- Accountability-Cross-Community

ICANN Public Comment Period Duration
by Greg Shatan March 24, 2015

March 24, 2015

All: I wanted to make sure you were aware that the ICANN public comment periods were changed in January 2015. The minimum public comment period is no longer 21 days with a 21 day reply period. Instead, it is a single (minimum) 40 day comment period. This is apparently a response to certain ATRT2 recommendations. See: https://community.icann.org/display/soaceabout/Announcement+Letter+to+ICANN… There were two community webinars on 22 January announcing "Public Comment Enhancements" (this and the other changes in the above document). See https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-01-16-en. The announcement of the webinar mentions the "suspension" of the reply period and the new 40 day minimum period. Webinar materials (slide deck, transcripts, etc.) are here: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=51418375 Aside from the webinar announcement, I don't believe there was a formal announcement to the community of the change in public comment periods. As a result, there still seems to be some lack of knowledge of this change. I hope this helps.

1 0

Public Comment Review Tool (PCRT)
by Alice Jansen March 24, 2015

March 24, 2015

Dear all, Further to your timeline & next steps discussion, please find below an example of how each comment is imported into the Public Comment Review Tool (PCRT). The tool categorizes comments according to topics, provides information on how the WG deliberated on the comment, and records the action that the WG took as a result of comment, if any. * IGO-INGO Page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/active/igo-ingo * IGO-INGO Final Report: http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/igo-ingo-final-10nov13-en.pdf * PCRT: http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/igo-ingo-final-public-comment-review-08nov1… Thanks, Best regards Alice

1 0

Fwd: [CWG-Stewardship] RySG IANA Statement
by Jordan Carter March 24, 2015

March 24, 2015

Dear all - this might be of interest to us, too. I hope the co-chairs will take this scope/allocation question up with the CWG Co-Chairs at their meeting on Wednesday. bests Jordan ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Jordan Carter <jordan(a)internetnz.net.nz> Date: 22 March 2015 at 16:53 Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] RySG IANA Statement To: "Duchesneau, Stephanie" <Stephanie.Duchesneau(a)neustar.us> Cc: "cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org" <cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org> Hi all Thanks to the gTLD registries for this interesting input. I wanted to raise a couple of points, related to accountability matters, for wider discussion: * On the links with accountability - I think both CCWG and CWG are clear that the CWG charter says "Accountability for the administration of the IANA functions (i.e., implementation and operational accountability), however, is properly within the scope of this working group.", and that the CCWG charter says "The CWG-Stewardship's scope is focused on the arrangements required for the continuance of IANA functions in an accountable and widely accepted manner after the expiry of the IANA Functions Contract. Accountability for the administration of the IANA functions (i.e., implementation and operational accountability) is not within the scope of the CCWG-Accountability as it is being dealt with by the CWG-Stewardship" A question arises - about how we in CCWG should interpret Issue 3 and recommendation 3A in this paper. Is the recommendation from RySG regarding accountability about: a) avoiding the duplication of structures (e.g. not doubling up development/reform of the IAP, which CCWG is definitely working on), or b) trying to move the matter of the *overall* responsibility for accountable stewardship of the IANA functions to the CCWG? I regard the first interpretation as helpful and clarifying, but the second interpretation as deeply problematic, and so would really appreciate teasing out clarity around this. In the end, between the CWG and the CCWG, we have to deal with the post-contract environment, and we have to have a genuinely multistakeholder solution for the overall oversight of the IANA functions. I don't think a customer-only CSC achieves that, and nor does an IAP - but they are parts of the general accountability puzzle for sure. Looking forward to people's thoughts. best Jordan On 22 March 2015 at 16:25, Duchesneau, Stephanie < Stephanie.Duchesneau(a)neustar.us> wrote: > Hi All, > > > > With the face-to-face meeting coming up the gTLD Registry participants in > the CWG have taken the opportunity to identify shared positions on the IANA > Stewardship Transition and the current work of the CWG, and to solicit > wider feedback from the RySG. > > > > The attached statement was prepared by gTLD members participating in this > working group with input and support from the wider Registries Stakeholder > Group. Though no formal vote was taken, all feedback received was > constructive and supportive of the statement. It is meant as a follow-on to > the RySG comments provided on the Draft IANA proposal, taking into account > additional work and developments since December. > > > > We hope you'll take the time to review the statement in advance of the > Istanbul meeting and that it provides useful clarity into concerns and > recommendations of gTLD Registry representatives participating in this > work. > > > > Please do not hesitate to raise any questions or responses. > > > > Best, and safe travels to all heading to Istanbul. > > > > Stephanie > > > > *Stephanie Duchesneau* > *Neustar, Inc. / *Public Policy Manager > 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, 4th Floor, Washington, DC 20006 > *Office:* +1.202.533.2623 *Mobile: *+1.703.731.2040 *Fax: * > +1.202.533.2623 */* www.neustar.biz > ------------------------------ > > The information contained in this email message is intended only for the > use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or > privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you have > received this email message in error and any review, dissemination, > distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you > have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately and > delete the original message. > > > > _______________________________________________ > CWG-Stewardship mailing list > CWG-Stewardship(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship > > -- 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 *

4 6

v4 of Community Powers Table
by Jordan Carter March 24, 2015

March 24, 2015

Hi all Thomas and I did some work over the break, here is what is for discussion now.... cheers 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 *

1 0

Fwd: Comm Powers table for display later
by Jordan Carter March 24, 2015

March 24, 2015

Here is the PDF and .docX versions of the table Jordan ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Jordan Carter <jordan(a)internetnz.net.nz> Date: 24 March 2015 at 11:44 Subject: Comm Powers table for display later To: ACCT-Staff <acct-staff(a)icann.org>, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía < leonfelipe(a)sanchez.mx>, Thomas Rickert <rickert(a)anwaelte.de>, Mathieu Weill <Mathieu.Weill(a)afnic.fr>, Becky Burr <Becky.Burr(a)neustar.biz>, Cheryl Langdon-Orr <langdonorr(a)gmail.com>, stevedelbianco <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org > as attached JTC -- 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

Fwd: [client com] Summary Slides
by León Felipe Sánchez Ambía March 24, 2015

March 24, 2015

Dear all, I am forwarding this information from the CWG client committee. It might be useful for our work. Sorry for any cross-posting Best regards, León > Inicio del mensaje reenviado: > > De: "Gregory, Holly" <holly.gregory(a)sidley.com> > Para: Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson(a)afilias.info>, Lise Fuhr <lise.fuhr(a)difo.dk>, Maarten Simon <maarten.simon(a)sidn.nl>, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com> > Fecha: 24 de marzo de 2015 1:04:05 GMT+2 > Cc: "Clark, Michael A." <mclark(a)sidley.com>, Client <cwg-client(a)icann.org>, "Fuller, Miles" <wfuller(a)sidley.com>, "Hilton, Tyler" <thilton(a)sidley.com> > Asunto: [client com] Summary Slides > > > Dear Members of the Client Committee, > > Attached for your preliminary review please find a draft set of slides that summarize the information we provided in response to the questions in the scoping document. We have also included information that responds to questions posed more recently about the integrated/hybrid model These slides could provide a framework for discussion in Istanbul of the legal issues implicated by the various models under consideration. Please note the following: > > • These slides summarize the information provided in response to CWG’s first set of questions, but with the information reordered along the lines of the proposals. > • As with our preliminary responses, these slides summarize technical legal information in a generalized form in keeping with the general level of the questions posed. This information is provided for the benefit of the CWG, to help facilitate its consideration of the transition proposals that have been described to us, and should not be relied upon by any other persons or for any other purpose. > > Please let us know if you would like any revisions regarding presentation style. Also, we note that we did not receive any comments on the underlying document. > > I look forward to seeing you in Istanbul. > Kind regards. > > Holly > > HOLLY GREGORY > Partner > > Sidley Austin LLP > +1.212.839.5853 > holly.gregory(a)sidley.com <mailto:holly.gregory@sidley.com> > > > > **************************************************************************************************** > This e-mail is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is privileged or confidential. > If you are not the intended recipient, please delete the e-mail and any attachments and notify us > immediately. > > **************************************************************************************************** > > _______________________________________________ > Cwg-client mailing list > Cwg-client(a)icann.org <mailto:Cwg-client@icann.org> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-client <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-client>

4 6

FW: RES: [ST-WP] Additional Stress Tests to discuss
by Drazek, Keith March 24, 2015

March 24, 2015

As we discuss jurisdiction, I’m resending my email of March 5 for further context: From: Drazek, Keith Sent: Thursday, March 05, 2015 2:53 AM To: 'Tijani BEN JEMAA'; 'Phil Corwin'; 'Pedro Ivo Ferraz da Silva'; 'Steve DelBianco'; 'Accountability Cross Community' Cc: 'ACCT-Staff'; ccwg-accountability4(a)icann.org Subject: RE: [CCWG-ACCT] RES: [ST-WP] Additional Stress Tests to discuss Hi Tijani, In light of Fadi’s statement during his February 25 Senate testimony (as quoted by Phil Corwin in another email), there may be a risk to a successful and timely IANA Transition if the AoC’s US jurisdiction language is NOT incorporated into the bylaws. Fadi’s statement that ICANN “stands by” the requirements in the AoC (and the US jurisdiction requirement in particular) and that he believes incorporating the obligations into the bylaws is a good idea has set an expectation. If that expectation is not addressed and met by the community proposal, it will be very difficult for NTIA to explain to Congress why it was omitted. This could be used by some to try to derail the transition that we all want to happen. Also, it’s important to note that Fadi’s statement was part of his prepared remarks, not an off-hand comment. In those prepared remarks, he referenced the July 2014 letter that was sent to Steve Crocker by Senators Thune and Rubio where they called for the AoC obligations to be made permanent. As such, Fadi went out of his way to assure the Senators that ICANN would remain subject to US jurisdiction and that he expected the AoC obligations to be incorporated into the bylaws, as they had requested. I hope this additional context helps. Regards, Keith From: accountability-cross-community-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Tijani BEN JEMAA Sent: Wednesday, March 04, 2015 6:25 PM To: 'Phil Corwin'; 'Pedro Ivo Ferraz da Silva'; 'Steve DelBianco'; 'Accountability Cross Community' Cc: 'ACCT-Staff'; ccwg-accountability4(a)icann.org<mailto:ccwg-accountability4@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] RES: [ST-WP] Additional Stress Tests to discuss Phil, I also was watching the senate hearing, and confirm that Fadi said that ICANN would remain subject to US jurisdiction. I also confirm that this is a very important point. It is important because the NTIA announcement of the stewardship transition calmed very much people who were always complaining that it is unfair that a single country control the Internet, a global network. Now that we have this achievement, it would be a pity to loose it because we want to put in our bylaws that ICANN will remain acting under the US jurisdiction. I know and agree that the US jurisdiction is one of the best for the not for profit corporation. I don’t say that we need to move ICANN to another jurisdiction, but I think we don’t have to make it a condition. We need a stable and predictable legal environment, and we also need to build trust and make people stop complaining. So being diplomatic in our work is really necessary for a successful and sustainable transition. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] De la part de Phil Corwin Envoyé : mercredi 4 mars 2015 23:29 À : Pedro Ivo Ferraz da Silva; 'Steve DelBianco'; Accountability Cross Community Cc : ACCT-Staff; ccwg-accountability4(a)icann.org<mailto:ccwg-accountability4@icann.org> Objet : Re: [CCWG-ACCT] RES: [ST-WP] Additional Stress Tests to discuss Pedro: This is a very important point. I was in the room at the Senate Commerce hearing last week, and also at another event at the US Chamber of Commerce two days later. At both events Fadi stressed that ICANN would remain subject to US “jurisdiction" post-transition, not just maintain its nominal HQ in the US. As you correctly point out, there is a big “difference between "headquarter location" and "legal presence/legal jurisdiction". Choice of legal jurisdiction is a very important point for multiple reasons, among them: · Stable and predictable legal regime for contracted parties. As all of ICANN’s authority vis-à-vis registries and registrars is based on its contracts with them, reliable and predictable contract enforcement is a key consideration. The US is generally regarded as having one of the best legal systems in the world. · Design of both the IANA and ICANN accountability measures. Both the CWG and the CCWG are going to engage independent legal counsel to advise them on the design of accountability measures within the context of California public benefits corporation law. If the legal context changes those accountability measures may not fit properly within it; they may become less effective or even unworkable. · Security concerns. As a US corporation, ICANN is forbidden by OFAC regulations form engaging in any transactions with entities classified as criminal or terrorist. This consideration is particularly potent for the Administration and Congress. As to your point that “The community should be given the ability to decide, in the future, which jurisdiction better serves the purpose of ICANN acting in accordance to the global public interest.” , that is not necessarily foreclosed, at some future date, depending on what mechanisms are provided for Bylaws amendments. But for the immediate future those engaged in this transition exercise should have some idea whether ICANN’s continued legal existence as a non-profit California corporation is acceptable to other nations or whether it will become the new “irritant” (as described by Secretary Strickling) that replaces the IANA counterparty status as cause for complaint and basis for calls for further alterations in its structure and status. This is central to the issue of whether the transition we are designing will be stable for the foreseeable future or will just be a short-term transitional stage from which new initiatives for change are launched not long after the ink dries. Regards, Philip 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 -----Original Message----- From: accountability-cross-community-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Pedro Ivo Ferraz da Silva Sent: Wednesday, March 04, 2015 4:55 PM To: 'Steve DelBianco'; Accountability Cross Community Cc: ACCT-Staff; ccwg-accountability4(a)icann.org<mailto:ccwg-accountability4@icann.org> Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] RES: [ST-WP] Additional Stress Tests to discuss Dear Steve, Thank you very much for the update on the Stress Tests. With respect to ST #15, it is very valuable, but I think we should be very cautious about proposed measures. The following option makes sense and should be further debated: " If ICANN board voted to vacate a legal presence, the community veto could enable reversal of that decision". However, we anticipate objections to the alternative solution below: "One proposed measure is to import AoC provisions into the ICANN bylaws, and dispense with the bilateral AoC with NTIA. Bylaws would be amended to include AoC commitments 8, requiring it to maintain legal presence in the US, where it is subject to legal redress by any aggrieved party." Paragraph 8 of the AoC requires US legal presence most probably due to the present scenario where the US government (i.e.NTIA) is the steward of the IANA functions. Once that link is no longer there, and especially because that stewardship is being inherited by the global multistakeholder community (stressing the word "global") a legal presence in the US (or in any other specific country) should not be etched in stone. The community should be given the ability to decide, in the future, which jurisdiction better serves the purpose of ICANN acting in accordance to the global public interest. During yesterday's call, some colleagues mentioned ICANN CEO's Testimony in the American Senate last week. What he stated was literally: " Further, ICANN has its global headquarters in the United States, and there are no plans for that to change". Although such a decision/affirmation may be debatable, it is important, once again, to stress the difference between "headquarter location" and "legal presence/legal jurisdiction". Under e.g. an international jurisdiction, an entity could potentially be headquartered anywhere. Regards, Sec. Pedro Ivo Ferraz da Silva Division of Information Society Ministry of External Relations - brazil T: + 55 61 2030-6609 -----Mensagem original----- De: ccwg-accountability4-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:ccwg-accountability4-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:ccwg-accountability4-bounces@icann.org] Em nome de Steve DelBianco Enviada em: segunda-feira, 2 de março de 2015 23:36 Para: Accountability Cross Community Cc: ACCT-Staff; ccwg-accountability4(a)icann.org<mailto:ccwg-accountability4@icann.org> Assunto: [ST-WP] [CCWG-ACCT] Additional Stress Tests to discuss For tomorrow’s call, we applied 4 more of our stress tests against the draft package of proposed accountability measures. Stress Tests #1 and 2 (together), #24, and #15, are shown below and in the attached draft document. Stress Test: #1. Change authority for the IANA Root Zone ceases to function, in part or in whole. #2. Delegation authority for the IANA Root Zone ceases to function, in part or in whole. Consequence: interference with existing policy relating to IANA Root Zone and/or prejudice to the security and stability of one or several TLDs. Existing Accountability Measures: Under the present IANA contract, NTIA can revoke ICANN’s authority to perform IANA functions and re-assign to different entity/entities. After NTIA relinquishes the IANA contract, this measure will no longer be available. Proposed Accountability Measures: The CWG planning the IANA stewardship transition might design mechanisms and structures that enable separation, such that the IANA functions could be readily revoked and re-assigned. To manage the revocation of IANA functions, the CWG might also propose an emergency backup provider and procedures, pending re-assignment of the IANA functions. Preliminary Conclusions: This threat is directly related to the transition of IANA stewardship Existing measures would be inadequate after NTIA terminates the IANA contract. At this point, CWG’s recommendations are still in development. ——————————————————— Stress Test: #24. An incoming Chief Executive institutes a “strategic review” that arrives at a new, extended mission for ICANN. The Board, having just hired the new CEO, approves the new mission and strategy without community consensus. Consequence: Community ceases to see ICANN as the community’s own mechanism for discharging limited technical functions, and views ICANN as an independent, sui generis entity with its own agenda, not necessarily supported by the community. Ultimately, community questions why ICANN’s original functions should remain controlled by a body that has acquired a much broader and less widely supported mission. Existing Accountability Measures: As long as NTIA controls the IANA contract, ICANN could risk losing IANA functions if it were to expand scope too broadly. The Community has some input in ICANN budgeting and Strat Plan, and could register objections to plans and spending on extending ICANN’s mission. California’s Attorney General has jurisdiction over non-profit entities acting outside Bylaws or Articles of Incorporation. Proposed Accountability Measures: One proposed measure is empowering the community to veto ICANN’s proposed annual budget. This measure could block a proposal by ICANN to increase its expenditure on extending its mission beyond what the community supported. If the ICANN board voted to approve the CEO’s plans, one proposed measure would give the community standing to veto a board decision. Another proposed measure is empowering the community to challenge a board decision, referring it to an Independent Review Panel (IRP) with the power to issue a binding decision. [What would be the standard used for this review?] Preliminary Conclusions: This threat is directly related to the transition of IANA stewardship Existing measures would be inadequate after NTIA terminates the IANA contract. Proposed measures in combination are adequate. ——————————————————— Stress Test: #15. ICANN terminates its legal presence in a nation where Internet users or domain registrants are seeking legal remedies for ICANN’s failure to enforce contracts, or other actions. Consequence: affected parties could be prevented from seeking legal redress for commissions or omissions by ICANN. Existing Accountability Measures: As long as NTIA controls the IANA contract, ICANN could risk losing IANA functions if it were to move in order to avoid legal jurisdiction. Paragraph 8 of the AoC requires ICANN to remain headquartered in the US, but the AoC can be terminated by ICANN at any time. As long as NTIA controls the IANA contract, ICANN feels pressure to maintain the AoC. Proposed Accountability Measures: One proposed measure is to give the community standing to veto a board decision. If ICANN board voted to vacate a legal presence, the community veto could enable reversal of that decision. One proposed measure is to import AoC provisions into the ICANN bylaws, and dispense with the bilateral AoC with NTIA. Bylaws would be amended to include AoC commitments 8, requiring it to maintain legal presence in the US, where it is subject to legal redress by any aggrieved party. If ICANN’s board proposed to amend the AoC provisions added to the bylaws, another proposed measure would empower the community to veto that proposed bylaws change. Preliminary Conclusions: This threat is directly related to the transition of IANA stewardship Existing measures would be inadequate after NTIA terminates the IANA contract. Proposed measures improve upon existing measures, and may be adequate. _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community ----- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com> Version: 2015.0.5751 / Virus Database: 4299/9218 - Release Date: 03/03/15 ________________________________ [http://static.avast.com/emails/avast-mail-stamp.png]<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.

1 0

Regarding financial reporting versus auditing
by Bruce Tonkin March 24, 2015

March 24, 2015

Hello Paul, >> That’s why I called it a “forensic audit” – it’s a practice I’m familiar with that I’ve heard go by that name, but I am comfortable with “deep dive.” I am not asking after the annual financials for the last 5 years – but a deeper examination of line-item expenditures and such. At the top level, the financials ICANN releases which talk about thinks like administrative expenses have much less detail than I am suggesting we should be interested in – either as part of the CCWG’s review or as part of a longer-term WS2 project for the “Community Council” (of what ever form it takes) to undertake to see where the expenditures are going on a more granular basis. I think what you are asking for is more detailed financial reporting. One of the challenges at ICANN is each group wants reporting in a different format. E.g. groups like to know how much is spent on the function that is of most interest to them - e.g. IANA, policy development, , or compliance. Accurate reporting will require time-sheets and projects codes - which is not in place right now. The finance system can certainly report how much is spent on phone calls Internet access, building, rent etc - but not how much of the phone bill is related to IANA. Ultimately the community needs to reach agreement on exactly what level of detail they want to see - and the organization can design systems and processes to get to that level. An audit – is to check that the organization is complying with accounting standards, and internal policies relating spending authorities, travel expense policies etc. The auditors identify any issues found in compliance with policies and account standards to the audit committee and the audit committee ensures that staff fix any issues found. A forensic audit – would be if you have some evidence or suspect illegal behaviour – e.g. a employee stealing money from the organization – in which case you use a forensic audit to gather evidence for prosecution etc. It is not something you do as part of normal financial governance. If an auditor found big discrepancies between stated revenue or assets - then that might trigger a forensic audit. Regards, Bruce Tonkin

3 2

Agenda, CCWG mtg Istanbul, Day 2
by Adam Peake March 24, 2015

March 24, 2015

Hi everyone, Agenda for CCWG meeting, Tuesday 24 March attached. Warm regards, Adam

1 0

Some comments
by tijani.benjemaa＠topnet.tn March 24, 2015

March 24, 2015

Dear all, After today's sessions, and since I'm not a native english speaker, I would like to reiterate in written some of the points I made so that they are clear for everyone (see attached file) See you tomorrow --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3 2