- Accountability-Cross-Community

Fwd: Agenda for WP1 mtg #2 - 25 Feb @ 21.00-22.30 UTC
by Jordan Carter Feb. 25, 2015

Feb. 25, 2015

Dear CCWG members - fyi. Jordan ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Jordan Carter <jordan(a)internetnz.net.nz> Date: 25 February 2015 at 16:29 Subject: Agenda for WP1 mtg #2 - 25 Feb @ 21.00-22.30 UTC To: "wp1(a)icann.org" <wp1(a)icann.org> Hi all, We have our next meeting coming up later today. The agenda below is based on our work plan ( https://docs.google.com/document/d/1C7eMTu0k8KOTiRlhlt8vqAGwYc4vbl1EiiVGW6v…) which said that at this meeting we would: - Review all drafts and amend/improve through discussion - Agree any updates to Work Plan - Reallocate volunteers if required to complete work on time Accordingly here are the items for the agenda: *1. Update from CCWG* We can discuss anything that came up at the CCWG call we need to share with the group. Many of us participated in that call. *2. Discussion of current drafts* So far templates have been prepared or content developed in a few of our powers/mechanisms, and we should get the drafters to present these for discussion - and they can share the feedback from the CCWG call too. To prepare, please *review* the documents and be ready to discuss them - they are linked on the Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/WP1+Draft+Documents If you have some draft content not linked on the wiki, *please* circulate it on the list so we all have it, and staff will add it on the wiki ASAP. My general approach is that we shouldn't discuss documents that are circulated under 8hrs before a call, but we can discuss that if required at the call. This will be the main item for our call. We'll have to have it done by about 21.50 to make sure we have time to finish the rest. *3. Review the Work Plan* The work plan is at: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1C7eMTu0k8KOTiRlhlt8vqAGwYc4vbl1EiiVGW6v… >From my point of view, I did not convene the group of volunteer editors for which I apologise. Two changes to propose to the Work Plan: - between now and the end of the weekend maybe we should focus on getting draft text ready in the powers/mechanisms not yet covered. T - the editorial group should make some suggestions to all docs available by say Sunday if these can improve them too, in time for people to look at by next Monday. Are there any other changes to suggest? *4. Volunteers* Thank you to those who have been already doing work for this Working Party. Are there any new volunteers who can commit some time in the next few days? If you can help please volunteer by return email or on the call. *5. Any Other Business* Thanks all and speak with you soon. bests Jordan -- Jordan Carter Chief Executive *InternetNZ* 04 495 2118 (office) | +64 21 442 649 (mob) jordan(a)internetnz.net.nz Skype: jordancarter *A better world through a better Internet * -- Jordan Carter Chief Executive *InternetNZ* 04 495 2118 (office) | +64 21 442 649 (mob) jordan(a)internetnz.net.nz Skype: jordancarter *A better world through a better Internet *

1 0

Update on IANA Stewardship Transition/ICANN Accountability Discussions
by Grace Abuhamad Feb. 24, 2015

Feb. 24, 2015

Please see the original links here: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/iana-stewardship-discussion-2015-02-24 -en https://www.icann.org/news/blog/update-on-iana-stewardship-discussion-24-feb ruary-2015 ICANN is compiling bi-weekly updates on the community discussions and progress of the IANAStewardship Transition and Enhancing ICANN Accountability Processes. This information is positioned to help inform interested stakeholders in the recent developments in the processes, upcoming key dates, latest documents and drafts and a snapshot of any news coverage that occurs over the timeframe. An Update on IANA Stewardship Discussions ICANN 52 During ICANN 52 <http://singapore52.icann.org/en/> in Singapore, between 6 and 12 February, more than 41 hours were spent on discussions around the IANA stewardship transition and related ICANN accountability processes. The discussions consisted of: * Community-wide information and question and answer sessions * Public working sessions by: > * IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG <http://ianacg.org/> ) > * Cross-Community Working Group to Develop an IANA Stewardship Transition > Proposal on Naming Related Functions (CWG Stewardship > <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocwgdtstwrdshp/CWG+to+Develop+an+IAN… > Stewardship+Transition+Proposal+on+Naming+Related+Functions> ) > * Cross-Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG > Accountability > <https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/CCWG+on+Enhancing+ICANN+A… > ountability> ). * Stakeholder-specific discussions within individual Supporting Organizations, including many of the component constituencies of the GNSO, and within the Advisory Committees. The community-wide sessions provided online participation mechanisms and were webcast and transcribed live. Transcripts and audio of all sessions, including those not transcribed live, are nowavailable online <http://singapore52.icann.org/en/materials> . The following is a summary of transition and accountability-related discussions atICANN 52. Clarifications from NTIA: * NTIA <http://ntia.doc.gov/> reiterated that although the current IANA contract expires 30 September 2015, that is not a deadline for the transition but a target date. The transition can occur whenever the multistakeholder community develops a plan both it and NTIA can accept. * NTIA expects a single proposal for the IANA stewardship transition. * NTIA does not expect any dissenting opinions to accompany the final proposal. * NTIA expects the IANA-related accountability mechanisms being developed through Work Stream 1 of CCWG Accountability to be submitted at the same time as the ICG proposal. * Although the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2015 <http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CPRT-113HPRT91668/pdf/CPRT-113HPRT91668.pdf> [PDF, 3.44 MB] prohibits NTIA from spending any money to relinquish the contract through 30 September 2015, this does not prevent the NTIA from providing informal feedback when asked questions by the community nor does it prevent the community's ability to continue developing a proposal for the transition. Key ICG updates and discussions: * The ICG discussed the progress of the review of the protocol parameters and numbers community proposals the group had received, resolving <https://www.dropbox.com/s/wad3entgv3dqr3m/Summary%20of%20internally%20resol ved%20questions-v2.xlsx?dl=0> a number of questions ICG members had had about both proposals. There was discussion about how to handle public comments on the names proposal, once submitted, due to concerns that the proposal could attract significant numbers of public comments and that it might not be practical to forward each individual comment to the CWG Stewardship for its consideration. * There were discussions about the effect that the extended timeline for the CWG Stewardship proposal would have on the ICG's final proposal, with agreement to review the ICG's current timeline based on more detailed review of the work that can be completed independent of the names proposal. It was noted that, as many members of the ICG were following the CWG Stewardship work, much of the ICG's work on the names proposal could take place before the final CWG proposal was formally delivered to the ICG. CWG Stewardship and CCWG Accountability: * The two groups confirmed they were planning to use the same legal counsel for advice on the legal viability of proposal ideas under discussion. Although ICANN would pay for the legal advice, the clients would be the CWG and CCWG, not ICANN. * Recognizing the interdependent and interrelated nature of the two groups, the Chairs of both groups are also in regular contact to ensure close coordination between the two processes. Key CWG Stewardship updates and discussions: * A final version of a Discussion Document <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/49351404/CWG-SingaporeDisc ussionDocument-Final.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1422998880000&api=v2> [PDF, 447 KB] was published on 3 February to bring the wider community up to date on its work and encourage further community input. * The CWG Stewardship explained that the reasons the names component of the IANA stewardship proposal was taking longer than the numbers and protocol parameters components was due to the complexity of the names communities. CWG members were meeting very regularly – sometimes daily – to progress the work of the group. * The CWG Stewardship clarified that although there were still significant differences of opinion about the two main models on the table – "external" trust (oversight of IANA exists outside ICANN) versus "internal" trust (ICANN performs IANA stewardship function, with possibly a "golden bylaw" to ensure ICANN can be held accountable to community) – the vast majority of issues under discussion in the CWG were enjoying significant consensus. The CWG hoped that after it received legal advice on the external and internal options under discussion, some of the current proposal options could be found to be unviable and reduce the number of options from which the CWG needed to choose. Key CCWG Accountability updates and discussions: * Work Stream 1, which is examining the accountability mechanisms that must be in place or committed to within the timeframe of the IANA stewardship transition, has formed two Working Parties (WP): WP 1 is examining how the community can be empowered to hold the ICANN Board accountable while WP 2 is examining possible review and redress processes. There was a suggestion to clarify which accountability mechanisms in Work Stream 1 were "triggered" (by a specific action or non-action by ICANN) or "non-triggered" (part of regular ICANN processes). Governmental Advisory Committee: * In its Singapore Communiqué <https://gacweb.icann.org/download/attachments/27132037/GAC_SINGAPORE52_COMM UNIQUE_FINAL2.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1423724031000&api=v2> [PDF, 113 KB], the ICANN Governmental Advisory Committee(GAC <https://gacweb.icann.org/display/gacweb/Governmental+Advisory+Committee> ) committed to continue working with the CWG-Stewardship and CCWG-Accountability both through individual GAC members and through the designated GAC representatives to both groups. The GAC also noted that the IANA stewardship process would have the highest priority for the GAC's intersessional work in the lead-up to ICANN 53 <https://buenosaires53.icann.org/> in Buenos Aires. More detailed information about post-ICANN 52 work in the ICG, CWG-Stewardship, and CCWG-Accountability will follow in the next update. Updates on other transition-related activities 1. ICANN Board 2. On 12 February, a short statement from the ICANN Board <https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-3-2015-02-12-en> was published. The key section of the statement is included below: > 3. "ICANN is expecting to receive both proposals [from the ICG and CCWG > Accountability] at roughly the same time. When ICANN receives these proposals, > we will forward them promptly and without modification to NTIA. As we have > previously stated, if we do submit the proposals with an accompanying > communication of comments, they will be on points we had already shared with > the community during the development of the proposals. […] With respect to > improvements in our accountability, we are definitely open to improvements." 4. 5. Internet Society (ISOC) 6. At its 15 February meeting <http://www.internetsociety.org/news/internet-society-board-trustees-encoura ges-continued-trust-multistakeholder-process-iana> , the ISOC Board stressed that "successful transition will reinforce the value of the collaborative, multistakeholder model", with the Board Chair noting that the process "is a true reflection of the power of the multistakeholder approach to bring parties together to solve complex problems". 7. 8. International Telecommunications Union (ITU) 9. During the ITU's Member States-only Council Working Group on International Internet-related Public Policy Issues (CWG-Internet <http://www.itu.int/council/groups/CWG-internet/index.html> ), 2-3 February, one Member State proposed including theIANA stewardship transition as a topic for open consultations preceding the CWG-Internet's next meeting in October, with the aim of CWG-Internet providing input into the IANA stewardship process. There was support from some States at the meeting to hold such a consultation while others were opposed. Therefore, the topic will not proceed to public consultation. However, supporting States indicated they might suggest the IANA stewardship transition as a topic again at the October meeting for the CWG-Internet's subsequent open consultation. Upcoming key dates 24 Feb 2015CWG-Stewardship Meeting #23 <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocwgdtstwrdshp/Meetings> , 17:00-19:00 CCWG-Accountability meeting #14 <https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Meetings> , 19:00-21:00 UTC 25 Feb 2015ICG Call #12 <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/internal-cg/2015-February/003106.html> , 4:00-5:30 UTC Preserving the Multistakeholder Model of Internet Governance <http://www.commerce.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=Hearings&ContentRecord_id =683924ae-83d7-4bf4-922a-cdecb9556ba9&ContentType_id=14f995b9-dfa5-407a-9d35 -56cc7152a7ed&Group_id=b06c39af-e033-4cba-9221-de668ca1978a&MonthDisplay=2&Y earDisplay=2015> – US Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, & Transportation hearing on IANAstewardship, 15:00 UTC 26 Feb 2015CWG-Stewardship Meeting #24 <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocwgdtstwrdshp/Meetings> , 11:00-13:00 UTC 3 Mar 2015CCWG-Accountability meeting #15 <https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Meetings> , 12:00-14:00 UTC CWG-Stewardship Meeting #25 <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocwgdtstwrdshp/Meetings> , 17:00-19:00 UTC 4 Mar 2015Update on the IANA Stewardship Transition Process <http://www.internetsociety.org/ianaxfer> – ISOC webinar 14:00 UTC 5 Mar 2015CWG-Stewardship Meeting #26 <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocwgdtstwrdshp/Meetings> , 11:00-13:00 UTC 23-24 Mar 2015 CCWG-Accountability Face-to-Face meeting. Details to be confirmed. 26-27 Mar 2015 CWG-Stewardship Face-to-Face meeting. Details to be confirmed. Latest documents and drafts 12 Feb 2015CWG-Stewardship Chairs' Summary of ICANN 52 Meeting <https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=52889466> 18 Feb 2015Feedback collected from ICANN 52 for review & analysis by CWG Stewardship <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/49351404/CollectedFeedback fromICANN52.docx?version=1&modificationDate=1424306998000&api=v2> [DOCX, 40 KB] CWG-Stewardship timeline <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/internal-cg/attachments/20150219/0e71f1df/CWG -Stewardship-ProjPlan-20150218-0001.pdf> [PDF, 243 KB] 21 Feb 2015ICG summary of internally resolved questions regarding the protocol parameters & numbers proposals <https://www.dropbox.com/s/wad3entgv3dqr3m/Summary%20of%20internally%20resol ved%20questions-v2.xlsx?dl=0> IANA stewardship in the news Feb 2015ДО СИХ ПОР НЕЯСНА БУДУЩАЯ АРХИТЕКТУРА КОНТРОЛЯ НАД ФУНКЦИЯМИ IANA <http://pircenter.org/media/content/files/13/14243433340.pdf> [PDF, 388 KB], PIR Center [RU] 10 Feb 2015ICANN 52: Where does the IANA transition and Internet governance go from here?, <https://ccgnludelhi.wordpress.com/2015/02/10/icann-52-where-does-the-iana-t ransition-and-internet-governance-go-from-here-i/> National Law University Delhi [EN] 10 Feb 2015The last third: Why the IANA transition for names is hard <http://www.internetgovernance.org/2015/02/10/the-last-third-why-the-iana-tr ansition-for-names-is-hard/> , Internet Governance Project [EN] 13 Feb 2015ICANN-Tagung: Experten fordern von den USA unabhängige IANA <http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/ICANN-Tagung-Experten-fordern-von-de n-USA-unabhaengige-IANA-2548976.html> , Heise Online [DE] 20 Feb 2015ICANN 52 reflection <https://internetnz.nz/blog/icann-52-reflection> , InternetNZ [EN] You can play a role in IANA's future… Anyone can participate in discussions about the future of IANA's stewardship and ICANN accountability. For information on joining CWG-Stewardship, contact grace.abuhamad(a)icann.org. For information on joining CCWG-Accountability, contact accountability-staff(a)icann.org. This update can also be found here: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/iana-stewardship-discussion-2015-02-24 -en Compiled on behalf of ICANN by Samantha Dickinson | 23 February 2015

1 0

Another Stress Test to discuss
by Steve DelBianco Feb. 24, 2015

Feb. 24, 2015

Per a request from Adam Peake, we applied another of our stress tests against the draft package of proposed accountability measures. This is for stress test #17, shown below and on page 2 of the attached document. Stress Test: #17. ICANN attempts to add a new top-level domain in spite of security and stability concerns expressed by technical community or other stakeholder groups. Consequence: DNS security and stability could be undermined, and ICANN actions could impose costs and risks upon external parties. Existing Accountability Measures: In 2013-14 the community demonstrated that it could eventually prod ICANN management to attend to risks identified by SSAC (security certificates and name collisions such as .mail, .home, etc.). NTIA presently gives clerical approval for each delegation to indicate that ICANN has followed its processes. NTIA could delay a delegation if its finds that ICANN has not followed its processes. Not clear if that would/could have been a finding if ICANN attempted to delegate a new TLD such as .mail or .home CCWG Proposed Accountability Measures: One proposed measure is to empower the community to force ICANN’s board to implement a recommendation arising from an AoC Review – namely, 9.2 Review of Security, Stability, and Resiliency. Another possibility is to empower the community to force ICANN to respond to recommendations from advisory committees like as SSAC. If the board took a decision to reject or only partially accept SSAC recommendations, the community could be empowered to challenge that board decision and/or refer to IRP. Preliminary Conclusions: This threat is partially related to the transition of IANA stewardship Existing measures were adequate to mitigate the risks of this scenario. Proposed measures enhance community’s power to mitigate the risks of this scenario.

1 0

FYI - Update on pending IRP/CEP matters published
by Jacob Malthouse Feb. 24, 2015

Feb. 24, 2015

Here: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/cep-irp-pending-23feb15-en.pdf Improvements have been made to the 'status' section of the update. Best, Jacob. Jacob Malthouse Co-founder & Director, Big Room Inc. 778-960-6527 www.bigroom.ca

1 0

Venue - 23-24 March meeting
by Alice Jansen Feb. 24, 2015

Feb. 24, 2015

Dear all, We would like to confirm the dates and location for the next face-to-face meeting which has been scheduled to align with deliverables. Dates: 23-24 March 2015 (two full working days) Venue: Hilton İstanbul Bomonti Hotel & Conference Center SILAHSOR CAD. NO: 42 BOMONTI-SISLI, ISTANBUL, 34381, TURKEY (see map here<http://www3.hilton.com/en/hotels/turkey/hilton-istanbul-bomonti-hotel-and-c…>) Please note that this will also be the venue for the CWG-stewardship face-to-face meeting on 26-27 March, which was scheduled to comply with the CWG-stewardship's respective project plan and timeline. CWG-CCWG leaderships agreed in a coordination meeting that holding their respective face-to-face meetings in the same location was the best way to use resources, and also achieve the desired degree of coordination. In light of the groups' geographical statistics and given the limited time window available for planning, the Co-Chairs considered locations that would be most efficient for membership travel. It was determined that Europe would be a desirable landing point. Co-chairs have worked with ICANN staff to determine a location for these separate meetings. Accessibility (international hubs) was used as a key search criteria. The meeting only being a few weeks away and the groups being significantly large and having quite specific technical requirements for remote participation, etc., the number of options was narrowed to a limited number of cities and venues able to accommodate the meetings. Availability of accommodation was also factored in. Mindful of the groups' diversity and to ensure maximum attendance in the meetings, the Co-Chairs decided that Istanbul would be the most suitable location. The Co-Chairs reached this decision based on, among other things, an analysis of visa procedures: Turkey delivers evisas for most countries. In addition, Istanbul is a major hub for flights, and a doorway to Asia and Europe. Please note that the meeting will be webcast live through Adobe Connect and include remote participation capabilities consistent with the CCWG meetings held to date. The working session will also be recorded and transcribed. We invite you to confirm your in-person presence by sending an RSVP to acct-staff(a)icann.org<mailto:acct-staff@icann.org> by Monday, 2 March COB. Please note that only the 26 members, the ATRT Expert, and the ICG Liaisons are eligible for travel funding. Participants are welcome to attend the F2F meeting at their own expense. We thank you for your understanding of the planning challenges and encourage you to contact ICANN staff should you have any questions or need any assistance with visa procedures. Best regards, Alice

1 0

Essay of Interest
by Paul Rosenzweig Feb. 24, 2015

Feb. 24, 2015

Colleagues This essay, by Jack Goldsmith of Harvard University, may be of interest: http://www.hoover.org/research/tricky-issue-severing-us-control-over-icann Best Paul Paul Rosenzweig Red Branch Consulting, PLLC 509 C St. NE Washington, DC 20002 paul.rosenzweig(a)redbranchconsulting.com <mailto:paul.rosenzweigesq@redbranchconsulting.com> O: +1 (202) 547-0660 M: +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066 www.redbranchconsulting.com <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/> www.paulrosenzweigesq.com <http://www.paulrosenzweigesq.com/> Link to my PGP Key <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=articl e&id=19&Itemid=9> <http://www.rsaconference.com/events/us15/register?utm_source=inhouse&utm_me dium=email&utm_campaign=signature-us2015>

1 0

CCWG-Accountability F2F
by Dr Eberhard W Lisse Feb. 24, 2015

Feb. 24, 2015

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 All, Can we please publish the dates of all planned Face-to-Face meetings immediately? Some of us work for a living and re-arranging my practice schedule for one is a real nuisance unless I know well in advance. March is already an issue for me and I doubt I will be able to make it even by remote participation (as it is in the same time zone) but I need to especially know about May, so I can block this out. 2015-05-01 and 2015-05-04 are public holidays here in Namibia and this year very pleasantly located. So if it was 2015-05-04/05 it would not interfere much. If not it'll be not too bad, as long as I know well in advance. Location is not so much of importance, especially if it is in a major hub, but if it could be narrowed down to the hub as soon as possible it would help with keeping airfare costs down by early booking. greetings, el -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQIVAwUBVOL3OZcFHaN5RT+rAQI+wQ//fj7riHIsWiBHDA8oKaP49Qy32SdbRNBa 5fXIN2f2XLCN3EtjknE4RLNJi1NTU+7+1V0uXTCNijt9LxEhMHRIPO6yGWH5WLOz CQFhNPbb33a/ydmgjYKSMck/kvtYsmjuS+Svq/pkQoC2RfJoCRLG2v+3hos36+0U QIgcduKlB/5S3TbH6V0CN3LtgNsO22n2jxTzQfuXnkhc9oA9+DI/VJao5Ev8OJcD quK97akKLbzdQetdqRKOOxC0gjmPu8UJuJXseKF7z5znaarxceqE4Q3VoyZCEXN7 QXxIXiFLmt9BPY+6h2lJJluDTD5NtCTffK4+NDTn1Un9fsweHFU1rBensGok926A GE5tpylFf9eqi25jYvTfNcCLTEKEcjoityc5I1zz9mm+2Nya/y2CpGgI0AWNeHIm pQhuAlRLJwC3s5ZCHHw4yii8JeLizB8+tbcP2oy5trT+Ctv0bUydELTrntaw/ISI TQxGpmzQt4SUSt2rAj/Dm5KgUAFer1Cx8UPwA6hd6OjA1oPHQHja09O5iYblFUYZ rfieI0XHtNt0w06pAdYazAWUKtjDlrdDokFHBpqnkiX3OIm1uY+a5YR5jlYjs9zV xxxPmk5ehGRybNwX9FRXxyXfYbSN4nx1jv2zmik7U4wR6C9U+vwRlr11axXCOpb5 fuOHFM+yoPA= =5wgE -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

6 7

GCC v ICANN emergency IRP panel declaration published
by Jacob Malthouse Feb. 23, 2015

Feb. 23, 2015

All, An ICDR emergency arbitrator declaration regarding the ICANN v GCC case has been published here: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/interim-declaration-emergency-p… The declaration may have implications for efficacy of ICANN community decision making, given that it seems to suggest an IRP is valid even absent CEP for over a year from the date of an apparent Board action based on even slight interaction between ICANN staff and a complainant during the interim. Best regards, Jacob. Jacob Malthouse Co-founder & Director, Big Room Inc. 778-960-6527 www.bigroom.ca

1 0

AGENDA - Meeting #14
by Alice Jansen Feb. 23, 2015

Feb. 23, 2015

Dear all, Below you will find a proposed agenda in preparation for your call #14<https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=52889476> - Tuesday, 24 February - 19:00-21:00 UTC: 1. Welcome, roll-call & SoI 2. Activity report from Work Parties * WP 1<https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/WP1+--+Community+Empowerm…> * WP 2<https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/WP2+--+Review+and+Redress> * ST-WP<https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/ST-WP+--+Stress+Test+Work…> 3. Legal Subteam<https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Legal+SubTeam> update 4. March Face-to-face meeting 5. Wrap-up & next steps 6. A.O.B Thanks, Best regards Alice

1 0

Re: [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG mailing list summary, 6-12 February
by Alice Jansen Feb. 23, 2015

Feb. 23, 2015

Dear All, A PDF of the summary Adam circulated can be found in the attached. Please note that summaries are also available on the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Weekly+Summary+-+Mailing+ List+Discussions Best regards Alice On 2/23/15 3:46 PM, "Adam Peake" <adam.peake(a)icann.org> wrote: >Hi Everyone, > >Summary of the mailing list for 6-12 February attached. This had been >sent to the advisors > >Please let Alice Jansen (alice.jansen(a)icann.org) and me know if you have >any comments. > >Best, > >Adam > > > > > >

1 0