[CCWG-ACCT] Fwd: Human Rights Transition Provision: Bylaws Section 27.3(a)
Kavouss Arasteh
kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com
Tue May 3 15:27:26 UTC 2016
Dear All
Approval of FOI , among other entities, by chartering organisations is an absolute necessity and need to be explicitly and clearly mentioned.
Regards
Kavousd
Sent from my iPhone
> On 3 May 2016, at 10:30, Nigel Roberts <nigel at channelisles.net> wrote:
>
> Why are you all surprised.
>
> Notwithstanding Hanlon's Law, this looks deliberate.
>
>> On 02/05/16 21:20, Greg Shatan wrote:
>> I am also referring to what we [said/wrote]* in the report, which is the
>> following:
>>
>> "The proposed draft Bylaw also clarifies that no IRP challenges can be
>> made on the grounds of this Bylaw until a Framework of Interpretation on
>> Human Rights (FOI-HR) is developed and approved as part of Work Stream 2
>> activities. It further clarifies that *acceptance of the **FOI**-HR will
>> require the same process as for Work Stream 1 recommendations* (as
>> agreed for all Work Stream 2 recommendations)."
>>
>> We said ... er sorry .. wrote this *_three_* times in the report, and we
>> need to give this effect. The language in the draft circulated for
>> comment is inconsistent with this statement, to the extent that it
>> appears to require the positive approval of all Chartering
>> Organizations, which would be a _different_ process than the one used
>> for Work Stream 1 recommendations. As such, the draft needs to be
>> corrected.
>>
>> I was on the calls and email exchanges when the parenthetical about the
>> chartering organizations was inserted in the "bylaws" language in the
>> Proposal. All that was meant by the insertion was to clarify that the
>> FoI did not go straight from Working Group approval to the Board, but
>> had to be reviewed by the Chartering Organizations first, just as the
>> WS1 recommendations were reviewed. There was never any discussion or
>> intent to imply that a higher standard of approval was needed for the
>> FoI vs. all other CCWG recommendations.
>>
>> If anyone can find a clear and unequivocal statement that shows the CCWG
>> meant to have a heightened standard for the FoI, I'll reconsider my
>> view. However, I'm confident there is no such statement. We spent
>> many, many hours of discussing and drafting sections on levels of
>> approval for the Empowered Community and relating to levels of approval
>> within the GAC. As such, it defies logic to claim that the simple
>> insertion of a parenthetical, without any specific discussion or
>> explanation of a heightened standard, created a requirement for
>> unanimous and/or positive approval.
>>
>> Greg
>>
>> ______
>> * You are inventing a dichotomy where there is none. In either case, I
>> was referring to the report, not to some verbal utterance. I'm sorry if
>> my somewhat colloquial use of "said" confused you. It's perfectly
>> acceptable to use "said" to refer to a written document, at least in
>> everyday usage.
>>
>> On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 11:10 AM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com
>> <mailto:seun.ojedeji at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>> Depends on how you are interpreting the word "bundle"; the WS1 was
>> presented as a single document, while some COs decided to
>> approve/respond recommendation by recommendation, others approved
>> the document as a whole. Perhaps a simple application of the
>> report(if you want to avoid round trips proposed in the report
>> without distorting the intent) will be to highlight FoI as a single
>> recommendation in WS2 which gives the COs the option to
>> approve/reject it out rightly and then the CCWG can determine what
>> to do with the FoI based on the outcome of the COs approval process.
>>
>> On your second point, at this juncture I am not talking about what
>> we said but rather about what we WROTE in the report, which is what
>> anyone who have not followed the process would rely upon. So do you
>> want to reflect "what we said" or "what we wrote" either of them is
>> fine by me but we should be clear on the path we have chosen,
>> knowing it's implications as well.
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> Sent from my LG G4
>> Kindly excuse brevity and typos
>>
>> On 2 May 2016 3:51 p.m., "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc at gmail.com
>> <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>> At no point did we say that the FoI would be bundled with other
>> WS2 recommendations as a complete package. Indeed, we've never
>> said that any of the WS2 projects had to be bundled with others.
>>
>> At no point did we say that there would be a special process for
>> approving the FoI. It should be the same as WS1, which
>> contemplates a review by the Chartering Organizations, and then
>> allows the CCWG to forward recommendation to the Board even if
>> less than all of the COs approve of the recommendation.
>>
>> As long as we can find ways to reflect that clearly, we will be
>> carrying out the intent of the Proposal.
>>
>> Greg
>>
>> On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 10:43 AM, Seun Ojedeji
>> <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com <mailto:seun.ojedeji at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>> Hello Thomas,
>>
>> If I process this correctly, it implies approval of the FoI
>> will be done based on ratification process in the CCWG
>> charter, which is different from approval of the whole WS2
>> package as per the charter.
>>
>> If that is it, then I will say it's somewhat closer to what
>> was proposed in the report (even though the report did not
>> mention that CO ratification of FoI is based on the charter).
>>
>> Regards
>> Sent from my LG G4
>> Kindly excuse brevity and typos
>>
>> On 2 May 2016 3:24 p.m., "Thomas Rickert"
>> <thomas at rickert.net <mailto:thomas at rickert.net>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi all,
>> Tijani has proposed a solution at the end of his latest
>> e-mail:
>>
>> I understand that the first proposal made the approval
>> of all the chartering organizations necessary, The
>> modification should keep the reference to the
>> ratification of the chartering organizations and add "as
>> defined in the CCWG charter“.
>>
>> Would that be a way forward?
>>
>> Best,
>> Thomas
>>
>>
>>
>>> Am 02.05.2016 um 16:19 schrieb Seun Ojedeji
>>> <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com <mailto:seun.ojedeji at gmail.com>>:
>>>
>>> Hello Niels,
>>>
>>> I think we may just be playing around with words here,
>>> definitely you understand Tijani's concern ;-). Let me
>>> attempt to spell out(even though I have done this
>>> before) my understanding of the report which I must
>>> say is obvious:
>>>
>>> 1. The report clearly used the phrase "...*including*
>>> approval of chartering organisations"
>>>
>>> 2. Equating that to mean that it's equivalent to the
>>> CO approval within CCWG may be out of order because as
>>> per the charter irrespective of number of support from
>>> CO, the package goes to board for approval.
>>>
>>> 3. The intent of item 2 above is not the same thing as
>>> item 1; What I understand is that the FoI as a
>>> critical document it is needs to be developed during
>>> WS2, approved by the CO and incoporated into the WS2
>>> proposal which is then sent to COs for approval as a
>>> complete package.
>>>
>>> That said, i will again say that if the goal is to
>>> reflect what was written in the report then we are out
>>> of order. However we may just agree that what we have
>>> done is correcting a *mistake* in the report through
>>> the bylaw. In that case, we should present it as such
>>> and not on claims that the report did not say approval
>>> of CO is required.
>>>
>>> Regards
>>>
>>> Sent from my LG G4
>>> Kindly excuse brevity and typos
>>>
>>> On 2 May 2016 9:40 a.m., "Niels ten Oever"
>>> <lists at nielstenoever.net
>>> <mailto:lists at nielstenoever.net>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Tijani,
>>>
>>> But the chartering organizations are mentioned in
>>> the charter of the
>>> CCWG, so am not sure if I understand your concern.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>>
>>> Niels
>>>
>>> On 05/02/2016 10:22 AM, Tijani BEN JEMAA wrote:
>>> > Hi Niels,
>>> >
>>> > The last modification of the bylaws proposed by
>>> the lawyers didn’t make
>>> > any reference to the chartering organizations
>>> approval while it is
>>> > clearly mentioned in the CCWG last proposal
>>> ratified by the chartering
>>> > organizations.
>>> >
>>> > Have a nice day
>>> >
>>> >
>>> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> > *Tijani BEN JEMAA*
>>> > Executive Director
>>> > Mediterranean Federation of Internet
>>> Associations (*FMAI*)
>>> > Phone: +216 98 330 114 <tel:%2B216%2098%20330%20114>
>>> > +216 52 385 114 <tel:%2B216%2052%20385%20114>
>>> >
>>> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >> Le 2 mai 2016 à 09:11, Niels ten Oever
>>> <lists at nielstenoever.net
>>> <mailto:lists at nielstenoever.net>
>>> >> <mailto:lists at nielstenoever.net
>>> <mailto:lists at nielstenoever.net>>> a écrit :
>>> >>
>>> >> Dear Tijani and Kavouss,
>>> >>
>>> >> Could you please indicate where the proposed
>>> text is not consistent with
>>> >> the report? Concrete references would be
>>> helpful for me to better
>>> >> understand your point.
>>> >>
>>> >> Thanks in advance,
>>> >>
>>> >> Niels
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> On 05/02/2016 09:38 AM, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:
>>> >>> Tijani +1
>>> >>> I fully agree with Tijani
>>> >>> People misuse the opportunity to make
>>> modifications that were not agreed
>>> >>> during the lkast 16 months
>>> >>> NO CHANGE NO MODIFICATIONS.
>>> >>> During the WSIS I WILL tell everybody that
>>> there is no supervision nor
>>> >>> control on what we have agreed and the people
>>> will make whatever change
>>> >>> they wish without the agreements of the others
>>> >>>
>>> >>> KAVOUSS
>>> >>>
>>> >>> 2016-05-02 8:14 GMT+02:00 Tijani BEN JEMAA
>>> <tijani.benjemaa at topnet.tn
>>> <mailto:tijani.benjemaa at topnet.tn>
>>> >>> <mailto:tijani.benjemaa at topnet.tn
>>> <mailto:tijani.benjemaa at topnet.tn>>
>>> >>> <mailto:tijani.benjemaa at topnet.tn
>>> <mailto:tijani.benjemaa at topnet.tn>>>:
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Mathieu and all,
>>> >>>
>>> >>> The modification proposed doesn’t reflect
>>> the CCWG last proposal
>>> >>> approved by the chartering organization. I
>>> don’t think we are
>>> >>> allowed to write bylaws that are not the
>>> exact interpretation of the
>>> >>> approved document that had the CCWG
>>> consensus and the charting
>>> >>> organizations ratification.
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> >>> *Tijani BEN JEMAA*
>>> >>> Executive Director
>>> >>> Mediterranean Federation of Internet
>>> Associations (*FMAI*)
>>> >>> Phone: +216 98 330 114
>>> <tel:%2B216%2098%20330%20114>
>>> >>> +216 52 385 114 <tel:%2B216%2052%20385%20114>
>>> >>>
>>> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>>> Le 2 mai 2016 à 04:23, Kavouss Arasteh
>>> <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com
>>> <mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>
>>> >>>> <mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com
>>> <mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>>
>>> >>>> <mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com
>>> <mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>>> a écrit :
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> Mathieu,
>>> >>>> Tks
>>> >>>> Pls NOTE MY SERIOUS OBJECTIONS to:
>>> >>>> 1.NOT MENTIONING REFERNCE TO THE APPROVAL
>>> OF CHARTERING
>>> >>>> ORGANIZATIONBS in HR
>>> >>>> 2. GIVE GIVE A BLANKET AGREEMENT TO THE
>>> DOCUMENTS WHICH YET TO BE
>>> >>>> DRAFTED.
>>> >>>> 3. Making so many changes to the Third
>>> proposals . We must avoid
>>> >>>> having a new proposal
>>> >>>> Kavouss
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> 2016-05-01 22:42 GMT+02:00 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>>
>>> >>>> <mailto:mathieu.weill at afnic.fr
>>> <mailto:mathieu.weill at afnic.fr>>>:
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> Dear colleagues,
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> Please find below for your
>>> consideration some suggestions from
>>> >>>> our lawyers for clarification of the
>>> bylaw language regarding
>>> >>>> the Human rights FoI. This follows our
>>> request during the
>>> >>>> previous call.
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> Best,
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> Mathieu Weill
>>> >>>> ---------------
>>> >>>> Depuis mon mobile, désolé pour le style
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> Début du message transféré :
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>> *Expéditeur:* "Gregory, Holly"
>>> <holly.gregory at sidley.com
>>> <mailto:holly.gregory at sidley.com>
>>> >>>>> <mailto:holly.gregory at sidley.com
>>> <mailto:holly.gregory at sidley.com>>
>>> >>>>> <mailto:holly.gregory at sidley.com
>>> <mailto:holly.gregory at sidley.com>>>
>>> >>>>> *Date:* 1 mai 2016 19:10:53 UTC+2
>>> >>>>> *Destinataire:* "'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>>
>>> >>>>> <mailto:mathieu.weill at afnic.fr
>>> <mailto:mathieu.weill at afnic.fr>>>, "'Thomas Rickert'"
>>> >>>>> <thomas at rickert.net
>>> <mailto:thomas at rickert.net>
>>> >>>>> <mailto:thomas at rickert.net
>>> <mailto:thomas at rickert.net>>
>>> <mailto:thomas at rickert.net
>>> <mailto:thomas at rickert.net>>>, León Felipe
>>> >>>>> Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe at sanchez.mx
>>> <mailto:leonfelipe at sanchez.mx>
>>> >>>>> <mailto:leonfelipe at sanchez.mx
>>> <mailto:leonfelipe at sanchez.mx>>
>>> >>>>> <mailto:leonfelipe at sanchez.mx
>>> <mailto:leonfelipe at sanchez.mx>>>,
>>> "bylaws-coord at icann.org
>>> <mailto:bylaws-coord at icann.org>
>>> >>>>> <mailto:bylaws-coord at icann.org
>>> <mailto:bylaws-coord at icann.org>>
>>> >>>>> <mailto:bylaws-coord at icann.org
>>> <mailto:bylaws-coord at icann.org>>"
>>> <bylaws-coord at icann.org
>>> <mailto:bylaws-coord at icann.org>
>>> >>>>> <mailto:bylaws-coord at icann.org
>>> <mailto:bylaws-coord at icann.org>>
>>> >>>>> <mailto:bylaws-coord at icann.org
>>> <mailto:bylaws-coord at icann.org>>>
>>> >>>>> *Cc:* ACCT-Staff
>>> <acct-staff at icann.org <mailto:acct-staff at icann.org>
>>> >>>>> <mailto:acct-staff at icann.org
>>> <mailto:acct-staff at icann.org>>
>>> >>>>> <mailto:acct-staff at icann.org
>>> <mailto:acct-staff at icann.org>>>, "Rosemary E. Fei"
>>> >>>>> <rfei at adlercolvin.com
>>> <mailto:rfei at adlercolvin.com>
>>> >>>>> <mailto:rfei at adlercolvin.com
>>> <mailto:rfei at adlercolvin.com>>
>>> <mailto:rfei at adlercolvin.com
>>> <mailto:rfei at adlercolvin.com>>>,
>>> >>>>> "ICANN at adlercolvin.com
>>> <mailto:ICANN at adlercolvin.com>
>>> >>>>> <mailto:ICANN at adlercolvin.com
>>> <mailto:ICANN at adlercolvin.com>>
>>> <mailto:ICANN at adlercolvin.com
>>> <mailto:ICANN at adlercolvin.com>>"
>>> >>>>> <ICANN at adlercolvin.com
>>> <mailto:ICANN at adlercolvin.com>
>>> >>>>> <mailto:ICANN at adlercolvin.com
>>> <mailto:ICANN at adlercolvin.com>>
>>> <mailto:ICANN at adlercolvin.com
>>> <mailto:ICANN at adlercolvin.com>>>,
>>> >>>>> Sidley ICANN CCWG
>>> <sidleyicannccwg at sidley.com
>>> <mailto:sidleyicannccwg at sidley.com>
>>> >>>>> <mailto:sidleyicannccwg at sidley.com
>>> <mailto:sidleyicannccwg at sidley.com>>
>>> >>>>> <mailto:sidleyicannccwg at sidley.com
>>> <mailto:sidleyicannccwg at sidley.com>>>,
>>> >>>>> "Samantha.Eisner at icann.org
>>> <mailto:Samantha.Eisner at icann.org>
>>> <mailto:Samantha.Eisner at icann.org
>>> <mailto:Samantha.Eisner at icann.org>>
>>> >>>>> <mailto:Samantha.Eisner at icann.org
>>> <mailto:Samantha.Eisner at icann.org>>"
>>> >>>>> <Samantha.Eisner at icann.org
>>> <mailto:Samantha.Eisner at icann.org>
>>> >>>>> <mailto:Samantha.Eisner at icann.org
>>> <mailto:Samantha.Eisner at icann.org>>
>>> <mailto:Samantha.Eisner at icann.org
>>> <mailto:Samantha.Eisner at icann.org>>>
>>> >>>>> *Objet:* *Human Rights Transition
>>> Provision: Bylaws Section
>>> >>>>> 27.3(a)*
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>> Dear Co-Chairs and Bylaws
>>> Coordinating Group:
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>> On the CCWG call last week, there was
>>> a discussion of the
>>> >>>>> Bylaws language regarding the
>>> transition provision on Human
>>> >>>>> Rights*//*[27.3(a)] and it was
>>> suggested that the language be
>>> >>>>> clarified to ensure that the same
>>> approval process used for
>>> >>>>> Work Stream 1 would apply. We
>>> propose the following
>>> >>>>> clarifying edits. We suggest that
>>> you share this with the
>>> >>>>> CCWG and if there is agreement, the
>>> following proposed edit
>>> >>>>> should be included in the CCWG’s
>>> public comment:____
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>> Redline:____
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>> *Section 27.3. HUMAN RIGHTS____*
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>> __ __
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>> (a) The Core Value set forth in
>>> Section 1.2(b)(viii) shall
>>> >>>>> have no force or effect unless and
>>> until a framework of
>>> >>>>> interpretation for human rights
>>> (“*FOI-HR*”) is approved by
>>> >>>>> (i) approved for submission to the
>>> Board by the
>>> >>>>> CCWG-Accountability as a consensus
>>> recommendation in Work
>>> >>>>> Stream 2, and (ii) approved by each
>>> of the
>>> >>>>> CCWG-Accountability’s chartering
>>> organizations and (iii) the
>>> >>>>> Board, (in each thecase of the Board,
>>> using the same process
>>> >>>>> and criteria used by the Boardto
>>> consider the as for Work
>>> >>>>> Stream 1 Recommendations).____
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>> __ __
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>> (b) No person or entity shall be
>>> entitled to invoke the
>>> >>>>> reconsideration process provided in
>>> Section 4.2, or the
>>> >>>>> independent review process provided
>>> in Section 4.3, based
>>> >>>>> solely on the inclusion of the Core
>>> Value set forth in
>>> >>>>> Section 1.2(b)(viii) (i) until after
>>> the FOI-HR contemplated
>>> >>>>> by Section 27.3(a) is in place or
>>> (ii) for actions of ICANN
>>> >>>>> or the Board that occurred prior to
>>> the____
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>> effectiveness of the FOI-HR.____
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>> Clean:____
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>> *Section 27.3. HUMAN RIGHTS____*
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>> __ __
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>> (a) The Core Value set forth in
>>> Section 1.2(b)(viii) shall
>>> >>>>> have no force or effect unless and
>>> until a framework of
>>> >>>>> interpretation for human rights
>>> (“*FOI-HR*”) is (i) approved
>>> >>>>> for submission to the Board by the
>>> CCWG-Accountability as a
>>> >>>>> consensus recommendation in Work
>>> Stream 2 and (ii) approved
>>> >>>>> by the Board, in each case, using the
>>> same process and
>>> >>>>> criteria as for Work Stream 1
>>> Recommendations.____
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>> __ __
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>> (b) No person or entity shall be
>>> entitled to invoke the
>>> >>>>> reconsideration process provided in
>>> Section 4.2, or the
>>> >>>>> independent review process provided
>>> in Section 4.3, based
>>> >>>>> solely on the inclusion of the Core
>>> Value set forth in
>>> >>>>> Section 1.2(b)(viii) (i) until after
>>> the FOI-HR contemplated
>>> >>>>> by Section 27.3(a) is in place or
>>> (ii) for actions of ICANN
>>> >>>>> or the Board that occurred prior to
>>> the____
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>> effectiveness of the FOI-HR.____
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>> Kind regards, ____
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>> __ __
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>> Holly and Rosemary____
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>> __ __
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>> __ __
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>> *HOLLY* *J. GREGORY*
>>> >>>>> Partner and Co-Chair
>>> >>>>> Corporate Governance & Executive
>>> Compensation Practice Group____
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>> *Sidley Austin LLP*
>>> >>>>> 787 Seventh Avenue
>>> >>>>> New York, NY 10019
>>> >>>>> +1 212 839 5853 <tel:%2B1%20212%20839%205853>
>>> >>>>> holly.gregory at sidley.com
>>> <mailto:holly.gregory at sidley.com>
>>> >>>>> <mailto:holly.gregory at sidley.com
>>> <mailto:holly.gregory at sidley.com>>
>>> <mailto:holly.gregory at sidley.com
>>> <mailto:holly.gregory at sidley.com>>
>>> >>>>> www.sidley.com <http://www.sidley.com/>
>>> >>>>> <http://www.sidley.com/>
>>> <http://www.sidley.com/>____
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>>
>>> http://www.sidley.com/files/upload/signatures/SA-autosig.png
>>> >>>>> <http://www.sidley.com/> *SIDLEY
>>> AUSTIN LLP*____
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>> __ __
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>>
>>> ****************************************************************************************************
>>> >>>>> This e-mail is sent by a law firm and
>>> may contain information
>>> >>>>> that is privileged or confidential.
>>> >>>>> If you are not the intended
>>> recipient, please delete the
>>> >>>>> e-mail and any attachments and notify us
>>> >>>>> immediately.
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>>
>>> ****************************************************************************************************
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> >>>> 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>>
>>> >>>>
>>> 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>>
>>> >>>>
>>> <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
>>> >
>>>
>>> --
>>> 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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community
mailing list