December 2014 - Accountability-Cross-Community

[CCWG-Accountability] Related work on ICANN's Public Interest
by Bruce Tonkin Dec. 16, 2014

Dec. 16, 2014

Hello All, The origin of the strategic work on public interest comes from the strategy panel on Public Responsibility Framework. https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/prf-report-15may14-en.pdf That panel recommended the following definition: "Panel Definitions Submitted to ICANN: As an independent, global organization, ICANN is one of the organizations charged with responsibility for an increasingly important shared global resource: The Internet. As one of the stewards of this resource, ICANN recognizes it has a responsibility to protect and promote the global public interest, both throughout its work, and in collaboration with other entities. ICANN's public responsibility permeates all areas of its work and is at the core of its operations. ICANN defines the global public interest in relation to the Internet as ensuring the Internet becomes, and continues to be, stable, inclusive, and accessible across the globe so that all may enjoy the benefits of a single and open Internet. In addressing its public responsibility, ICANN must build trust in the Internet and its governance ecosystem." This definition though has not been formally adopted. Regards, Bruce Tonkin

2 1

[CCWG-Accountability] Statistics on Diversity in the CCWG-Accountability
by Grace Abuhamad Dec. 16, 2014

Dec. 16, 2014

Dear all, Staff has compiled some initial statistics on the diversity of the CCWG-Accountability that the Chairs have asked us to share below: This information will also be regularly updated on the Wiki: https://community.icann.org/x/IoMHAw There are currently 150 people in the CCWG-Accountability. 26 Members | 124 Participants and 30 Mailing List Observers Of the 150 CCWG-Accountability members and participants, the regional representation is as follows: * 40 (not specified) * 34 North America * 33 Europe * 23 Asia/Asia Pacific * 12 Africa * 7 Latin America Of the 150 CCWG-Accountability members and participants, the stakeholder group representation is as follows: * 58 (no affiliation) * 35 GNSO * 21 GAC * 18 At-Large * 11 ccNSO/ccTLD * 4 ASO In addition, there is one ICANN Board Liaison and one ICANN Staff Representative. Also, there are 4 ICG members who participate in the CCWG-Accountability, including two who serve as liaisons between the two groups.

3 2

[CCWG-Accountability] Initial draft for overall steps
by Mathieu Weill Dec. 15, 2014

Dec. 15, 2014

Dear colleagues, In support of our discussions for our meeting Tue 16th 11.00 UTC, please find attached a proposal highlighting significant steps and milestones for our group, for discussion. Best regards, -- ***************************** Mathieu WEILL Co-chair Tél: +33 1 39 30 83 06 mathieu.weill(a)afnic.fr Twitter : @mathieuweill *****************************

1 0

Re: [CCWG-Accountability] [CWG-Stewardship] [Internal-cg] CCWG Accountability
by Kavouss Arasteh Dec. 14, 2014

Dec. 14, 2014

Dear All, In addition to what I informed you before is that , Under WS 1 they already agreed to the terms and conditions as stipulated in the Board Resolution adopted in LA I.E. ALLOWING THE BOARD TO VETO the content of the accountability whereas in case of ICG we have clearly mentioned that the Board should not modify the ICG work and send it as it was received to NTIA .However, should the Board has any comment, they may send it separately to NTIA In case of CWG and WS1 of CCWG, it is not the case. I am worried about that. I mentioned that in virtual meeting to all CCWG Regards Kavouss 2014-12-14 17:49 GMT+01:00 Gomes, Chuck <cgomes(a)verisign.com>: > > Wolf-Ulrich, > > > > I totally agree with you that this will have to be discussed. > > > > Chuck > > > > *From:* cwg-stewardship-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto: > cwg-stewardship-bounces(a)icann.org] *On Behalf Of *WUKnoben > *Sent:* Sunday, December 14, 2014 9:20 AM > *To:* Kavouss Arasteh; Drazek, Keith > *Cc:* ICG; cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org; > accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org > *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] [Internal-cg] CCWG Accountability > > > > I agree that close coordination is needed at least between the > CWG-Stewardship and the CCWG-Accountability. In addition with respect to > the timeline coordination is needed with the ICG. > > > > The respective charters of CWG-Stewardship and CCWG-Accountability make > reference that > > << > > Accountability for the administration of the IANA functions (i.e., > implementation and operational accountability), however, is properly within > the scope of the CWG-Stewardship > > >> > > What makes me a bit nervous is the timeline for workstream 1 (WS1) of > CCWG-Accountability focusing on mechanisms enhancing ICANN accountability > that must be in place or committed to within the time frame of the IANA > Stewardship Transition. At the time being submission of WS1 is scheduled > for June 2014. However the Stewardship transition proposals (from > CWG-Stewardship) are expected by Jan 2014. > > > > I’m not fully clear what the potential impact on the overall timeline may > be. But this should be discussed – and coordinated – between the various > groups’ leaderships. > > > > Best regards > > Wolf-Ulrich > > > > *From:* Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh(a)gmail.com> > > *Sent:* Saturday, December 13, 2014 12:49 AM > > *To:* Drazek, Keith <kdrazek(a)verisign.com> > > *Cc:* accountability-ccg-members(a)icann.org ; gac-iana-cgroup(a)icann.org ; > ICG <internal-cg(a)icann.org> > > *Subject:* Re: [Internal-cg] CCWG Accountability > > > > Alissa, > > Thank you very much for your message. > > I will participate in CCWG ,for the time being and until the GAC chair > make different rarrangements, as A PARTICIPANT. When I intervene, I make it > clear that I am speaking on that capacity, should I need to intervene as > ICG,as I made once, indicating that the deadline for Workstream 1 should > meet and match with time lines that ICG established. > > What I can inform you now as ICG Liaison is that the course of action > being taken does not correspond to the expectation of the overall > accountabilty and there is insufficient coordination between CWG and CCWG > workstream 1. > > Infact what ICG awaiting on accountability for its current activities ON > NAMES should be fed from CWG and not CCWG. > > tHE Scope of activities of CCWG on accountabilty is currently norrowed > down to collection of information from the past expereince and not > addressing the fundamental issue of accountability ,if and only if, NTIA > transfers the stewardship of IANA functions to Global Multistakeholder > which would certainly bedifferent from the existing structure and mechanism > of ICANN . > > We should all remember that currently ICANN is accountable to NTIA.To > which entity ICANN would be accountable after transition, it is not yet > clear. Certainly ,ICANN would not be accountable to ICANN .tHERE MUST BE A > WORKABLE MECHANISM to which ICANN would be accountable .This is a fact and > reality. > > By the way, I was not voluteer to be Liason at CCWG, i WAS VOLUNTEERED FOR > cwg, YOU ASKED ME TO WITHDRAW FROM CWG and I respected your request > > tks > > Kavouss > > > > > > > > 2014-12-12 21:26 GMT+01:00 Drazek, Keith <kdrazek(a)verisign.com>: > > I would also add that Kavouss, like anyone, can participate actively in > the Enhancing ICANN Accountability CCWG as an individual participant. I > will be doing the same thing. I am not the official "appointed member" from > the Registries Stakeholder Group (GNSO) but I will still be very active on > behalf of Verisign, my employer. Similarly, Kavouss can participate > actively on behalf of the Government of Iran or in his individual capacity. > There is no restriction to anyone's active participation. Hope that helps! > > > Sent from my iPhone > > > On Dec 12, 2014, at 2:45 PM, "Alissa Cooper" <alissa(a)cooperw.in> wrote: > > Hi Kavouss, > > > > As I mentioned to you off-list, I think it’s fine if you want to > participate in the CCWG-Accountability as both a GAC representative and ICG > liaison, as long as (i) you confirm that the GAC wants you to serve as its > representative, which is a decision that needs to be made among you and the > other GAC members, without involvement from the ICG, and (ii) you make it > clear to all CCWG participants that all of your contributions are on behalf > of the GAC unless you explicitly state that you are providing information > from the ICG. The ICG has no role in decisions of the GAC about the GAC’s > representation in the CCWG. > > > > As the ICG discussed in Los Angeles, (see pages 50-60 of our meeting > transcript: > http://la51.icann.org/en/schedule/fri-icg/transcript-icg-17oct14-en.pdf ) > the ICG wanted to make sure that we had people who could send information > back and forth between our group and the CCWG. As summarized in the > transcript, "Anything you think is important, let us know. Anything that we > think is important, we'll let you know." The structure of the CCWG had not > been formulated at the time when you agreed to liaise, but I think we had > good agreement within the ICG nonetheless that the liaison role there on > our behalf would be to share information back and forth, and not to > specifically represent the ICG or vote on our behalf. > > > > If you would prefer, we can see if we can find a different ICG liaison or > rely solely on Keith Drazek for now if you think serving as the liaison > will interfere with your ability to participate in the CCWG. > > > > Best, > > Alissa > > > > On Dec 12, 2014, at 3:32 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > Dear All, > > I wish to inform you that on the unfounded bureaucratic ground ,people > wishes to avoid or prevent receiving any comments from me on the most > crucial and most fundamental issue of ICANN ACCOUNTABILITY CCWG . > > However, I continue to comments and do in no way accept that because I am > not the member of that group ( not included in the Thomas Schneider letter > to the chair of that group my sincere volunteer to fully and actively > participate as GAC member from Asia Pacific which is the most largest > ICANN geographical region with more than 75 countries or geographical > dependent territories , my volunteer was rejected by the chair and the crew > ). > > This is not fair nor acceptable > > I have asked to be the member of that Group from July 2014 in multiple > communications to the former GAC Chsair and the Secretary. > > We need to encourage those who wish to contribute and not put an obstacle > in using purely bureaucratic element that participants or Lisison can not > actively contribute > > Regards > > Kavouss > > > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg > > ------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg >

1 0

Re: [CCWG-Accountability] [Internal-cg] CCWG Accountability
by WUKnoben Dec. 14, 2014

Dec. 14, 2014

I agree that close coordination is needed at least between the CWG-Stewardship and the CCWG-Accountability. In addition with respect to the timeline coordination is needed with the ICG. The respective charters of CWG-Stewardship and CCWG-Accountability make reference that << Accountability for the administration of the IANA functions (i.e., implementation and operational accountability), however, is properly within the scope of the CWG-Stewardship >> What makes me a bit nervous is the timeline for workstream 1 (WS1) of CCWG-Accountability focusing on mechanisms enhancing ICANN accountability that must be in place or committed to within the time frame of the IANA Stewardship Transition. At the time being submission of WS1 is scheduled for June 2014. However the Stewardship transition proposals (from CWG-Stewardship) are expected by Jan 2014. I’m not fully clear what the potential impact on the overall timeline may be. But this should be discussed – and coordinated – between the various groups’ leaderships. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From: Kavouss Arasteh Sent: Saturday, December 13, 2014 12:49 AM To: Drazek, Keith Cc: accountability-ccg-members(a)icann.org ; gac-iana-cgroup(a)icann.org ; ICG Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] CCWG Accountability Alissa, Thank you very much for your message. I will participate in CCWG ,for the time being and until the GAC chair make different rarrangements, as A PARTICIPANT. When I intervene, I make it clear that I am speaking on that capacity, should I need to intervene as ICG,as I made once, indicating that the deadline for Workstream 1 should meet and match with time lines that ICG established. What I can inform you now as ICG Liaison is that the course of action being taken does not correspond to the expectation of the overall accountabilty and there is insufficient coordination between CWG and CCWG workstream 1. Infact what ICG awaiting on accountability for its current activities ON NAMES should be fed from CWG and not CCWG. tHE Scope of activities of CCWG on accountabilty is currently norrowed down to collection of information from the past expereince and not addressing the fundamental issue of accountability ,if and only if, NTIA transfers the stewardship of IANA functions to Global Multistakeholder which would certainly bedifferent from the existing structure and mechanism of ICANN . We should all remember that currently ICANN is accountable to NTIA.To which entity ICANN would be accountable after transition, it is not yet clear. Certainly ,ICANN would not be accountable to ICANN .tHERE MUST BE A WORKABLE MECHANISM to which ICANN would be accountable .This is a fact and reality. By the way, I was not voluteer to be Liason at CCWG, i WAS VOLUNTEERED FOR cwg, YOU ASKED ME TO WITHDRAW FROM CWG and I respected your request tks Kavouss 2014-12-12 21:26 GMT+01:00 Drazek, Keith <kdrazek(a)verisign.com>: I would also add that Kavouss, like anyone, can participate actively in the Enhancing ICANN Accountability CCWG as an individual participant. I will be doing the same thing. I am not the official "appointed member" from the Registries Stakeholder Group (GNSO) but I will still be very active on behalf of Verisign, my employer. Similarly, Kavouss can participate actively on behalf of the Government of Iran or in his individual capacity. There is no restriction to anyone's active participation. Hope that helps! Sent from my iPhone On Dec 12, 2014, at 2:45 PM, "Alissa Cooper" <alissa(a)cooperw.in> wrote: Hi Kavouss, As I mentioned to you off-list, I think it’s fine if you want to participate in the CCWG-Accountability as both a GAC representative and ICG liaison, as long as (i) you confirm that the GAC wants you to serve as its representative, which is a decision that needs to be made among you and the other GAC members, without involvement from the ICG, and (ii) you make it clear to all CCWG participants that all of your contributions are on behalf of the GAC unless you explicitly state that you are providing information from the ICG. The ICG has no role in decisions of the GAC about the GAC’s representation in the CCWG. As the ICG discussed in Los Angeles, (see pages 50-60 of our meeting transcript: http://la51.icann.org/en/schedule/fri-icg/transcript-icg-17oct14-en.pdf ) the ICG wanted to make sure that we had people who could send information back and forth between our group and the CCWG. As summarized in the transcript, "Anything you think is important, let us know. Anything that we think is important, we'll let you know." The structure of the CCWG had not been formulated at the time when you agreed to liaise, but I think we had good agreement within the ICG nonetheless that the liaison role there on our behalf would be to share information back and forth, and not to specifically represent the ICG or vote on our behalf. If you would prefer, we can see if we can find a different ICG liaison or rely solely on Keith Drazek for now if you think serving as the liaison will interfere with your ability to participate in the CCWG. Best, Alissa On Dec 12, 2014, at 3:32 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh(a)gmail.com> wrote: Dear All, I wish to inform you that on the unfounded bureaucratic ground ,people wishes to avoid or prevent receiving any comments from me on the most crucial and most fundamental issue of ICANN ACCOUNTABILITY CCWG . However, I continue to comments and do in no way accept that because I am not the member of that group ( not included in the Thomas Schneider letter to the chair of that group my sincere volunteer to fully and actively participate as GAC member from Asia Pacific which is the most largest ICANN geographical region with more than 75 countries or geographical dependent territories , my volunteer was rejected by the chair and the crew ). This is not fair nor acceptable I have asked to be the member of that Group from July 2014 in multiple communications to the former GAC Chsair and the Secretary. We need to encourage those who wish to contribute and not put an obstacle in using purely bureaucratic element that participants or Lisison can not actively contribute Regards Kavouss _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg

1 0

[CCWG-Accountability] please post my eamil
by Pamela Covington Dec. 12, 2014

Dec. 12, 2014

Please add me to the posting list: pamcov12(a)gmail.com Thank you, Pamela Covington

2 1

[CCWG-Accountability] todos and next steps
by Thomas Rickert Dec. 12, 2014

Dec. 12, 2014

All, thank you again for a constructive call yesterday. We felt it was important to go through some of the administrative and procedural aspects as a basis for our work. However, we do know that you might have additional questions and would therefore like to encourage you direct those questions to staff or us. We are more than happy to help. As you will remember, we have agreed that we install 4 sub groups to help scoping our task so that we can specify a work plan, the time line and subsequent tasks during next week’s call. We are cognizant that your involvement in this group is a substantial commitment and we appreciate your willingness to contribute. We are also cognizant that many of you are active in both this group as well as in the CWG. We do hope that we can tap on this expertise for our work. Remember, the CWG has already produced a first draft and we have to make sure that the work on Accountability is also completed in a timely fashion. Today, we would like to raise three points: I. Sub Group Work Please do send an e-mail to Grace and sign up to at least one of the 4 sub groups mentioned below: 1. Establishing an inventory of existing accountability mechanisms / ATRT recommendations (maybe an indication of where they can or need to be improved for Work Stream 1 would also be valuable) 2. Reviewing the outcome of the public comment period on Accountability and categorizing what goes into WS1, WS2 or both. 3. Reviewing the work of the CWG, extract accountability issues and categorize what goes into WS1, WS2 or both. 4. List contingencies The work results should be completed by next Monday so the group can review before the call. During the next meeting, we will review the work results and agree on next steps. II. Meeting Times A time zone analysis was conducted and there are three suggested alternating times: 12.00 UTC, 19.00 UTC, 6.00 UTC. With this, the burden of unpleasant starting times should be equally shared. Please let us know if there are major concerns with this. III. Meetings As mentioned during the call, we are planning to have weekly calls with a duration of 2 hours. Additionally, we are suggesting to offer two face to face meetings: - One meeting in Frankfurt am Main, Germany, on January 19 and 20. Meeting facilities have been kindly offered by eco/ De-CIX and there are affordable hotels of good quality in the vicinity. While we have discussed the idea of having a doodle poll to find a date during today’s debriefing session, we think it is of essence to make progress with this as soon as possible so that those considering to attend in person can take advantage of cheaper flights. - Two meetings in Singapore at ICANN 52. We are currently planning to have two sessions each 3 hours long during the ICANN meeting. Details of this are to be confirmed shortly. Thank you and kind regards, Mathieu Weill and Thomas Rickert -- thomas-rickert.tel

5 4

[CCWG-Accountability] Introduction to Adobe Connect
by Accountability Staff Dec. 11, 2014

Dec. 11, 2014

Dear all, As you know, we will use Adobe Connect to operate virtual meetings. Our Chairs did an excellent job on Tuesday proving the group with a basic training for participation, but we acknowledge that some of you may want to spend a bit more time with this working tool. For an introduction to Adobe Connect, please see https://admin.adobe.acrobat.com/_a227210/participatemeeting/ Best, Grace

1 0

[CCWG-Accountability] Welcome note
by Thomas Rickert Dec. 11, 2014

Dec. 11, 2014

Dear All, We would like to welcome you to the Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG-Accountability). Now that the charter has been adopted by a number of organizations, namely the At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC), Country Code Names Supporting Organization (ccNSO), Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO), we thought it would be timely to commence the planning for the activities of the CCWG-Accountability. Meetings The first meeting of the CCWG- Accountability has been scheduled for Tuesday 9 December at 20:00 UTC (call details will be circulated shortly). Following that regular online meetings are expected to alternate between 11:00 and 14:00 UTC to allow for maximum participation taking into account the different time zones. Participation In addition to members appointed by the chartering organizations, there are currently 100 individuals subscribed to this mailing list who are participating in this effort as individual participants. Participants are expected to actively contribute in mailing list conversations as well as meetings. It is anticipated that participants will provide essential input to the process. They will participate similar to ICANN chartering organization appointed members. Statements of Interest (SOI) If you have not done so yet, you will be invited to submit a Statement of Interest (SOI) following the online procedures outlined here (https://community.icann.org/x/c4Lg <https://community.icann.org/x/c4Lg>) or alternatively provide a statement which at a minimum should include your name, whether you are representing a certain organization or company as part your participation in this effort, areas of specific interest in relation to this effort, material relationship with other parties affected by ICANN and primary country of residence. Please contact Grace Abuhamad (accountability-staff(a)icann.org <mailto:accountability-staff@icann.org>) if you have any questions concerning your SOI. Mailing List Observers Note that in addition to chartering organization appointed members and individual participants, there will also be the possibility for those interested to sign up to this effort as a mailing list observer. Contrary to members and participants, who are expected to actively participate in mailing list conversations as well as meetings, mailing list observers will have read-only access to the mailing list and will be able to post, do not receive the invites for the various meetings and calls of the CCWG (note that audio streaming will be provided for those interested to follow the CCWG meetings) and do not have to complete a statement of interest. At any point in time, a mailing list observer can join the CCWG as a participant should he or she want to by informing ICANN staff. As several of you were added to this mailing list as a result of your earlier interest in the Cross Community Group, should you wish to change your status to a mailing list observer or wish to unsubscribe from this mailing list, please contact Grace Abuhamad (accountability-staff(a)icann.org <mailto:accountability-staff@icann.org>). Preparation for the first meeting In order to prepare for the first meeting of the CCWG- Accountability, you are strongly encouraged to review the CCWG charter <http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/enhancing-accountability-charter-03nov14-en…> ahead of the meeting. Note that per our charter one of our first objectives will be to develop a work plan and define the contents of Work Streams 1 and 2 (WS1/WS2). You are encouraged to share any ideas or suggestions you may have to facilitate these tasks with the mailing list. I look forward to working with you. Kind regards, Thomas Rickert (CCWG Co-Chair GNSO)

11 26

[CCWG-Accountability] FW: Breaking: U.S. Government Funding Bill Delays IANA Transition
by Phil Corwin Dec. 10, 2014

Dec. 10, 2014

FYI-breaking news of relevance to the timeline for the work of this CCWG --- http://www.circleid.com/posts/20141210_breaking_us_government_funding_bill_… http://www.internetcommerce.org/breaking-u-s-government-funding-bill-delays… Breaking: U.S. Government Funding Bill Delays IANA Transition On the evening of Tuesday, September 9th, Congressional leaders unveiled a 1,603 page, $1.01 trillion FY 2015 appropriations bill to fund the U.S. government through the end of September 2015. One provision of the omnibus bill would delay the IANA transition until after the September 30, 2015 expiration of the current contract between the NTIA and ICANN. Language in the bill<http://docs.house.gov/meetings/RU/RU00/20141210/102799/BILLS-113rcp113-59pp…> states: SEC. 540. (a) None of the funds made available by this Act may be used to relinquish the responsibility of the National Telecommunications and Information Administration during fiscal year 2015 with respect to Internet domain name system functions, including responsibility with respect to the authoritative root zone file and the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority functions. (b) Subsection (a) of this section shall expire on September 30, 2015. That language, a modified version of the "Duffy Amendment" that was contained in the House version of the National Defense Authorization Act, would allow NTIA to start spending funds on a transition after exercising its first option to extend the contract. In addition, the explanatory report language of the Commerce-Justice-State portion of the omnibus spending bill, in which the above language is contained, states the following: Internet governance.-The agreement reiterates House and Senate language regarding the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) and Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) matters and modifies Senate language by directing NTIA to inform appropriate Congressional committees not less than 45 days in advance of any such proposed successor contract or any other decision related to changing NTIA's role with respect to ICANN or IANA activities. In addition, NTIA shall submit a report to the Committees on Appropriations within 45 days of enactment of this Act regarding any recourse that would be available to the United States if the decision is made to transition to a new contract and any subsequent decisions made following such transfer of Internet governance are deleterious to the United States. This language appears to require NTIA to inform Congress 45 days prior to extending the IANA contract or taking any other decision in regard to it; as well as to submit a report to Congress within 45 days after the spending bill's enactment regarding whether the US would have any post-transition recourse if subsequent decisions were deleterious to the U.S. This final bill language has already been negotiated with and accepted by Senate Democratic and House Republican leaders and is likely to be enacted and sent to President Obama by the weekend. It is unlikely that the White House would veto the bill and risk a government shutdown over this IANA language (although other provisions could become sticking points between the Administration and Congress). Rumors were already circulating in Washington that NTIA was prepared to extend the current IANA contract by at least six months in recognition of the fact that it may be impossible for the ICANN community to design and stress test enhanced accountability measures by the end of the current contract term, much less have them in place by then. So the bill may have little effect on the actual timetable for the transition. It remains to be seen what reaction to its enactment comes from ICANN, the ICANN community, and other nations. Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/cell Twitter: @VlawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey ________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com> Version: 2015.0.5557 / Virus Database: 4223/8641 - Release Date: 11/27/14 Internal Virus Database is out of date.

7 9