[CCWG-ACCT] Proposed Agenda CCWG ACCT Meeting - 12 July 2016 @ 20:00 UTC
Karel Douglas
douglaskarel at gmail.com
Sat Jul 16 01:26:21 UTC 2016
In respect to the matter of legal costs :
What are the suggestions to keep these costs at bay?
(1) is there a cap on legal cost based on the budget for this upcoming
exercise?
(2) If not , can a cap be recommended in terms of the hourly rate payable?
(associate vs partner fees) or
(3) Is there a standing 'retainer' arrangement in place where there are set
legal fees payable every month ( or whatever period ) regardless of the
work provided which will control the expenditure. eg there wont be a fee
for every single opinion sought.
I missed the earlier discussions on this topic hence I do apologise if this
has already be discussed. Thanks
Warm regards
Karel Douglas
On Fri, Jul 15, 2016 at 8:32 PM, avri doria <avri at apc.org> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I am sorry you are tired of the conversation as I intend to say someting
> on the topic.
>
> Having a default means that extra energy and argument is needed to prove
> why you are not using the default when you decide that the default just
> won't do. It means not having to argue strongly about why we do not
> want to rely on Staff for some particular issue. And those
> conversations are rarely helpful to solving an issue.
>
> Being able to choose as appropriate, and taking into account the
> concerns of money, has a lower barrier to doing what needs to be done.
> And we don't have to insult anyone in the process.
>
> I am not on the legal committee, nor do I want to be, but I want them to
> be free to choose the right legal support without the limitations that
> having a default brings.
>
>
> avri
>
>
>
> On 15-Jul-16 16:18, Alan Greenberg wrote:
> > I presume that the inten of having a "default" was that it was what we
> > should use if there were not need for external counsel.
> >
> > I am tired of endless discussions which do not change anything.
> > Regardless of which is "default" or exactly what that means, we will
> > have to make a case-by-case choice.
> >
> > Alan
> >
> >
> > At 15/07/2016 02:44 PM, Rudolph Daniel wrote:
> >
> >> There would seem to be an issue with "default" is there any
> >> substantive difference if we consider independent legal council
> >> "default" with the availability of icann inhouse legal services to
> >> compliment . That would also suggest the need for fiscal restraint
> >> rd
> >>
> >>
> >> Rudi Daniel
> >> /danielcharles consulting
> >> <
> http://www.facebook.com/pages/Kingstown-Saint-Vincent-and-the-Grenadines/DanielCharles/153611257984774
> >
> >> /*
> >> *
> >>
> >> On Fri, Jul 15, 2016 at 2:14 PM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com
> >> <mailto:seun.ojedeji at gmail.com> > wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> Hello,
> >>
> >> By default means always considering use of ICANN legal staff
> >> first before going independent. I don't think this should require
> >> a dialout as I think we all agree that CCWG should have access to
> >> independent legal whenever required.
> >>
> >> Regards
> >> Sent from my LG G4
> >> Kindly excuse brevity and typos
> >>
> >> On 15 Jul 2016 19:00, "farzaneh badii" <farzaneh.badii at gmail.com
> >> <mailto:farzaneh.badii at gmail.com> > wrote:
> >>
> >> No. Using the independent legal advisers responsibly does not
> >> mean that we have to have a default approach.
> >>
> >> I wonder what the next steps would be on this issue. Perhaps
> >> co-chairs can help us on this ? Are we going to have a call
> >> and discuss this and come up with a solution?
> >>
> >> On 15 July 2016 at 19:46, Seun Ojedeji
> >> <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com <mailto:seun.ojedeji at gmail.com> >
> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> +1 on ensuring access to independent legal adviser
> >> whenever required by CCWG. This would imply referring to
> >> internal legal(staff) by default and then call for
> >> independent legal advice whenever the group sense there
> >> is need for clarification (or when the issues at hand is
> >> warranted).
> >>
> >> Regards
> >> Sent from my LG G4
> >> Kindly excuse brevity and typos
> >>
> >> On 15 Jul 2016 13:19, "James M. Bladel"
> >> <jbladel at godaddy.com <mailto:jbladel at godaddy.com>> wrote:
> >>
> >> Agree with Keith.
> >>
> >> CCWG must preserve the use of independent legal
> >> advisors, but use this responsibly, and with an eye
> >> on controlling costs. Ultimately, it is gTLD
> >> registrants picking up the bill, and we need to
> >> ensure that this work is mindful of their interests.
> >>
> >> Thanks—
> >>
> >> J.
> >>
> >> From:
> >> <accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org
> >> <mailto:
> accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org>>
> >> on behalf of Keith Drazek <kdrazek at verisign.com
> >> <mailto:kdrazek at verisign.com>>
> >> Date: Thursday, July 14, 2016 at 16:53
> >> To: Phil Corwin <psc at vlaw-dc.com
> >> <mailto:psc at vlaw-dc.com>>, Matthew Shears
> >> <mshears at cdt.org <mailto:mshears at cdt.org>>, Greg
> >> Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com
> >> <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com> >, Robin Gross
> >> <robin at ipjustice.org <mailto:robin at ipjustice.org>>
> >> Cc: Accountability Cross Community
> >> <accountability-cross-community at icann.org
> >> <mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>>
> >> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Proposed Agenda CCWG ACCT
> >> Meeting - 12 July 2016 @ 20:00 UTC
> >>
> >> Agreed. Access to independent legal advice was never
> >> in question.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> That said, in the interest of controlling costs, I
> >> have no problem seeking input from ICANN’s internal
> >> lawyers on issues that are deemed non-contentious or
> >> where potential conflicts do not exist.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> I am obligated to report that the Registries
> >> Stakeholder Group is very, very concerned about the
> >> cost of legal fees from WS1 and wants to ensure the
> >> CCWG is efficient with its future spending. I know
> >> we’re developing cost-control mechanisms for WS2,
> >> and I’ve advised my SG accordingly, but this will
> >> continue to receive attention from the RySG.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Holly’s question and the response about budgeting
> >> vis-à -vis ICANN’s outside counsel was instructive.
> >> Any and all outside counsel expenses will require
> >> certification.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> So, let me reiterate my view…the CCWG must have
> >> acccess to independent legal advice. We must ensure
> >> costs are controlled and resources are used
> >> efficiently. If that means selectively turning to
> >> ICANN’s lawyers on occasion, I can and do support
> >> that, but not at the expense of our ability to seek
> >> independent advice.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >> Keith
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> From:
> >> 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 Phil Corwin
> >> Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2016 5:34 PM
> >> To: Matthew Shears; Greg Shatan; Robin Gross
> >> Cc: Accountability Cross Community
> >> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Proposed Agenda CCWG ACCT
> >> Meeting - 12 July 2016 @ 20:00 UTC
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Access to independent legal advice for WS2 issues is
> >> fundamental and should be non-negotiable
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Use your power, Empowered Community
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal
> >> Virtualaw LLC
> >> 1155 F Street NW
> >> Suite 1050
> >> Washington, DC 20004
> >> 202-559-8597 <tel:202-559-8597>/Direct
> >> 202-559-8750 <tel:202-559-8750>/Fax
> >> 202-255-6172 <tel:202-255-6172>/Cell
> >>
> >> Twitter: @VlawDC
> >>
> >> "Luck is the residue of design" --- Branch Rickey
> >>
> >> From:mshears at cdt.org <mailto:mshears at cdt.org>
> >>
> >> Sent:July 14, 2016 5:26 PM
> >>
> >> To:gregshatanipc at gmail.com
> >> <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>; robin at ipjustice.org
> >> <mailto:robin at ipjustice.org>
> >>
> >> Cc:accountability-cross-community at icann.org
> >> <mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
> >>
> >> Subject:Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Proposed Agenda CCWG ACCT
> >> Meeting - 12 July 2016 @ 20:00 UTC
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> + 1 well said Robin.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On 14/07/2016 03:20, Greg Shatan wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> Robin,
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Agree 100%.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Greg
> >>
> >> On Wednesday, July 13, 2016, Robin Gross
> >> <robin at ipjustice.org
> >> <mailto:robin at ipjustice.org>> wrote:
> >>
> >> It is simply a non-starter to suggest that CCWG
> >> would lose its right to independent counsel at
> >> this stage. I am struggling to understand
> >> *where* the suggestion to start this debate all
> >> over again even came from. We have very
> >> important issues on our agenda for WorkStream 2
> >> that require independence of legal advice:
> >> transparency of board deliberations, reforming
> >> the DIDP, the CEP, etc., which all involve trying
> >> to reform the policies that were created by the
> >> in-house legal dept. It is silly to suggest that
> >> we must seek the legal advice from those who
> >> created the policies we are trying to reform as
> >> that would be counter-productive to our goals.
> >>
> >> Additionally it was revealed in yesterday’s
> >> calls, that ICANN’s legal dept fees will be
> >> added to the CCWG’s independent fees, so CCWG
> >> will be billed for the in-house efforts to resist
> >> our reforms (and we won’t be given access to
> >> the legal advice that we would be paying for). I
> >> think it is extremely important the legal fees
> >> NOT be conflated together. We need to understand
> >> what the separate costs are, and we cannot be
> >> held responsible for spending on Jones Day that
> >> is outside of our control. Fees that ICANN
> >> corporate undertakes must be separated from fees
> >> that CCWG undertakes or the proposed budget
> >> process makes absolutely no sense, unless it was
> >> intended to tie CCWG’s hands and give ICANN
> >> corporate a blank check to spend resisting our
> >> reforms.
> >>
> >> This is an important issue that we cannot roll
> >> over on, or everything else we try to do from
> >> here on out will be of questionable value. This
> >> settled debate should not be re-opened, despite
> >> the huge win for ICANN corporate if were to
> >> succeed in over-turning this group’s previous
> >> decision on this critical matter of independence
> >> of legal advice.
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Robin
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> > On Jul 13, 2016, at 2:06 PM, Niels ten Oever
> >> <lists at nielstenoever.net
> >> <mailto:lists at nielstenoever.net> > wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Also +1 to Greg and +1 to James
> >> >
> >> > On 07/13/2016 10:50 PM, Dr. Tatiana Tropina wrote:
> >> >> Thanks, Greg. +1. Fully agree.
> >> >>
> >> >> CCWG shall retain the ability to ask for
> >> independent advice. Also agree
> >> >> that continuing with Sidley Austin and Adler &
> >> Colvin is the best option.
> >> >>
> >> >> + 1 also to James previous email about not
> >> reopening the debate.
> >> >>
> >> >> Best,
> >> >>
> >> >> Tanya
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> On 13/07/16 22:42, Greg Shatan wrote:
> >> >>> Siva,
> >> >>>
> >> >>> The reasons are all in the record. Please go
> >> back and read all of the
> >> >>> materials and discussions relating to our
> >> desire and choice to hire
> >> >>> independent counsel. If you have any
> >> specific questions after that,
> >> >>> please ask them.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> I will briefly say the following:
> >> >>>
> >> >>> 1. This has nothing to do with competence,
> >> although being generally
> >> >>> competent and competent in a specific area
> >> are two different things.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> 2. Where we needed first-hand knowledge or
> >> history, we've turned to
> >> >>> ICANN legal as one source for such things.
> >> That won't change. Advice
> >> >>> is another thing entirely.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> 3. Ask yourself "Who is ICANN legal's
> >> client?" and you will have
> >> >>> answered your own question.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Greg
> >> >>>
> >> >>> On Wednesday, July 13, 2016, Sivasubramanian
> >> M <isolatedn at gmail.com <mailto:isolatedn at gmail.com>
> >> >>> <mailto:isolatedn at gmail.com
> >> <mailto:isolatedn at gmail.com>>> wrote:
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Greg,
> >> >>>
> >> >>> ​How valid are your assumptions? What are
> >> the reasons for this
> >> >>> unwillingness to make use of ICANN Legal,
> >> who are competent, have
> >> >>> first hand knowledge and a complete
> >> understanding of the legal
> >> >>> nuances on matters concerning ICANN, may I
> >> ask?​ Saves money on
> >> >>> most matters requiring legal advice, and
> >> should there be areas
> >> >>> that require specialized advice, we could
> >> seek external advice.
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>> On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 12:28 AM, Greg Shatan
> >> >>> <gregshatanipc at gmail.com
> >> <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
> >> >>>
> >> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','
> gregshatanipc at gmail.com
> >> <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>');>> wrote:
> >> >>>
> >> >>> I object, and I think many others
> >> objected, to the idea that
> >> >>> advice from inhouse (i.e., ICANN legal)
> >> should be the
> >> >>> "default." We retained independent
> >> counsel to the CCWG for
> >> >>> good reason
> >> >>> ​s​
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>> and those reasons are still applicable
> >> today. I hope we don't
> >> >>> need to rehash that.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> We need the continued ability and
> >> discretion to go directly to
> >> >>> CCWG's counsel. Requesting inhouse to
> >> solicit an opinion from
> >> >>> an external counsel is not only
> >> "cumbersome," it's absolutely
> >> >>> antithetical to the relationship between
> >> CCWG and its
> >> >>> independent counsel.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> I strongly believe that the "default"
> >> must be the status quo,
> >> >>> i.e., that the CCWG (through reasonable
> >> processes) has the
> >> >>> ability and discretion to turn to its own
> >> counsel. Further, I
> >> >>> strongly believe that CCWG's independent
> >> counsel must remain
> >> >>> Sidley Austin and Adler & Colvin. They
> >> have been up a
> >> >>> tremendous learning curve and worked with
> >> us every step of the
> >> >>> way. It would be folly to cast that
> >> aside. It's worth noting
> >> >>> that Sidley is a full-service law firm
> >> with offices outside
> >> >>> the US in Beijing, Brussels, Geneva, Hong
> >> Kong, London,
> >> >>> Munich, Shanghai, Singapore, Sydney and
> >> Tokyo. I'm confident
> >> >>> that Sidley (and Adler) will (a) tell us
> >> when they don't have
> >> >>> the expertise to help us, and (b) work
> >> with us on working
> >> >>> methods to make our use of the firms more
> >> cost-effective.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Greg
> >> >>>
> >> >>> On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 9:22 PM, Rudolph
> >> Daniel
> >> >>> <rudi.daniel at gmail.com
> >> <mailto:rudi.daniel at gmail.com>
> >> >>>
> >> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','rudi.daniel at gmail.com
> >> <mailto:rudi.daniel at gmail.com>');>> wrote:
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Based on comments on the call today,
> >> IMO; A good body of
> >> >>> knowledge was accquired on the subject
> >> of legal requests
> >> >>> in wg1. WG2 legal resources would be
> >> both inhouse and
> >> >>> external, from start, We should be
> >> much more efficient
> >> >>> this time around. Each sub however
> >> will have their needs
> >> >>> and there may be requests applicable
> >> across the subgroups
> >> >>> and/or specific to a subgroup.
> >> >>> So, that suggests close relationship
> >> between budget
> >> >>> control and the former legal request
> >> team [reconfigured
> >> >>> and/or augmented] who would have to
> >> coordinate requests
> >> >>> across ws2 sub
> >> >>> groups as i see it.
> >> >>> What determines the initial choice
> >> inhouse/external
> >> >>> resources may be a matter of
> >> consensus, but it may be
> >> >>> prudent to consider the process as
> >> [default] inhouse with
> >> >>> the flexible and necessary option of
> >> external sources by
> >> >>> consensus [as the fog clears so to
> >> speak]. I think it may
> >> >>> be cumbersome to request inhouse to
> >> solicit an opinion
> >> >>> from an external, because there may
> >> arise an instance
> >> >>> where; on the strength of an opinion,
> >> [inhouse or
> >> >>> external] ; a wg2 may wish to reframe
> >> and seek
> >> >>> alternative advise elswhere.
> >> >>> rd
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Rudi Daniel
> >> >>> /danielcharles consulting
> >> >>>
> >> <
> http://www.facebook.com/pages/Kingstown-Saint-Vincent-and-the-Grenadines/DanielCharles/153611257984774
> >> >/
> >> >>> *
> >> >>> *
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>> On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 7:21 PM, Vinay
> >> Kesari
> >> >>> <vinay.kesari at gmail.com
> >> <mailto:vinay.kesari at gmail.com>
> >> >>>
> >> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','
> vinay.kesari at gmail.com
> >> <mailto:vinay.kesari at gmail.com>');>>
> >> >>> wrote:
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Dear all,
> >> >>>
> >> >>> I was unfortunately unable to join
> >> the call as I was
> >> >>> on a flight at the time, my
> >> apologies. I've just had a
> >> >>> chance to catch up on the Adobe
> >> Connect recording, and
> >> >>> I'm happy to reconfirm my
> >> willingness and availability
> >> >>> to serve as a rapporteur. Also, I
> >> agree with the
> >> >>> thrust of Kavouss' comment at
> >> 0:24:30, and affirm my
> >> >>> commitment to serve impartially. I
> >> look forward to
> >> >>> working with Greg on the
> >> jurisdiction subgroup.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Separately, on the issue of
> >> allocation of legal
> >> >>> requests, I agree that we need
> >> further discussion, and
> >> >>> endorse creating an Option 3 based
> >> on the points made
> >> >>> and the specific requirements of
> >> the different WS2
> >> >>> subgroups.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Regards,
> >> >>> Vinay
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>> On 12 July 2016 at 20:55, Mathieu
> Weill
> >> >>> <mathieu.weill at afnic.fr
> >> <mailto:mathieu.weill at afnic.fr>
> >> >>>
> >> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','
> mathieu.weill at afnic.fr
> >> <mailto:mathieu.weill at afnic.fr>');>>
> >> >>> wrote:
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Dear Colleagues,
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Attached is a short set of
> >> slides to support our
> >> >>> discussion on agenda item #4
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Talk to you in a few hours
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Mathieu
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>> *De
> >> :*accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org
> >> <mailto:
> accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org>
> >> >>>
> >> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','
> 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>
> >> >>>
> >> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','
> accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org
> >> <mailto:
> accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org>');>]
> >> >>> *De la part de* MSSI Secretariat
> >> >>> *Envoyé :* lundi 11 juillet
> >> 2016 19:46
> >> >>> *À :* CCWG-Accountability
> >> >>> *Objet :* [CCWG-ACCT] Proposed
> >> Agenda CCWG ACCT
> >> >>> Meeting - 12 July 2016 @ 20:00 UTC
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Good day all,
> >> >>>
> >> >>> In preparation for your call,
> >> CCWG Accountability
> >> >>> WS2 Meeting #2
> >> >>>
> >> <https://community.icann.org/x/FyOOAw
> >> <https://community.icann.org/x/FyOOAw>>– Tuesday,
> >> >>> 12 July @ 20:00 – 22:00 UTC.
> >> Time zone converter
> >> >>> here
> >> >>>
> >> <
> http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=CCWG+Accountability+Meeting&iso=20160712T20&p1=1440&ah=2
> >> >
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>> *Proposed Agenda:*
> >> >>>
> >> >>> 1. Welcome, SOI
> >> >>>
> >> >>> 2.
> >> >>> Articles of Incorporation :
> >> finalize submission
> >> >>>
> >> >>> 3.
> >> >>> Appointment of rapporteurs for
> >> WS2 – next steps
> >> >>>
> >> >>> 4.
> >> >>> Legal Cost Control Mechanism :
> >> initial discussion
> >> >>>
> >> >>> 5. AOB
> >> >>>
> >> >>> 6. Closing
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>> *Adobe Connect:
> >> >>>
> >> *https://icann.adobeconnect.com/accountability/
> >> >>>
> >> <https://icann.adobeconnect.com/accountability/>
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Thank you!
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>> With kind regards,
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Brenda Brewer
> >> >>>
> >> >>> MSSI Projects & Operations
> Assistant
> >> >>>
> >> >>> ICANN-**Internet Corporation for
> >> Assigned Names
> >> >>> and Numbers
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> >>> Accountability-Cross-Community
> >> mailing list
> >> >>>
> >> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> >> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
> >> >>>
> >> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> >> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> >');>
> >> >>>
> >>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
> >>
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> >>> Accountability-Cross-Community
> >> mailing list
> >> >>>
> >> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> >> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
> >> >>>
> >> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> >> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> >');>
> >> >>>
> >>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
> >>
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> >>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing
> >> list
> >> >>>
> >> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> >> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
> >> >>>
> >> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> >> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> >');>
> >> >>>
> >>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
> >>
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> >>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> >> >>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> >> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
> >> >>>
> >> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> >> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> >');>
> >> >>>
> >>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
> >>
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>> --
> >> >>> Sivasubramanian M
> >> <https://www.facebook.com/sivasubramanian.muthusamy
> >
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>> _______________________________________________
> >> >>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> >> >>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> >> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
> >> >>>
> >>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> _______________________________________________
> >> >> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> >> >> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> >> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
> >> >>
> >>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
> >>
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> > Niels ten Oever
> >> > Head of Digital
> >> >
> >> > Article 19
> >> > www.article19.org <http://www.article19.org>
> >> >
> >> > PGP fingerprint 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4
> >> > 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9
> >> > _______________________________________________
> >> > Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> >> > Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> >> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
> >> >
> >>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> >> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> >> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
> >>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >>
> >>
> >> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> >>
> >>
> >> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> >> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --------------
> >>
> >>
> >> Matthew Shears
> >>
> >>
> >> Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
> >>
> >>
> >> Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
> >>
> >>
> >> + 44 771 2472987 <tel:%2B%2044%20771%202472987>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast
> >> antivirus software.
> >> www.avast.com <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> No virus found in this message.
> >> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com>
> >> Version: 2016.0.7497 / Virus Database: 4613/12558 -
> >> Release Date: 07/04/16
> >> Internal Virus Database is out of date.
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> >> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> >> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
> >>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> >> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> >> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
> >>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Farzaneh
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> >> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> >> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
> >>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
> >>
> >>
> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
> >> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> >> Content-Disposition: inline
> >> X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics:
> >>
> >>
> 1;SN1PR0301MB2030;9:p4t8tZsYRMEtnIUlXqtpL2QarivWIiCQ1uAWlQ043vv01vxVWJDfUZbPtSDBozyxURh8Wbdz4YdXFUpyO0Nz8WxZ5ZJap793kqg7QQbkQ+LX1BU1qyGxTIyBzVPn4nsdkmJgZTVDHksNzyRWon3iI3zeZQoTrU8NaiOmgzJpztPH5l6FxKy5Z+1L1Q/eyTFBlflFuAXl8sdo/cWNX3fT4Q==
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> >> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> > Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>
>
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20160715/9ee68536/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community
mailing list