[CCWG-ACCT] Proposed Agenda CCWG ACCT Meeting - 12 July 2016 @ 20:00 UTC
Alberto Soto
asoto at ibero-americano.org
Sat Jul 16 02:37:06 UTC 2016
Dear, I agree with the last mail saying: Amen!!
And I do not agree with people who think about the last mail without seeing the history. Just that makes us go into vicious circles.
The time make us lose everyone, including me (I am amateur), is very important.
Perhaps the thread of the discussions could be better on a wiki .... not on a mailing list.
And we all say before, we can see in one place.
Kind regards
Alberto Soto
De: accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] En nombre de Karel Douglas
Enviado el: viernes, 15 de julio de 2016 10:26 p.m.
Para: avri doria <avri at apc.org>
CC: Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
Asunto: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Proposed Agenda CCWG ACCT Meeting - 12 July 2016 @ 20:00 UTC
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 <mailto: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>
>> <mailto: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>
>> <mailto: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> <mailto: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> <mailto: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>
>> <mailto: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>
>> <mailto: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>
>> <mailto:psc at vlaw-dc.com <mailto:psc at vlaw-dc.com> >>, Matthew Shears
>> <mshears at cdt.org <mailto:mshears at cdt.org> <mailto:mshears at cdt.org <mailto:mshears at cdt.org> >>, Greg
>> Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
>> <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com> > >, Robin Gross
>> <robin at ipjustice.org <mailto:robin at ipjustice.org> <mailto: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>
>> <mailto: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 <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 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> <tel:202-559-8597 <tel:202-559-8597> >/Direct
>> 202-559-8750 <tel:202-559-8750> <tel:202-559-8750 <tel:202-559-8750> >/Fax
>> 202-255-6172 <tel:202-255-6172> <tel:202-255-6172 <tel:202-255-6172> >/Cell
>>
>> Twitter: @VlawDC
>>
>> "Luck is the residue of design" --- Branch Rickey
>>
>> From:mshears at cdt.org <mailto:From%3Amshears at cdt.org> <mailto:mshears at cdt.org <mailto:mshears at cdt.org> >
>>
>> Sent:July 14, 2016 5:26 PM
>>
>> To:gregshatanipc at gmail.com <mailto:To%3Agregshatanipc at gmail.com>
>> <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com> >; robin at ipjustice.org <mailto:robin at ipjustice.org>
>> <mailto:robin at ipjustice.org <mailto:robin at ipjustice.org> >
>>
>> Cc:accountability-cross-community at icann.org <mailto:Cc%3Aaccountability-cross-community at icann.org>
>> <mailto: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>
>> <mailto: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>
>> <mailto: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> >
>> >>> <mailto: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>
>> <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com> >
>> >>>
>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','gregshatanipc at gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
>> <mailto: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>
>> <mailto: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>
>> <mailto: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>
>> <mailto: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>
>> <mailto: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>
>> <mailto: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>
>> <mailto: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>
>> <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>
>> <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> >
>> >>>
>> <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> >');>]
>> >>> *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 <http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=CCWG+Accountability+Meeting&iso=20160712T20&p1=1440&ah=2> &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>
>> <mailto: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>
>> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org> >');>
>> >>>
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> >>> Accountability-Cross-Community
>> mailing list
>> >>>
>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
>> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org> >
>> >>>
>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
>> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org> >');>
>> >>>
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> >>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing
>> list
>> >>>
>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
>> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org> >
>> >>>
>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
>> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org> >');>
>> >>>
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> >>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>> >>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
>> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org> >
>> >>>
>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
>> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org> >');>
>> >>>
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> --
>> >>> 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>
>> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org> >
>> >>>
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>> >> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
>> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org> >
>> >>
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>>
>> >>
>> >
>> > --
>> > Niels ten Oever
>> > Head of Digital
>> >
>> > Article 19
>> > www.article19.org <http://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>
>> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org> >
>> >
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
>> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org> >
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>>
>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>>
>>
>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
>> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org> >
>>
>>
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --------------
>>
>>
>> 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 <http://www.avast.com> <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
>>
>>
>>
>> No virus found in this message.
>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://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>
>> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org> >
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
>> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org> >
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Farzaneh
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
>> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org> >
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>>
>>
>> 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 <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
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
---
El software de antivirus Avast ha analizado este correo electrónico en busca de virus.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20160715/6519de38/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community
mailing list