>> We need to also make out utmost effort to move forward from our current
>>position which is different from each other and not rule out compromise
>>as a backward step. Our role  is to make concession towards each other
>>position  .We need to take every possible initiative to move forward to
>>timely complete this proposal on enhanced accountability.
>> 
>> Frankly speaking and from a professional view point, and as a
>>participant of CCWG and Liaison of ICG to CCWG, I think we should really
>>be more open, constructively, objectively and efficiently
>> 
>> To this effect , I wish to suggest a package deal which needs to be
>>accepted or rejected as a whole without being disintegrated/ decomposed .
>> 
>> The Pack Deal is simple straightforward and practical
>> 
>>  1.  Modify Recommendation 1 to add the language as proposed  by Beckie
>>  2.  Maintain the rest of Recommendation 1 Unchanged
>>  3.  Accept the 60% threshold for GAC advice ,if to be rejected by the
>>Board
>>  4.  Maintain the rest of Recommendation  11 Unchanged
>>  5.  No other  discussion ,what so ever, on these two Recommendation
>>  6.  Submit the Package Deal to the forthcoming CCWG scheduled to be
>>held on 09 February with a note from Beckie indicating that this is a
>>delicate balance ,a sensitive compromise and recommend to the CCWG to
>>take it as it is
>> 
>> I have no intention of being presumptuous about this, and you are of
>>course entirely free to reject my suggestions.  Please note that my
>>proposal requires a change to Recommendation 1 and a conforming change
>>to Recommendation 2.  To be consistent with our standard procedures, I
>>suggest we conduct 1rst final readings of the compromise during our
>>Dedicated Rec 11 calls (scheduled for 4 Feb and 8 Feb) and the 2nd final
>>reading during our regular call on 9 Feb.  Please note that I have also
>>included Malcolm¹s requested clarification regarding no changes with
>>respect to presumptions or standard of review.  I do not believe that
>>this text is strictly necessary, but in the interests of getting
>>everyone on board I think it makes sense to include it.
>> 
>> Package Deal
>> 
>> 1. Modify Rec #1/Annex 1 and Rec #2/Annex 2
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ·      Add the following to the end of Paragraph 23 in Rec #1/Annex 1:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> The GAC may not, however, participate as a decision maker in the
>>Empowered Community¹s consideration of the exercise a community power
>>for the purpose of challenging or blocking the Board¹s implementation of
>>GAC Advice. In such cases, the GAC remains free to participate in
>>community deliberations in an advisory capacity, but its views will not
>>count towards or against otherwise agreed thresholds needed to initiate
>>a conference call, convene a Community Forum, or exercise a specific
>>Community Power.  This carve out preserves the ICANN Board¹s unique
>>obligation to work with the GAC try to find a mutually acceptable
>>solution to implementation of GAC Advice supported by consensus (as
>>defined in Rec. #11) while protecting the community¹s power to challenge
>>such Board decisions.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ·      Modify the Table in Rec. #2/Annex 2 to reflect this carve out
>>and add the following language to cover situations that would otherwise
>>require the support of four SOs or ACs:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> The CCWG-Accountability also recommends that in a situation where the
>>GAC may not participate as a Decisional AC because the community power
>>is proposed to be used to challenge the Board¹s implementation of GAC
>>Advice and the threshold is set at four in support, the power will still
>>be validly exercised if three are in support and no more than one
>>objects.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 2.   Modify Recommendation 11 to reflect 60% threshold for rejection of
>>GAC advice by Board, with note to drafters that supermajority
>>requirement is not intended to create any presumption or modify the
>>standard applied by the Board in reviewing GAC Advice.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 3. During dedicated Recommendation 11 meetings (4 February and 8
>>February)
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ·      Discuss and accept Recommendation 1 with change described above
>>as first final reading;
>> 
>> ·      Discuss and accept Recommendation 2 with change described above
>>as first final reading; and
>> 
>> ·      Discuss and accept Recommendation 11 with changes described
>>above as first final reading.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 4.   Submit the package deal to the CCWG for final consideration (2nd
>>final reading) at its conference call scheduled for 9 February, noting
>>delicate balance requiring compromise on all sides to reach consensus
>>and recommending adoption ³as is² (assuming consensus on Dedicated
>>Recommendation 11 calls).
>> 
>> Kavouss
>> _______________________________________________
>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>> 
>>Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Comm
>>unity at icann.org>
>> 
>>https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman
>>_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_
>>lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2HozbeO
>>ZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-wC7M&e=
>> 
>><https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailma
>>n_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC
>>_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2Hozbe
>>OZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-wC7M&e
>>= >
>> _______________________________________________
>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>> 
>>Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Comm
>>unity at icann.org>
>> 
>>https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman
>>_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_
>>lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2HozbeO
>>ZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-wC7M&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=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_
>>lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2HozbeO
>>ZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-wC7M&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=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lU
>Lrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2HozbeOZXY
>oAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-wC7M&e= 



More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list