March 2015 - Accountability-Cross-Community

Notes-Recordings-Transcript links for CCWG ACCT Session #14 24 February
by Brenda Brewer March 1, 2015

March 1, 2015

Dear all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for the CCWG ACCT Session #14 call on 24 February will be available here: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=52889476 Action Items ACTION ITEM: Becky Burr and Kavouss Arasteh to further discuss offline ACTION ITEM: Jonathan Zuck to suggest how we could change format ACTION ITEM: Legal subteam to review and refine questions and determine whether WS1/WS2 Notes 1. Statement of interest to be uploaded/updated - contact staff if help needed 2. Activity report from Work Parties WP 1 - WP1 has developed a draft work plan, has agreed on working methods, is working with an aggressive deadline and plans to deliver WP output by March 11. - Volunteers are developing templates for each power and mechanism. Current gaps will be picked up. Editors will review content. - Triggered and non triggered categorization has been applied to items in paper, resulting in an initial allocation between two Working parties. WP1 is awaiting WP2 feedback to allocate tasks. - WP1 has structured mechanisms around powers and finds the accountability mechanism template challenging in some ways: some questions are more relevant to mechanisms and vice-versa. It envisions to produce recommendations on how to improve it. It was commented that questions would not have same relevance to both categorizations and will be reviewed and addressed as progress is made. - It was observed that a mechanism gives structure to power and there is need for a procedure and vehicle to support the power. Threshold (consensus/full consensus) also comes into play. - The recommendation is to commence with the analysis of powers and to attach them with mechanisms. - The WP1 walked the CCWG through proposed Bylaws additions on amending ICANN Bylaws to incorporate AOC reviews. The text is merged with periodic structural reviews text that currently exists in Bylaws. Edits to the AoC review process were also suggested. Feedback to suggestions included: should Bylaws give a prescriptive headcount? Stakeholder Groups being subordinates to a structure, is it really necessary to include them? ; It is important to reflect diversity and balance; While support for selections made by SO/ACs, lack of diversity was flagged as a downside and an aspect that could be preserved through selectors; Specifics may change in the future. With the objective of stable Bylaws, consider high level principles that can be included in the Bylaws instead, along with a reference to an external document where specifics would be given. In this approach a very high threshold on ability to change that document would be added; A Bylaws categorization was proposed: 1) fundamental and constitutional provisions (stable); 2 functional and operation (less stable); 3) rules relations to elections etc; consider more lengthy timelines. - No decision will be made on the call. --- WP2 - WP2 has produced a revised scoping document to reflect changes and results of WP 1 work on triggered and non-triggered. Scoping documents for WP1 and WP2 are harmonized. - Close coordination with WP 1 is needed. - A work plan and working methods (based on WP1 modus operandi) has been circulated. Standards of work will be discussed. - WP2 plans to have a document available by face-to-face meeting (17 March tentatively) --- ST-WP - ST-WP wrapped up presentation of stress test 18 (If GAC changes operating procedures from consensus to majority voting). A contributor suggested looking into the preliminary injunction (IRP) regarding delegation of Persian and noted absence of GAC advice and a group of GAC members invoking IRP. Objections were raised by another contributor i.e. outside CCWG mandate and references made to the South Africa communiqué. ACTION ITEM: Becky Burr and Kavouss Arasteh to further discuss offline - ST-WP walked the group through stress test 17 (ICANN adds a new TLD in spite of SSR concerns). Feedback included: What is our definition of success within context of stress tests?; Stress tests are going to be measures of degrees -t say yes/no answers will be rare. - No decision will be made on the call. ACTION ITEM: Jonathan Zuck to suggest how we could change format 3. Legal Subteam Update - Questions have been suggested and the Subteam is awaiting questions from WP1 and WP2. - Robin is working on framing questions into a letter that can be delivered to law firm that will be selected. Background and context will be included. - Call with final list of law firms will be held. Update on final candidate that will be put forward for hiring by ICANN will be shared asap. - Questions are divided into 3 categories: 1) corporate governance; 2)jurisdictional matters; 3) protection of ICANN, antitrust and other law suits. - Given concerns about ccTLD delegation and redelegations remedies (e.g. dispute resolution), feedback is needed. - Feedback included: formulate questions to be list of powers and ask for mechanisms that can accomplish powers as opposed to putting mechanisms up; frame questions using how to trigger response (as opposed to yes/no); lawyers need to know what our requirements are so that can advise what empowerment can be implemented. In context of jurisdictional: global survey of jurisdiction can take ages and cost a fortune; changing jurisdiction will make transition impossible: the group needs to decide if these questions are for WS1; Keep jurisdictional issues open: are there any arbitration or international panel can go to for jurisdictional issues, is there a way to get step into resolution with something simpler to begin with; Jurisdiction might be too complicated, keep it simple (recall Board, Independent Appeals mechanism etc). ACTION ITEM: Legal subteam to review and refine questions and determine whether WS1/WS2 4. F2F meeting - Confirmed for 23-24 March 2015 at Hilton Istanbul Bomonti Hotel & Conference Center. - Agenda will be circulated in time. - Discussing May F2F meeting in coordination with CWG-stewardship leadership. 5. A.O.B The CCWG discussed removal of individual Board members with a note that architecture needs to be revisited if allowing for entire Board or individual Board. Feedback includes: - Current Bylaws allow that Board can dismiss individual board members if CoI. Individual removal might lead to unhealthy environment, create a witch hunt. - Be careful to not penalize whole group if one group is concerned. - Spilling of Board is a nuclear option and disruptive step. We are seeking incremental, implementable ways to challenge Board decision. The community does not have anybody that represents their interest. We need ability to override and challenge decision. - Board members are appointed because they share a mindset if not in line with mindset, should be able to remove this Board member. There is also the case of NomCom appointed members: ability to remove them is needed. Significant consensus among SO/ACs would be needed the member would be removed for serious reasons. On the other hand, removal of entire Board is a whole set of issues (interim etc). - A mechanism is needed for the three above: spilling entire board is not disruptive as long as there is a defined method; spilling an individual Board members is a SG/C decision, not a community decision to make. Recall mechanism within process defined for NomCom would take a lot more time. Vote of non-confidence on the Board or all the other need to be in WS1. - Predictability and stability is important: recall of Board members will undermine predictability/stability. Consider reducing term and don't reelect. - Recall Board members if not acting in global public interest rather than if not acting in segmented interest of a community. Consider community capture (especially a segment of community). - We should not allow community removal of one Board member in particular must come from the concerned community.

6 8

Re: [CCWG-ACCT] US Senate Committee Hearing on 2016 Budget for Dept of Commerce: Testimony on IANA Transition
by Greg Shatan March 1, 2015

March 1, 2015

The issues that the CCWG is dealing with may be broader, and our definitions of capture are broader as well, The direct point of this email thread is more specific: what type of capture is the U.S. Senator referring to, which Commerce Secretary Pritzker then also refers to? For better or worse, I think they are referring to the risk of capture by certain foreign governments the U.S. views as antithetical to a free and open Internet -- hence the term "hostile takeover" is used. I think some leading suspects are named in the transcript. Some Senators at least will be looking to see how we've solved that particular problem. On Saturday, February 28, 2015, Tijani BEN JEMAA < tijani.benjemaa(a)fmai.org.tn> wrote: > I agree with the 2 remarks of Chris: The risk of capture comes from any > government or intergovernmental organization, as well as any other group. > > CCWG is about defining mechanisms of accountability of ICANN to its > community, and we have defined 4 accountability purposes: > > · Comply with its own rules and processes > > · Comply with applicable legislation, in jurisdictions where it > operates > > · Achieve certain levels of performance as well as security > > · Ensure decisions are for benefit of the public, not just for a > particular set of stakeholders > > The 4th purpose is to avoid any capture from any party. > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > *Tijani BEN JEMAA* > > Executive Director > > Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (*FMAI*) > > Phone: + 216 41 649 605 > > Mobile: + 216 98 330 114 > > Fax: + 216 70 853 376 > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > > > > *De :* accountability-cross-community-bounces(a)icann.org > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','accountability-cross-community-bounces(a)icann.org');> > [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','accountability-cross-community-bounces(a)icann.org');>] > *De la part de* Chris Disspain > *Envoyé :* dimanche 1 mars 2015 00:20 > *À :* Greg Shatan > *Cc :* accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org');> > *Objet :* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Fwd: US Senate Committee Hearing on 2016 Budget > for Dept of Commerce: Testimony on IANA Transition > > > > Hi Greg, > > > > I believe this issue falls into the remit of CCWG, and needs to be in > Work Stream 1 so that it is part of the package ultimately considered by > the NTIA. > > > > Can we first get clear what the issue actually is. > > > > I assume it is NOT ‘capture of ICANN by *foreign* governments in the long > term’ is it? > > > > Is it capture by governments generally? Or is it capture by any group? > > > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > Chris > > > > On 1 Mar 2015, at 09:37 , Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com');>> wrote: > > > > All: > > Here's an email that I recently sent to the CWG. In response, Seun > Ojedeji noted the Senator's concern with the possible capture of ICANN by > foreign governments in the long term, and that a key goal of the transition > must be protecting ICANN from any possible capture as it continue to > operate IANA.I believe this issue falls into the remit of CCWG, and needs > to be in Work Stream 1 so that it is part of the package ultimately > considered by the NTIA. > > Greg > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: *Greg Shatan* <gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com');>> > Date: Sat, Feb 28, 2015 at 12:23 PM > Subject: US Senate Committee Hearing on 2016 Budget for Dept of Commerce: > Testimony on IANA Transition > To: "cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org');>" < > cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org');>> > > > All: > > The US Senate held a hearing on the Department of Commerce's 2016 Budget > (2016 commences October 1, 2015). A transcription was just published, and > I've excerpted (as is) the Senators' questions and Secy. Pritzker's answers > relevant to the IANA Transition -- see below. The full transcript may be > found at: > > http://www6.lexisnexis.com/publisher/EndUser?Action=UserDisplayFullDocument… > > (FYI, much more time was spent on fishing, the paper industry and weather > forecasting than on IANA) > > > > Greg > > SEN. RICHARD C. SHELBY HOLDS A HEARING ON THE FY2016 FUNDING REQUEST AND > BUDGET JUSTIFICATION FOR THE COMMERCE DEPARTMENT > > February 26, 2015 Thursday > > EVENT DATE: February 26, 2015 > > TYPE: COMMITTEE HEARING > > LOCATION: WASHINGTON, D.C. > > COMMITTEE: SENATE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS, SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, > JUSTICE, SCIENCE, AND RELATED AGENCIES > > SPEAKER: SEN. RICHARD C. SHELBY, CHAIRMAN > > WITNESSES: > > SEN. RICHARD C. SHELBY, R-ALA. CHAIRMAN > > WITNESSES: PENNY PRITZKER, SECRETARY, THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE > > > > … > > > > SHELBY: Senator Langford. > > > > LANGFORD: Thank you. Thanks for being here as well. > > > > PRITZKER: Thank you. > > > > LANGFORD: I'm grateful to be able to have the conversation. I want to talk > a little bit about where we stand with ICAN (inaudible) conversation and > DNA. So my questions--I'm sorry, DNS, not DNA. DNA would be fun to talk > about as well, by the way, if you want to talk about that. > > > > The budget request has a note in it that I thought was interesting. It > says FY 2016 NTIA will continue to develop, implement and advocate policies > positioned in the U.S. to meet growing complexities and political > challenges related to internet governance and the domain-named system. Tell > me the status of where you are headed on this. And obviously Congress has > spoken back on it and is a little hesitant. So specifically, while you're > talking about the status on it, how are you balancing the foreign policy > objectives with United States commerce? And I mean commerce as a whole of > our business world and how dependent we really are on this internet. > > > > PRITZKER: Well, let me start by saying our NTIA role is stewardship of the > internet. And so moving--our goal has been to continue to move ICAN to a > multi-stakeholder model. And, in fact, we deal directly with ICAN and the > leadership of ICAN and their CEO is coming in tomorrow. > > > > LANGFORD: Can I interrupt for just a second? The question there is the > why? And I think it's the foreign policy question. > > > > PRITZKER: Why? > > > > LANGFORD: Why try to move that outside of our stewardship? Has it been a > problem that we've been the steward with it? Why remove American > stewardship from the internet? > > > > PRITZKER: Well, the challenge and we--we're not giving up our stewardship > of the internet. But the challenge that we face with the ICAN-IANA > transition is this is--and, first of all, we're not going to give up our > position of overseeing the IANA domain name situation unless we can > ourselves there's a multi-stakeholder process and it's not going to be > jeopardized, that there's going to stability and resiliency and security in > the domain name system and that it meets the needs of global customers, and > it remains that the internet will remain free and open. > > > > The challenge we face in our role is the perception of our goal in the > global environment. There is a lot of pressure, as you said, from foreign > governments to, in essence, take over control of the internet and try and > create places where governments are in control of what's happening with the > internet. We think that is the wrong direction to go, and therefore we feel > we're really an oversight. ICAN is actually performing the IANA functions. > And so our goal is that ICAN continue to perform those functions, but the > appearance of our engagement creates this notion that the U.S. is a > government in control and that's against where we ultimately--we want to be > able to argue with the rest of the world. That's not what we want to see > for the internet. > > > > LANGFORD: Right. I understand. And the skepticism is when we release the > first generation, there may be some good oversight of that. And then what > happens five years from now, etc.? So what happens with China and Russia? I > just want to be able to express some continuing skepticism. > > > > PRITZKER: Senator, I share your concern about that. And one of the > criteria that I've said is we've asked for ICAN to explain to us how > they're going to be accountable to a multi-stakeholder process and there > cannot be what I call a hostile takeover of ICAN. > > > > LANGFORD: Correct, and I would affirm that. > > > > … > > > > KUNTZ: Let me ask about a very different field for a moment, if I might, > which is ICAN. When I was in the private sector, I did some work around web > domains and website acquisition and control. We had a trademark, the > company I was in, that had been inappropriately taken over as a web domain > by a company with no relationship to it, and I got involved in this. > > > > This was a long time ago and I was struck at how at that point NTIA was > playing a critical role in oversight of ICAN, the Internet Corporation for > Assigned Names and Numbers, which I think is widely known to the small > community of people who pay a lot of attention to this. And I'm frankly > very concerned that there is a proposal to transition ICAN completely away > from the Commerce Department oversight and management, and I just want to > make sure that ICAN is really prepared to make that transition and will > have adopted some core key principles about protection from government > capture, budgetary restraint and a separation of functions, and this is > something I wrote to you about back in December and co-sponsored a > resolution that passed in the Senate calling for these reforms before there > is any transition. I just wanted to make sure that I had your sense of > whether you thought these reforms were important to complete before there > was any movement towards it. > > > > PRITZKER: Well, Senator, I share your concern. I think the transition at > the IANA transition is one that's important because there are down sides > for our engagement there. Having said that, making sure that we don't--that > ICAN can responsibly continue to carry out that function, making sure that > it is multi-stakeholder managed and driven, making sure it meets the needs > of customers and in a timely and efficient manner, and that we remain a > free and open internet. All of those are priorities. > > > > We are awaiting proposals. We're not in any rush. We're working very > carefully with ICAN, but we're waiting for proposals as to how they can > make sure they would satisfy all those performance requirements and also > proposals for how they will improve the accountability of ICAN so that > there cannot be what I call a hostile takeover of the board of ICAN. > > > > Copyright 2015 CQ Transcriptions, LLC > All Rights Reserved > CQ Transcriptions > > > > > > > -- > > *Gregory S. Shatan **ï* *Abelman Frayne & Schwab* > > *Partner** | IP | Technology | Media | Internet* > > *666 Third Avenue | New York, NY 10017-5621* > > *Direct* 212-885-9253 *| **Main* 212-949-9022 > > *Fax* 212-949-9190 *|* *Cell *917-816-6428 > > *gsshatan(a)lawabel.com > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','gsshatan(a)lawabel.com');>* > > *ICANN-related: gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com');>* > > *www.lawabel.com <http://www.lawabel.com/>* > > _______________________________________________ > Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list > Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org');> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community > > > > > ------------------------------ > <http://www.avast.com/> > > Ce courrier électronique ne contient aucun virus ou logiciel malveillant > parce que la protection Antivirus avast! <http://www.avast.com/> est > active. > > -- *Gregory S. Shatan **ï* *Abelman Frayne & Schwab* *Partner* *| IP | Technology | Media | Internet* *666 Third Avenue | New York, NY 10017-5621* *Direct* 212-885-9253 *| **Main* 212-949-9022 *Fax* 212-949-9190 *|* *Cell *917-816-6428 *gsshatan(a)lawabel.com <gsshatan(a)lawabel.com>* *ICANN-related: gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com <gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com>* *www.lawabel.com <http://www.lawabel.com/>*

1 0

Fwd: US Senate Committee Hearing on 2016 Budget for Dept of Commerce: Testimony on IANA Transition
by Greg Shatan March 1, 2015

March 1, 2015

All: Here's an email that I recently sent to the CWG. In response, Seun Ojedeji noted the Senator's concern with the possible capture of ICANN by foreign governments in the long term, and that a key goal of the transition must be protecting ICANN from any possible capture as it continue to operate IANA.I believe this issue falls into the remit of CCWG, and needs to be in Work Stream 1 so that it is part of the package ultimately considered by the NTIA. Greg ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com> Date: Sat, Feb 28, 2015 at 12:23 PM Subject: US Senate Committee Hearing on 2016 Budget for Dept of Commerce: Testimony on IANA Transition To: "cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org" <cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org> All: The US Senate held a hearing on the Department of Commerce's 2016 Budget (2016 commences October 1, 2015). A transcription was just published, and I've excerpted (as is) the Senators' questions and Secy. Pritzker's answers relevant to the IANA Transition -- see below. The full transcript may be found at: http://www6.lexisnexis.com/publisher/EndUser?Action=UserDisplayFullDocument… (FYI, much more time was spent on fishing, the paper industry and weather forecasting than on IANA) Greg SEN. RICHARD C. SHELBY HOLDS A HEARING ON THE FY2016 FUNDING REQUEST AND BUDGET JUSTIFICATION FOR THE COMMERCE DEPARTMENT February 26, 2015 Thursday EVENT DATE: February 26, 2015 TYPE: COMMITTEE HEARING LOCATION: WASHINGTON, D.C. COMMITTEE: SENATE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS, SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE, AND RELATED AGENCIES SPEAKER: SEN. RICHARD C. SHELBY, CHAIRMAN WITNESSES: SEN. RICHARD C. SHELBY, R-ALA. CHAIRMAN WITNESSES: PENNY PRITZKER, SECRETARY, THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE … SHELBY: Senator Langford. LANGFORD: Thank you. Thanks for being here as well. PRITZKER: Thank you. LANGFORD: I'm grateful to be able to have the conversation. I want to talk a little bit about where we stand with ICAN (inaudible) conversation and DNA. So my questions--I'm sorry, DNS, not DNA. DNA would be fun to talk about as well, by the way, if you want to talk about that. The budget request has a note in it that I thought was interesting. It says FY 2016 NTIA will continue to develop, implement and advocate policies positioned in the U.S. to meet growing complexities and political challenges related to internet governance and the domain-named system. Tell me the status of where you are headed on this. And obviously Congress has spoken back on it and is a little hesitant. So specifically, while you're talking about the status on it, how are you balancing the foreign policy objectives with United States commerce? And I mean commerce as a whole of our business world and how dependent we really are on this internet. PRITZKER: Well, let me start by saying our NTIA role is stewardship of the internet. And so moving--our goal has been to continue to move ICAN to a multi-stakeholder model. And, in fact, we deal directly with ICAN and the leadership of ICAN and their CEO is coming in tomorrow. LANGFORD: Can I interrupt for just a second? The question there is the why? And I think it's the foreign policy question. PRITZKER: Why? LANGFORD: Why try to move that outside of our stewardship? Has it been a problem that we've been the steward with it? Why remove American stewardship from the internet? PRITZKER: Well, the challenge and we--we're not giving up our stewardship of the internet. But the challenge that we face with the ICAN-IANA transition is this is--and, first of all, we're not going to give up our position of overseeing the IANA domain name situation unless we can ourselves there's a multi-stakeholder process and it's not going to be jeopardized, that there's going to stability and resiliency and security in the domain name system and that it meets the needs of global customers, and it remains that the internet will remain free and open. The challenge we face in our role is the perception of our goal in the global environment. There is a lot of pressure, as you said, from foreign governments to, in essence, take over control of the internet and try and create places where governments are in control of what's happening with the internet. We think that is the wrong direction to go, and therefore we feel we're really an oversight. ICAN is actually performing the IANA functions. And so our goal is that ICAN continue to perform those functions, but the appearance of our engagement creates this notion that the U.S. is a government in control and that's against where we ultimately--we want to be able to argue with the rest of the world. That's not what we want to see for the internet. LANGFORD: Right. I understand. And the skepticism is when we release the first generation, there may be some good oversight of that. And then what happens five years from now, etc.? So what happens with China and Russia? I just want to be able to express some continuing skepticism. PRITZKER: Senator, I share your concern about that. And one of the criteria that I've said is we've asked for ICAN to explain to us how they're going to be accountable to a multi-stakeholder process and there cannot be what I call a hostile takeover of ICAN. LANGFORD: Correct, and I would affirm that. … KUNTZ: Let me ask about a very different field for a moment, if I might, which is ICAN. When I was in the private sector, I did some work around web domains and website acquisition and control. We had a trademark, the company I was in, that had been inappropriately taken over as a web domain by a company with no relationship to it, and I got involved in this. This was a long time ago and I was struck at how at that point NTIA was playing a critical role in oversight of ICAN, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, which I think is widely known to the small community of people who pay a lot of attention to this. And I'm frankly very concerned that there is a proposal to transition ICAN completely away from the Commerce Department oversight and management, and I just want to make sure that ICAN is really prepared to make that transition and will have adopted some core key principles about protection from government capture, budgetary restraint and a separation of functions, and this is something I wrote to you about back in December and co-sponsored a resolution that passed in the Senate calling for these reforms before there is any transition. I just wanted to make sure that I had your sense of whether you thought these reforms were important to complete before there was any movement towards it. PRITZKER: Well, Senator, I share your concern. I think the transition at the IANA transition is one that's important because there are down sides for our engagement there. Having said that, making sure that we don't--that ICAN can responsibly continue to carry out that function, making sure that it is multi-stakeholder managed and driven, making sure it meets the needs of customers and in a timely and efficient manner, and that we remain a free and open internet. All of those are priorities. We are awaiting proposals. We're not in any rush. We're working very carefully with ICAN, but we're waiting for proposals as to how they can make sure they would satisfy all those performance requirements and also proposals for how they will improve the accountability of ICAN so that there cannot be what I call a hostile takeover of the board of ICAN. Copyright 2015 CQ Transcriptions, LLC All Rights Reserved CQ Transcriptions -- *Gregory S. Shatan **ï* *Abelman Frayne & Schwab* *Partner* *| IP | Technology | Media | Internet* *666 Third Avenue | New York, NY 10017-5621* *Direct* 212-885-9253 *| **Main* 212-949-9022 *Fax* 212-949-9190 *|* *Cell *917-816-6428 *gsshatan(a)lawabel.com <gsshatan(a)lawabel.com>* *ICANN-related: gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com <gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com>* *www.lawabel.com <http://www.lawabel.com/>*

4 3