September 2015 - Accountability-Cross-Community

Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Board comments now in
by Bruce Tonkin Sept. 20, 2015

Sept. 20, 2015

Hello David, >> But why would we want another process in addition to the IRP? That seems terribly overcomplicated, to me - and, in a kind of divide-and-conquer mode, will weaken both the IRP and the new, additional arbitration panel. This task the new MEM arbitration board is being asked to undertake is precisely the one for which the IRP is being constituted - to decide whether the Board has overstepped the limits in the Bylaws. Having 2 separate processes for that one task strikes me as a terrible idea. Yes - I am beginning to think it has just created confusion. The original intent was to make it clear how the community could enforce the outcomes of binding arbitration, without having to change the corporate structure towards a single membership model. For example - I would see it as the same standing panel of panellists for both the IRP and MEM. The idea of splitting out the MEM was simply that you may have a different set of rules and thresholds for how to kick off the process for a community led proceeding. For example maybe the community doesn't need to show material harm to commence a proceeding - whereas an individual company does. >> If the IRP process needs "tailoring" for community challenges, it should be in allowing any individual SO or AC to bring a challenge before the IRP. The Board's submission doesn't change that ability. >> This is in the current CCWG Proposal; the MEM proposal does away with this, by, as you put it allowing "multiple SOs and ACs to challenge Board decisions" - No - the MEM doesn't "do away" with the IRP for individual SOs and ACs. An individual SO and AC could still initiate an IRP. The MEM was intended to be in addition to the IRP and to clearly show how the community could enforce a binding arbitration, as a community rather than as a single member. >> That's not only a significant departure from the CCWG proposal Actually it was an attempt to match the characteristics of the single member model. In the CCWG proposal the Sole Member has standing to bring claims involving its rights under the Articles and Bylaws. The MEM was really trying to replace the single member concept - ie having the ability of the community to bring a claim relating to the articles and bylaws, and having the ability to enforce the outcome of that claim. The fundamental reason for creating the MEM was to show that the community could enforce the binding arbitration from an "independent" review panel without having to change the corporate structure to a single member model. This was split out into a separate mechanism to be presented as an alternative to the single member model. However personally I agree it could be merged into the IRP process if that makes it clearer. >> if the GNSO thinks that the Board has overstepped its bounds, why shouldn't it be able to get a hearing on that question (at the IRP)? Yes - I prefer the simplicity of that approach too. Regards, Bruce Tonkin

1 0

Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Your public comment re replacement of IANA provider
by Alan Greenberg Sept. 20, 2015

Sept. 20, 2015

Thanks Bruce. Are you proposing that ICANN cover any IRP costs if it is used by AC/SOs? Alan At 18/09/2015 05:20 AM, Bruce Tonkin wrote: >Hello Alan, > > > >> The CCWG Draft Proposal provides the IRP to allow the community > to ensure that ICANN is following its Bylaws. > >Yes the ICANN Board also agrees that the IRP still applies to all >bylaws. It can be used by individuals, companies or groups to bring actions. > > > >> In the body of the Board comments, it says that the Board is > proposing the MEM to allow the community ensure that ICANN is > complying with its Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws. However, > in the "Memo on Proposed Approach for Community Enforceability", it > says that arbitration may be used only for violation of Fundamental Bylaws. > >The MEM is fully funded and is brought by SOs and ACs, if there is a >breach of fundamental bylaws, In the case of the MEM - in addition >to funding the cost of the standing panel, the ICANN also will pay >the legal advice fees for the MEM issue group. Much like ICANN is >paying for the attorney fees for the CCWG today. > >The independent review process (IRP) is itself a fundamental >bylaw. So the two become linked in that if the IRP is used to >decide whether the Board has followed the bylaws, and the board does >not follow the binding decision of the IRP panel (to the extent >permitted by law) - then this would be a breach of the fundamental >bylaw, and the MEM could be applied. > >Regards, >Bruce Tonkin > > >_______________________________________________ >Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list >Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org >https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

4 6

Building Momentum: An Update from the CCWG co-Chairs
by Grace Abuhamad Sept. 18, 2015

Sept. 18, 2015

Original link: https://www.icann.org/news/blog/building-momentum-an-update-from-the-ccwg-ac countability-co-chairs Building Momentum: An Update from the CCWG-Accountability co-Chairs <https://www.icann.org/news/blog/building-momentum-an-update-from-the-ccwg- accountability-co-chairs#> <https://www.icann.org/news/blog/building-momentum-an-update-from-the-ccwg-a ccountability-co-chairs#> <https://www.icann.org/news/blog/building-momentum-an-update-from-the-ccwg-a ccountability-co-chairs#> <https://www.icann.org/news/blog/building-momentum-an-update-from-the-ccwg-a ccountability-co-chairs#> <https://www.icann.org/news/blog/building-momentum-an-update-from-the-ccwg-a ccountability-co-chairs#> <https://www.icann.org/news/blog/building-momentum-an-update-from-the-ccwg-a ccountability-co-chairs#> As co-Chairs of the Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG-Accountability), we wanted to provide a quick status update for the community on where things currently stand in our proposal development. At 23:59 UTC on 12 September, the public comment period on the CCWG-Accountability 2nd Draft Proposal closed. Stakeholders from all around the world studied our proposal and provided feedback for our consideration -- we received a substantial 88 comments <http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-ccwg-accountability-03aug15/> on the proposal. For a draft overview of the major trends seen in the comments received see here <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20 150915/8167a9d5/2nd-draft-CCWGtrends-v4-0001.pdf> [PDF, 3.6 MB]. Overall our assessment at this stage finds that there is significant support and appreciation for the CCWG's requirements and work to date. There was general agreement that elements proposed in the 2nd Draft Proposal enhance ICANN's accountability, and we believe that our group should take this as a sincere recognition of the quality of work done in preparing the proposal. That said, there are still areas of the proposal that many felt need further details or clarification. This reconsideration deserves careful assessment, and it will be important for the group to discuss these details in full to see where and if we can reach consensus before moving into the next phase of our proposal development. Over the next week, our team will be finalizing an assessment of the feedback received and we will begin to allocate out suggestions to sub-groups of the CCWG for evaluation. We sense that some suggestions will be relatively straight-forward to incorporate, and for those suggestions which will prove to be more challenging to find consensus on, we will deliberate at the important face-to-face meeting next week in Los Angeles on 25-26 September. We should expect that a large portion of our time in Los Angeles will be reserved to answering the tough questions, and it's important that we come out of the meeting with an idea of how to move forward together. We've accomplished an extraordinary amount of work since our first meeting in December, but as with so many other things in life, the final stretch may prove to be the most demanding. Let's keep up the energy. Let's keep up the momentum. Our community, including our ICG colleagues, is counting on us to deliver a proposal. Let's make this happen. CCWG-Accountability co-Chairs Thomas Rickert Mathieu Weill León Sanchez

1 0

Regarding definitions of consensus
by Bruce Tonkin Sept. 18, 2015

Sept. 18, 2015

Hello Anne, 1. >> What level of consensus would operate to initiate enforcement action? What level would be necessary within any given SO/AC to initiate enforcement and then what level for the entire Community to consider and develop Consensus? That is a good question. We didn’t want to be prescriptive here. Different parts of the ICANN structure use different models for consensus. E.g. the GAC uses a non-objection approach to determine consensus. The GNSO typically defines consensus for policy matters as a 2/3 super-majority vote. I would expect that each SO and AC would determine what they consider to be consensus as part of their operating procedures (some of which are in the bylaws and some are documented outside of the bylaws. We then talk about "To initiate formal MEM proceedings, the agreed number of SOs and ACs must support the petition.". This is for the CCWG to decide - but for example you might want a minimum of two SOs, and perhaps no objections from any of the ACs. The CCWG charter defined consensus as: " The recommendations from the CCWG do not become “consensus” recommendations until they have been formally approved by the chartering organizations. The chartering organizations for the CCWG are: GNSO, ASO, ccNSO, ALAC, GAC and SSAC." >> Does the Board anticipate there would be any delays resulting from the MEM “consensus enforcement decision” process as opposed to the Sole Member voting process? We assumed the same time frame. >> 2. What would determine the composition of the MEM and what level of voting by that group would be necessary before enforcement is initiated? The MEM Issue group would comprise representatives of the SOs and ACs that wished to initiate action. It is then up to that Group I think to determine how they want to operate. >> 3. If the MEM has capacity to sue for enforcement as stated in the Board proposal, what is its legal personhood My understanding is that the chairs of the ACs and SOs that are members of the MEM issue group could enforce the action as legal persons, or you could form an incorporated association for the purpose of initiating and enforcing the arbitration. Regards, Bruce Tonkin

3 6

Preparation for F2F meeting in LA
by León Felipe Sánchez Ambía Sept. 18, 2015

Sept. 18, 2015

Dear all, In preparation of the LA meeting, the existing sub-teams are asked to review the comments relating to their work areas. We think the best way forward would be for the sub-teams to separate those recommendations that can easily be taken on board to improve our recommendations or make them easier to understand. They should also help facilitate a substantial discussion in LA by being able to present the issues raised by commenters and prepare questions for the group to discuss to forge consensus. As we approach our face to face meeting in Los Angeles next week, we would like to set clear expectations for our meeting: 1. We expect this to be a very fruitful meeting that continues to build in an open, inclusive and bottom-up led multi-stakeholder process as it has been the CCWG’s method to date. Our work should continue to focus on the requirements set by the community while remaining open on the options on how to achieve this requirement based approach; 2. We expect to be able to finalize the review of all comments received in our second public comment period and address them accordingly; 3. We expect we can finalize our consensus recommendations along with the accompanying rationale that will allow us to publish our final document; 4. We expect to fine tune our messaging language so our recommendations can be better understood by anyone who reads them; and 5. We expect to have constructive input from the Board as we will have the opportunity to have most Board members attending the meeting. We are at a crucial stage of our work. Our working group, our advisors, our legal team, the community and staff have all invested an immense amount of time in an unprecedented effort. While there may be moments of frustration, let’s not fall in despair and keep the constructive dialogue that has characterized our work flowing. We invite all to keep our minds open and receptive to everyone’s thoughts and proposals. We seem to be very close to achieving our goal based on a common understanding of the community’s needs and concerns. A detailed agenda will be sent as soon as we finish setting it up. This is the last hurdle towards the goal. Let’s jump it all together as one. Best regards, León, Thomas and Mathieu

1 0

Discussion in the GAC email list on stress test 18
by Haan, ir. T.S.M. de (Thomas) Sept. 17, 2015

Sept. 17, 2015

All, For transparency reasons I want to share my email (in modified form) sent to the GAC email list on the subject of stress test 18. Thanks … (omitted) for a valuable analysis. It captures the essence of the discussion. As Netherlands we are a strong proponent of consensus decision making, but we fail to see the rationale behind the reasoning that - without the proposed bylaw change- we risk ‘governmental capture’. We have stated this in the Paris meeting/july. It would be therefore very helpful if GAC members in favour of the proposed bylaw change explain the arguments. Assuming that most GAC members have been more or less supportive of the current equilibrium working with the current bylaws, we think it would be beneficial for the GAC to maintain that equilibrium and not change it, as there is no consensus support for it. We consider also the NTIA criterium ‘that the transition proposal must have broad community support’ as equally important as - if not overarching - all other criteria, and we risk NOT having consensus support for the proposal if that specific section (stresstest 18) is maintained. For us NOT getting consensus within GAC will have detrimental effect on the transition process and its follow up, as it will lack worldwide governmental support. Thomas de Haan Ministry of Economic Affairs THE NETHERLANDS tel: +31 70 379 8128 Dit bericht kan informatie bevatten die niet voor u is bestemd. Indien u niet de geadresseerde bent of dit bericht abusievelijk aan u is gezonden, wordt u verzocht dat aan de afzender te melden en het bericht te verwijderen. De Staat aanvaardt geen aansprakelijkheid voor schade, van welke aard ook, die verband houdt met risico's verbonden aan het elektronisch verzenden van berichten. This message may contain information that is not intended for you. If you are not the addressee or if this message was sent to you by mistake, you are requested to inform the sender and delete the message. The State accepts no liability for damage of any kind resulting from the risks inherent in the electronic transmission of messages.

1 0

Your public comment re replacement of IANA provider
by Aikman-Scalese, Anne Sept. 17, 2015

Sept. 17, 2015

Avri, I was very interested in your comment regarding the need to amend to provide for a community power to allow approval of any replacement IANA provider in the event of separation. This seems to very directly concern the IANA transition itself and the prospect of securing certification of the proposal by the NTIA to Congress. Could you please explain this a bit further in simple language? Are you saying that ICG or Stewardship has specified that in the event it becomes necessary to replace PTI, then approval (or veto) of that choice should be a listed community power of the Sole Member? Just seeking to understand this issue more clearly. Thank you, Anne [cid:image001.gif@01D0EFD3.01B37360] Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 AAikman(a)LRRLaw.com<mailto:AAikman@LRRLaw.com> | www.LRRLaw.com<http://www.lrrlaw.com/> ________________________________ This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.

4 5

Public Comments - Enforceability - Business Entity and Location of Headquarters
by Aikman-Scalese, Anne Sept. 16, 2015

Sept. 16, 2015

Dear CCWG I noticed that in the public comments there are a number of comments directed to the potential risk created if ICANN changes its corporate formation to other than a California Non-Profit Membership Corporation (after implementation of Accountability measures) and/or moves offices out of the United States. The risk described is difficulty in enforcing the Community Powers. I know the CCWG must have considered this previously and apparently did not make this a condition or fundamental bylaw, but it does strike me this situation increases the risk that Congress will not leave the proposal alone once certified by NTIA. (One example of a company commenting on this aspect of the proposal is INTEL.) Does the CCWG consider this issue to be “asked and answered”? Or will it be discussed again in the context of the public comment work to be done in LA? I understand that many are focused on addressing the “minimum necessary” to effect the IANA transition in Work Stream 1 and “keeping things simple”, but I do think there is a big difference between the “minimum necessary” for NTIA approval and the “optimum approach” for avoiding issues with Congress after NTIA certification. Anne [cid:image001.gif@01D0F07C.BD36A3B0] Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 AAikman(a)LRRLaw.com<mailto:AAikman@LRRLaw.com> | www.LRRLaw.com<http://www.lrrlaw.com/> ________________________________ This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.

1 0

comments from Ira Magaziner
by Thomas Rickert Sept. 16, 2015

Sept. 16, 2015

All, please find below a note from Ira Magaziner, one of our Advisors. I have also included his covering note for your attention. Kind regards, Thomas > Thomas and Colleagues; > > I hope that you do not mind, but I have taken the liberty of framing my views in a short note to you and to Mathieu which is attached. This is not intended for posting but feel free to share it with members of your working groups if you think they will find it useful. > > I look forward to assisting you in your important work if you think I can be helpful. > > Best Wishes, > > Ira Thomas Rickert Rechtsanwalt tel: +49.228.74 898.0 fax: +49.228.74 898.66 email: thomas(a)rickert.net web: rickert.net <https://rickert.net/> RICKERT Rechtsanwaltsgesellschaft m.b.H. (i.e. law firm) Kaiserplatz 7 - 9, 53113 Bonn, Germany HRB 9262, AG Bonn - GF/CEO: Thomas Rickert

7 8

Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Board comments now in
by David Post Sept. 15, 2015

Sept. 15, 2015

My apologies if someone has pointed this out already, but there's one feature of the Board's proposal that is very disturbing. The memo describing the proposed enforceability regime [https://comments.ianacg.org/pdf/submission/submission121.pdf] outlines the process: "4. to initiate formal MEM proceedings, the agreed number of SOs and ACs must support the petition. If there is sufficient support amongst the SOs and ACs then representatives of those supporting SOs and ACs would become the MEM Issue Group. 5. The MEM Issue Group would then submit a Request for Arbitration to the Standing Panel alleging a violation of at least one Fundamental Bylaw ..." This completely inverts (and subverts) the nature of the process we have been discussing for months. Instead of a Board that (a) is empowered to act by stakeholder consensus, and is (b) kept in check by an IRP process in which its actions can be challenged by anyone materially affected by the action (or by any of the SOs and ACs, acting on its own), the new proposal turns that upside down: Under the proposal, stakeholder consensus is required to BLOCK Board action - the challenge can go forward only if "the agreed number of SOs and ACs" support the challenge . That is a very fundamental change in the relationship between the stakeholders and the Board, and not for the better. It makes it MUCH more difficult to challenge Board action that is inconsistent with the Bylaws. And maybe I'm missing something, but I don't get how this new "MEM Arbitration" scheme doesn't completely destroy the IRP. The Board says "Establishment of the MEM is not intended to replace existing IRP procedures. The MEM provides a legally enforceable arbitration decision on violations of ICANNs Fundamental Bylaws." It may not have been intended, but surely this task was precisely the one that the IRP was supposed to take on, and now it's being off-loaded to some arbitration system. How does that "not replace" the IRP? David At 09:49 AM 9/12/2015, Carlos Raul wrote: >Chris, Paul > >It is my personal view that since ATRT1 the >community has been asking for a better >specificÂ "rationale" of Boards decisions. Not >longer or shorter, but BETTER and coming from >the Board (or Committee) itself (consensus or >not);and NOT from Staff (outside counsel) si the >community has a better understanding of the decisions (or proposal). > >This question to me in this case has been framed >in terms of "enforcibilty" and the risk of >capture of the single member as per the memo. I >look forward to my next half day in airports and >flightsÂ to look for the RATIONALE of these two very significant arguments. > >Have a nice weekend you both. > >Carlos RaÃºl >On Sep 12, 2015 9:31 AM, "Paul Rosenzweig" ><<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>paul.rosenzweig(a)redbranchconsulting.com> >wrote: > >With respect Chris, I am deeply serious.Â The >boardâs commitment to the multi-stakeholder model is not. > >Â > >And as for âsizeâ when it reflects depth of >analysis, yes â¦ it usually does >matter.Â Glibness is easy when brevity is the >goal.Â Thoughtful consideration requires extended analysis.Â > >Â > >A CCWG process that has gone on for nearly a >year and involved 100s of members of the >community in meeting taking place across the >globe and tens of thousands of man hours does, >actually, produce a proposal that has the >consensus of the Community.Â The Boardâs >brief âwe donât like it and here is our >three page counter proposalâ does not deserve our respect.Â > >Â > >Paul > >Â > >Paul Rosenzweig > ><mailto:paul.rosenzweigesq@redbranchconsulting.com>paul.rosenzweig(a)redbranchconsulting.com > > >O: <tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20547-0660>+1 (202) 547-0660 > >M: <tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20329-9650>+1 (202) 329-9650 > >VOIP: <tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20738-1739>+1 (202) 738-1739 > >Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066 > ><http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=articl…>Link >to my PGP Key > >Â > >Â > >From: Chris Disspain [mailto:ceo@auda.org.au] >Sent: Saturday, September 12, 2015 8:20 AM >To: Paul Rosenzweig ><<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>paul.rosenzweig(a)redbranchconsulting.com> >Cc: Accountability Cross Community ><<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org> >Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Board comments now in > >Â > >Ahsso, clearly, size does matter.to some.. > >Â > >With respect, you canât be serious. > >Â > >Â > >Cheers, > >Â > >Chris > >Â > >On 12 Sep 2015, at 21:50 , Paul Rosenzweig ><<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>paul.rosenzweig(a)redbranchconsulting.com> >wrote: > >Â > >Dear Seun > >Â > >With respect, you canât be serious.Â The >Boardâs alternate proposal is a 3-page >memo.Â The CCWGâs proposal is an integrated >180 page documents which, even if you limit >yourself to the parts directly related to the >Single Member model (not including stress tests, >or the fundamental bylaws themselves) is roughly >8-10x as long (depending on how you count it) . > >Â > >Paul > >Â > >Paul Rosenzweig > ><mailto:paul.rosenzweigesq@redbranchconsulting.com>paul.rosenzweig(a)redbranchconsulting.com > >O: <tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20547-0660>+1 (202) 547-0660 > >M: <tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20329-9650>+1 (202) 329-9650 > >VOIP: <tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20738-1739>+1 (202) 738-1739 > >Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066 > ><http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=articl…>Link >to my PGP Key > >Â > >Â > >From:Â Seun Ojedeji >[<mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com]Â >Sent:Â Friday, September 11, 2015 9:40 PM >To:Â Jordan Carter <<mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz>jordan(a)internetnz.net.nz> >Cc:Â Accountability Cross Community ><<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org> >Subject:Â Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Board comments now in > >Â > >Hi Jordan, > >I don't think there is so much details to >develop than what we currently have with the >sole member (which by the way also requires a lot of details). > >I think the main question we need to ask the >CCWG legal is whether the leadership of the >SO/AC(for instance) can indeed have legal >standing under the California law. Every other >aspect of MEM seem to make sense to me and just >the clarity on the possibility of enforcement is >what lawyers needs to come in on. > >Perhaps it's also good to note that what is >being proposed by board has been discussed one >way or the other in the past but somehow we did >not follow-up on the thoughts up. > >Regards > >Sent from my Asus Zenfone2 >Kindly excuse brevity and typos. > >hi all > >Â > >You may be interested to read the comments from >the ICANN board which have now been lodged: > >Â > ><http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-ccwg-accountability-03aug15/msg00045.…>http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-ccwg-accountability-03aug15/msg00045.… > >Â > >I'd draw your attention to the cover note / >summary and to the memo on the MEM. > >Â > >It's good to see some concrete proposals from >the Board to take into account as we refine the proposal. > >Â > >An initial observation - there is a lot of >detail that would need to be developed if the >alternative proposal was to be complete enough >to undergo stress testing, based on an initial scan. > >Â > >Happy reading! > >Â > >Cheers > >JordanÂ > > > >--Â >Jordan Carter >Chief Executive, InternetNZ > ><tel:%2B64-21-442-649>+64-21-442-649Â |Â ><mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz>jordan(a)internetnz.net.nz > >Sent on the run, apologies for brevity > > >_______________________________________________ >Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list ><mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org >https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community > >_______________________________________________ >Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list ><mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org >https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community > >Â > >_______________________________________________ >Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list ><mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org >https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community > >_______________________________________________ >Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list >Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org >https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community ******************************* David G Post - Senior Fellow, Open Technology Institute/New America Foundation blog (Volokh Conspiracy) http://www.washingtonpost.com/people/david-post book (Jefferson's Moose) http://tinyurl.com/c327w2n music http://tinyurl.com/davidpostmusic publications etc. http://www.davidpost.com *******************************

3 2