July 7, 2015
3:34 a.m.
Alan, What are the specific reasons that the ALAC would opt not to be a member, if a membership model were adopted? Have our lawyers been asked to respond to these reasons? Greg On Tue, Jul 7, 2015 at 12:00 AM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote: > Among the problems with Membership is that there are strong indications > that several AC/SOs will not sign on as members (the ALAC is among them) > leaving the possibility of very few members, and those members (or quite > possibly member) would have the statutory power to unilaterally and > irreversibly dissolve the corporation, and the IANA Names stewardship along > with it. > > You might ask, "Why would they do that?" and I have no clue. But if we are > determined to consider world with a rogue Board with not a single Board > member who is objecting, then a rogue SO cannot be off the radar either. > > Alan > > > > At 06/07/2015 09:01 PM, you wrote: > > Hello Avri, > > I believe membership raises the issues of accountability to the full diversity > of stakeholders to a much higher threshold, including the issue of the > degree to which ICANN is accountable to stakeholders not included among > our SG/C/RALO/ALS / as well as among parrticpating CCs and govts. > > > > Please, if possible, raise your concerns stating fact rather than belief. > Maybe there is something I have missed. There is absolutely no difference > in the openness to non ICANN stakeholders between the empowered membership > and empowered designator models. At least I don't see any. Both are based > upon the current SOAC's. If there is a difference in this area I need to > and want to be educated. Please respond with specific and detailed > instances or examples of why what you claim is true is. Vague generalities > are not particularly helpful. Again, I am open to be educated and persuaded > but with substantive fact rather than vague as yet unsubstantiated beliefs. > > No model is as open to non SOAC's as is Malcolm's proposal for individual > membership. That, again, is a membership model. Do you support this open > membership model and if not why not? Would you prefer other models to be > looked at that are not based upon the SOAC's? I think that would be a very > reasonable position and one I certainly am open to supporting if a workable > model would be proposed. As yet I have not seen one. Have you? Should we > try to find one? > I think enough of the comments bring out questions of accountability in a > mebership organization to make the membership option less than optimal. > > > > What comments are you referring to? Certainly not the public comments > which were basically supportive of membership. Are these comments you refer > to based upon vague generalities or specific problems? If there are > specific problems what specifically are they? Should we not determine > whether there are solutions to those problems rather than just dismissing > the model outright? If not, what are your views as to the ultimate apparent > unenforceability of the designator model in certain areas? Do you disagree > with Paul Rosenzweig when he states that "a direct community veto of budget > and strategic plan remains essential to accountability"? If not, what do > you propose to do in these areas without membership. Should we simply > forget them? > > I do think there may be another option or two out there and hopefully > working with our counsel we'll find them. > > In the interim, I really am looking to be educated. No one has taught me > more about ICANN since I became involved in it than you Avri. I'm just not > easily persuadable by vague opinions, I'm a fact based sort of guy. As this > process has moved forward I've seen your views and positions change. To me, > that is an admirable sign of someone truly looking for an optimal answer > rather than one who is clinging to a defined position. I'm just having some > trouble understanding, factually, the specific objections you are now > raising about membership. I hope you can help me understand so I can better > test and evaluate my own views.. > > Thanks, > > Ed > > On 06-Jul-15 19:05, Edward Morris wrote: > +1. Well said. > > > On Mon, > Jul 6, 2015 at 9:04 PM, Jonathan Zuck <JZuck@actonline.org > < > mailto:JZuck@actonline.org <JZuck@actonline.org>>> wrote: > > Hmm. I > think it’s important to bear in mind that there was > overwhelming > consensus among the public comments to support the > membership model. > The detractors from the model, while important > and perhaps critical, > are not in the majority. I’m not sure this > process speaks to how we > better use counsel as much as how we > achieve consensus on principles. > > > > > > > > *From:* accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org > < > mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org > <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>> > [mailto: > accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org > < > mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org > <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>>] *On > Behalf Of > *Seun Ojedeji > *Sent:* Monday, July 6, 2015 3:50 PM > *To:* Becky Burr > > *Cc:* accountability-cross-community@icann.org > < > mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org > <accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> > *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] > Who is managing the lawyers and what > have they beenasked to do? > > > > > Hi Becky, > > Thanks for asking, item 3 is actually in connection to the > fact > that such veto may not be possible without item 1(as I understood > > it) and that is why I said an indirect veto can happen not that I > was > entirely suggesting that those powers be off the table. > > It seem > however that folks are only looking at the powers and not > at what it > will take to have them. > > By the way, I also did put in a reservation > that we may not > necessarily agree with those views but my concern is > mainly that > the ccwg does not spend so much time developing proposals > that we > know has certain implementation requirements that are not > > compatible with the ICANN community structure. I think we should > learn > from the the past (based on comments from the last PC) and > utilize > legal council and volunteer hours more effectively. > > FWIW speaking as > participant. > > Regards > > On 6 Jul 2015 8:08 pm, "Burr, Becky" < > Becky.Burr@neustar.biz > < mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz > <Becky.Burr@neustar.biz>>> wrote: > > Seun, > > > > I am not > sure why we would take direct budget/strat plan veto > off the > table. Could you explain? Thanks. > > > > Becky > > J. > Beckwith Burr > > *Neustar, Inc. /* Deputy General Counsel and > Chief Privacy Officer > > 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, > DC 20006 > > Office: + 1.202.533.2932 <tel:%2B%201.202.533.2932> > Mobile: > +1.202.352.6367 > <tel:%2B1.202.352.6367> / > becky.burr@neustar.biz > < mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz > <becky.burr@neustar.biz>> / www.neustar.biz > < > http://www.neustar.biz> > > > > *From: *Seun Ojedeji < > seun.ojedeji@gmail.com > < mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com > <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>>> > *Date: *Monday, July 6, 2015 at 11:09 > AM > *To: *Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org > < > mailto:robin@ipjustice.org <robin@ipjustice.org>>> > *Cc: > *Accountability Community > < > accountability-cross-community@icann.org > < > mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org > <accountability-cross-community@icann.org>>> > *Subject: *Re: > [CCWG-ACCT] Who is managing the lawyers and > what have they > beenasked to do? > > > > Hi, > > I have no problem with > having a new proposal presented. > However it is important that > there some adherence to basic > principles on proposals that the > ccwg would not want to > explore. Three areas comes to mind: > > > - Its my understanding that anything that will turn some/all > of > the SO/AC to members and thereby exposing them to legal > challenge > is not acceptable > > - Its my understanding that anything that > allows removal of > individual board member without the approval of > the entire(or > larger part) of the community is not acceptable > > > - Its my understanding that a solution that allows direct > > community veto on certain elements like budget, strategic plan > et > all is not acceptable but an indirect enforcement could be > > considered (i.e using a power to get another power executed > > indirectly) > > > > Some/none of the above may be acceptable by us, > but my point > is that there should be some focus going forward, > especially > if the target of ICANN54 is to be meet > > > Regards > > > > > > On Mon, Jul 6, 2015 at 3:37 PM, Robin Gross > > <robin@ipjustice.org < mailto:robin@ipjustice.org <robin@ipjustice.org>>> > wrote: > > I would also like to hear what they propose at this > > stage. I really don't see how it could hurt to have > > another proposal to consider. Larry Strickling did say he > > wanted us to be sure we examined all the options carefully. > > > > > Thanks, > > Robin > > > > On Jul 6, 2015, at 7:32 > AM, Greg Shatan wrote: > > > > I agree. We should have the > benefit of their thoughts. > > > > Greg > > > > > On Mon, Jul 6, 2015 at 9:38 AM, Jordan Carter > < > jordan@internetnz.net.nz > < mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz > <jordan@internetnz.net.nz>>> wrote: > > Well, I would > really really like to see what the > creative thinking > they have done has suggested. I > trust our ability as a > group to make decisions, > and do not believe we should > cut off input from > any direction... > > > > > Jordan > > > > On 7 July 2015 at 01:13, James Gannon > > <james@cyberinvasion.net > < > mailto:james@cyberinvasion.net <james@cyberinvasion.net>>> wrote: > > > Hey Avri, > > > > Yes the 3rd model was > brought up, and the > lawyers feel that it might be a > cleaner way > for us to get the powers that we need. > > > But without a call from the CCWG to present it > > they feel that its not their position to > > propose a model on their own initiative. > > > > > Personally i would like to see what they have > come up > with but the CCWG would need to ask as > an overall > group for the chairs to direct them > to give some more > information on the model if > we wanted it. > > > I think if after we hear from them on Tuesdays > > call we still feel we might have some > > shortcomings that it might be the time to ask > them > about the 3rd option. > > > > Also +1 I think they are > really enjoying the > work and are finding themselves > getting more > and more involved as we go on, which is > great > for the CCWG as the more background and > > details they know the better that are able to > > give us solid well reasoned advice in my opinion. > > > > > -James > > > > > > On 6 Jul 2015, at 13:19, > Avri Doria > <avri@acm.org <mailto:avri@acm.org > <avri@acm.org> >> wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > I have not had a chance to get back to the > > recording of the call. Not > sure I will, that > time was the time I had > for that call and that is > why > i was listening then. > > > In any case, the lawyers were talking > about a new > model they had come up > with, but not knowing what > to do about it > since they had not been asked > > for a new model. > > I was told to > leave before I got to hear > the end of that story. > Or about > the model itself. Anyone who has had a > > chance to listen, whatever happened? > > > avri > > ps. sometimes i think the lawyers are > > getting interested in what we are > > doing, almost like stakeholders. not that > i expect > them to give up their > hourly rates because they > are stakeholders. > > On 06-Jul-15 05:07, James > Gannon wrote: > > > I listened to the last > co-chairs > lawyers’ call at; > > https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=53782602 > > < > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_pages_viewpage.action-3FpageId-3D53782602&d=AwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=rX8zWSdUbF0XJ6RQyX5HABE7NaQIgAXHj6WfvEXkLh8&s=5REzt6Gk0Mt5evnhe_F8O87Kpc4hX8wql7vP--WYsnQ&e= > > > (I’m a glutton for punishment) > > > > > It was a short call and I’ll make a > > particular note that Leon and > > Mathieu made a point of not making any > > decisions on behalf of the > whole group and made > it clear anything > requiring a decision must be > > made by the overall CCWG, so I was > > happy with that side of things > myself, > most of my own fears about not > having a > sub-group are somewhat > assuaged. > > > So my paraphrasing and overview is: > > > > > · Lawyers working hard on the > > models for us collaboratively > between the two > firms since BA > > · Lawyers are prepping > a > presentation to give to us ASAP > > before Paris if possible, that > > presentation will take the majority of > a call, > it can’t be done quickly, they > need about > 45mins uninterrupted > to go through the > presentation and > then would likely need Q&A > time > after they present. > > > · Some small > > wording/clarifications to come back to > the CCWG > > to make sure everyone’s on the same page > > > · Everyone feels Paris will be > > an important time for the > models, > lawyers will be ready for a > grilling on the > details of the > models from us to flesh out any > of our > concerns/questions > > > > > Note that the above is all my very > > condensed overview of the > conversations. > > > It seemed like a productive call to me. > > > > > -James > > > > > > *From:* > accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org > > < mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org > <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>> > > [mailto: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org > > < > mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org > <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>>] > > *On Behalf > Of *Greg Shatan > > *Sent:* Monday, July 06, 2015 5:33 AM > > *To:* Carlos Raul > *Cc:* > > accountability-cross-community@icann.org > > < mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org > <accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> > > *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Who is > managing the > lawyers and what have > they beenasked to do? > > > > > Carlos, > > > > As the > legal sub-team was disbanded, > your guess is as > good as mine..... > > > > Greg > > > > > On Mon, Jul 6, 2015 at 12:27 AM, > > Carlos Raul <carlosraulg@gmail.com > < > mailto:carlosraulg@gmail.com <carlosraulg@gmail.com>> > > < mailto:carlosraulg@gmail.com <carlosraulg@gmail.com>>> wrote: > > > Thank you Greg! > > > > It > makes a lot of sense and I guess > those are all > good reasons as > we hired them in the first > place. > What are the next steps now? > > What happened in the recent call? > > > > > Best regards > > > > > Carlos Raúl > Gutiérrez > > +506 8837 7176 > > <tel:%2B506%208837%207176> > > <tel:%2B506%208837%207176> > > Skype carlos.raulg > > > _________ > > Apartado > 1571-1000 > > *COSTA RICA* > > > > > > > On Mon, Jul 6, 2015 at 12:02 AM, > > Greg Shatan > <gregshatanipc@gmail.com > > < mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com > <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> < mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com > <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>>> > wrote: > > > Chris, > > > > That was > tried to some extent, > at least in the CWG. > > > > > There are several substantial > > problems with that approach. > > > > > First, lawyers are not > fungible. The > particular legal skills, > background and > experience > required for the issues before both > > WGs are fairly specific, and in > > some cases, very specific. > The > primary core competency > needed here is > corporate > governance. While a number of > > lawyers in the community have a > > reasonable working knowledge of > the > area, at least in their > home jurisdictions, > I don't > believe there are any who would > > say that this is their primary > > focus and expertise -- at least > none > who identified themselves > to either WG. The > second core > competency required, especially > > in the CCWG, is non-profit > > law. Again there are a number > of lawyers > with a decent working > knowledge of this > fairly broad > field, but not as a primary > > focus. There may be a couple > > of lawyers in the community who > would > claim this fairly broad > field as a primary > focus and > expertise -- but none who > > became involved with either WG. > > This then becomes further > narrowed by > jurisdiction. Since > ICANN is a California > > non-profit corporation, US corporate > > governance and non-profit > > experience is more relevant than > experience > from other > jurisdictions, and California law > > corporate governance and > > non-profit experience is more > > relevant than that from other > US > jurisdictions. In my > experience, the more > a US > lawyer focuses on a particular > > substantive area, the greater > > their knowledge of and comfort > with state > law issues in US > state jurisdictions other than > > their own (e.g., someone who > > spend a majority of their time > > working in corporate governance > will have a > greater knowledge > of the law, issues, > approaches > and trends outside their > > primary state of practice, > > while someone who spends a > relatively small > amount of time > in the area will tend to feel > > less comfortable outside their > > home jurisdiction). (An > exception > is that many US > lawyers have specific knowledge > of > certain Delaware corporate law > > issues, because Delaware often > > serves as the state of > incorporation for > entities operating > elsewhere.) > > > > > Second, lawyers in the > > community will seldom be seen as > neutral > advisors, no matter how > hard they try. They > will tend > to be seen as working from > > their point of view or stakeholder > > group or "special interest" or > > desired outcome, even if they > are trying to > be even-handed. > Over the course of time, this > > balancing act would tend to > > become more untenable. > > > > Third, > the amount of time it > would take to provide > truly > definitive legal advice > > (research, careful drafting, > > discussions with relevant > "clients", etc.) > would be > prohibitive, even compared to > > the substantial amount of time > > it takes to provide reasonably > > well-informed and competent > legal-based > viewpoints in the > course of either WG's work. > > > > > Fourth, in order to formally > > counsel the community, the lawyer > > or lawyers in question would > have to enter > into a formal > attorney-client relationship. > > Under US law, an > > attorney-client relationship > may inadvertently > be created by > the attorney's actions, so > > attorneys try to be careful about > > not providing formal legal > advice > without a formal engagement > (sometimes > providing an > explicit "caveat" if they feel > they > might be getting too close to > > providing legal advice). If the > > attorney is employed by a > > corporation, they would likely be > unable to > take on such a > representation due to the terms > of > their employment, and that is > > before getting to an exploration > > of conflict of interest > issues. If > the attorney is employed > by a firm, the > firm would have > to sign off on the > > representation, again dealing > > with potential conflict issues. > > > > > Fifth, even if the above issues > were all > somehow resolved, it > would be highly > unlikely that > any such attorney would provide > > substantial amounts of advice, > > written memos, counseling, etc. > on > a pro bono (unpaid) basis, > especially given the > > time-consuming nature of the > > work. Pro bono advice and > > representation is generally > accorded to > individuals and > entities that could not > > otherwise be able to pay for it. That > > is clearly not the case here, > > at least with ICANN taking > financial > responsibility. It > would likely be very > difficult > to justify this to, e.g., a > > firm's pro bono committee, as a > > valid pro bono representation. > > > > > Sixth, if ICANN were not taking > the role > they are taking, it > would be extremely > difficult to > identify the "client" in this > > situation. The "community" is > > a collection of sectors, > mostly > represented by various > ICANN-created > structures, which > in turn have members of > widely > varying types (individuals, > > corporations, sovereigns, > > non-profits, IGOs, partnerships, > etc.). > This would also make it > extremely difficult to > enter > into a formal counseling > > relationship with the "community." > > > > > Seventh, this is a sensitive, > > high-profile, transformative set > of actions > we are involved in, > which is subject to an > > extraordinary amount of > > scrutiny, not least that of the NTIA > and > the US Congress. That > eliminates any > possibility of > providing informal, > > off-the-cuff, reasonably well-informed but > > not quite expert, "non-advice" > > advice -- which might happen in > a > more obscure exercise. > There's simply too much > at stake. > > > > Finally, I would say that a > > number of attorneys involved in > > one or both of the WGs are in > fact > providing a significant > amount of legal > knowledge and > experience to the WGs, helping > > to frame issues, whether in > > terms of general leadership (e.g., > > Thomas, Leon, Becky) or more > specifically in a > > "lawyer-as-client" capacity -- > > working with outside counsel, > > tackling the more legalistic > issues, providing > as much legal > background and knowledge as > > possible without providing the > > type of formal legal advice > that > would tend to create an > attorney-client > relationship, > etc. So I do think that many > > lawyers in the community are > > giving greatly of themselves in > this > process, even though they > cannot and would not > be able to > formally be engaged by the > > community as its "counsel of record." > > > > > In sum, it might be a nice > > thought in theory, but it is no way > a > practical possibility. > > > > Greg > > > > > On Sat, Jul 4, 2015 at 3:08 AM, > > CW Lists > < > lists@christopherwilkinson.eu > < > mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu <lists@christopherwilkinson.eu>> > > < mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu > <lists@christopherwilkinson.eu>>> > wrote: > > > Good morning: > > > > > I had decided not to enter > this debate. > But I am bound to > say that the thought > had > occurred to me at the time, that > > there were more than enough > > qualified lawyers in this > community > that they could > perfectly well have counselled > … > themselves. > > > > > CW > > > > On 04 Jul 2015, at > 08:41, > Greg Shatan > > <gregshatanipc@gmail.com > < > mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> < > mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>>> > > wrote: > > > > > Wolfgang, > > > > To your first point, > > the billing rates were clearly > > stated in the law > firms' > engagement letters. > > > > To your > second point, > I'm sure we could all think of > > other projects and > > goals where the money could have > > been "better spent." > You've stated yours. > But that > is not the proper > > test. This was and continues to be > > money we need to spend > to > achieve the goals we have > set. Under > different > circumstances, perhaps it would > > be a different amount > > (or maybe none at all). But it > > was strongly felt at > the outset that the group > needed > to have independent > > counsel. Clearly that counsel > > needed to have > recognized expertise > in the appropriate > legal areas. As > such, > I believe we made excellent > > choices and have been > > very well represented. > > > > As to > your "better > spent" test, I just had to have > > $4000.00 worth of > > emergency dental work done. This > > money definitely could > have been "better spent" > on a > nice vacation, > > redecorating our living room or on > > donations to my favored > charitable > causes. But I had > no choice, other > than > to choose which dentist and > > endodontist I went to, > > and I wasn't going to cut > corners -- > the dental > work was a necessity. > > Similarly, the legal > work > we are getting is a > necessity and > whether > we would have preferred to spend > > the money elsewhere is > > not merely irrelevant, it is an > > incorrect and > inappropriate proposition. Many > of us > are investing vast > > quantities of time that could be > > "better spent" > elsewhere as well, but > we are willing > (grudgingly sometimes) > > to spend the time it takes to > > get it right, because > we believe it > needs to be done. > This is the > appropriate > measure, whether it comes to > > our time or counsels' > > time. If we believe in this > > project, we have to > invest in it, and do what > it takes > to succeed. > > > > > Of course, this > > investment has to be managed wisely > > and cost-effectively, > and by and large, I > believe the > CCWG has done that > > reasonably well -- not perfectly, > > but reasonably well and > with > "course corrections" > along the way > intended > to improve that management. > > It's certainly fair to > > ask, as Robin has done, for a > > better understanding of > that management as we > go > along. But asserting > > that the money could have been > > "better spent" > elsewhere sets up a > false test that we > should not use to > > evaluate this important aspect of > > our work. Instead, we > need to > focus on whether the > money was "well > spent" > on these critical legal > > services. If you have > > reason to believe it was not, > that > could be useful to > know. That would at least > be > the right discussion to > > have. > > > > Greg > > > > > On Sat, Jul 4, 2015 at > > 1:13 AM, "Kleinwächter, > > Wolfgang" > < > wolfgang.kleinwaechter@medienkomm.uni-halle.de > < > mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter@medienkomm.uni-halle.de > <wolfgang.kleinwaechter@medienkomm.uni-halle.de>> > > < mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter@medienkomm.uni-halle.de > <wolfgang.kleinwaechter@medienkomm.uni-halle.de>>> > > wrote: > > HI, > > > and please if you > > ask outside lawyers, ask for the > > price tag in > advance. Some of the money > spend fo > lawyers could have > > been spend better to suppport > > and enable Internet > user and > non-commercial groups > in developing > > countries. > > > > Wolfgang > > > > > > > -----Ursprüngliche > Nachricht----- > > Von: > > accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org > > < mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org > <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>> > > < > mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org > <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>> > > im Auftrag von > Robin Gross > > Gesendet: Fr > > 03.07.2015 14:57 > An: > accountability-cross-community@icann.org > < > mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org > <accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> > > < mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org > <accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> > > Community > Betreff: > > [CCWG-ACCT] Who is managing the lawyers > > and what have they > > beenasked to do? > > > After the > legal > sub-team was disbanded, I haven't > > been able to follow > > what communications are > > happening with CCWG > and the independent lawyers > we > retained. > > > I understand the > lawyers are > currently "working on > the various > models" > and will present something to > > us regarding that > > work soon. However, *what > exactly* > have the > lawyers been asked to do and > > *who* asked them? > > If there are written > > instructions, may > the group please see them? > Who > is now taking on > > the role of managing the outside > > attorneys for this > group, including > providing > instructions and > > certifying legal work? > > > Sorry, but I'm > really trying to > understand what is > happening, and > > there doesn't seem to be much > > information in the > public on this > (or if there is, > I can't find it). > > Thanks for any information > > anyone can provide. > > > Best, > Robin > > > _______________________________________________ > > Accountability-Cross-Community > > mailing list > > Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org > < > mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org > <Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>> > > < mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org > <Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>> > > > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community > > < > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=AwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=rX8zWSdUbF0XJ6RQyX5HABE7NaQIgAXHj6WfvEXkLh8&s=Yqq66BmsF0-t9R7GjryZsv1k1c4OBxUhFvNoM2kB7g8&e= > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Accountability-Cross-Community > > mailing list > > Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org > < > mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org > <Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>> > > < mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org > <Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>> > > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community > > < > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=AwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=rX8zWSdUbF0XJ6RQyX5HABE7NaQIgAXHj6WfvEXkLh8&s=Yqq66BmsF0-t9R7GjryZsv1k1c4OBxUhFvNoM2kB7g8&e= > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Accountability-Cross-Community > mailing list > > Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org > > < mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org > <Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>> > > < mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org > <Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>> > > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community > > < > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=AwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=rX8zWSdUbF0XJ6RQyX5HABE7NaQIgAXHj6WfvEXkLh8&s=Yqq66BmsF0-t9R7GjryZsv1k1c4OBxUhFvNoM2kB7g8&e= > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Accountability-Cross-Community mailing > list > > Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org > > < mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org > <Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>> > > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community > > < > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=AwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=rX8zWSdUbF0XJ6RQyX5HABE7NaQIgAXHj6WfvEXkLh8&s=Yqq66BmsF0-t9R7GjryZsv1k1c4OBxUhFvNoM2kB7g8&e= > > > > > > --- > This email has > been checked for viruses by > Avast antivirus > software. > https://www.avast.com/antivirus > > < > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.avast.com_antivirus&d=AwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=rX8zWSdUbF0XJ6RQyX5HABE7NaQIgAXHj6WfvEXkLh8&s=3Kl-xLZ-zsiAfE_l0c-D1OctY2CAccIpPM7a3Zt5pnw&e= > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list > > Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org > < > mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org > <Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>> > > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community > > < > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=AwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=rX8zWSdUbF0XJ6RQyX5HABE7NaQIgAXHj6WfvEXkLh8&s=Yqq66BmsF0-t9R7GjryZsv1k1c4OBxUhFvNoM2kB7g8&e= > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list > > Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org > < > mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org > <Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>> > > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community > > < > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=AwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=rX8zWSdUbF0XJ6RQyX5HABE7NaQIgAXHj6WfvEXkLh8&s=Yqq66BmsF0-t9R7GjryZsv1k1c4OBxUhFvNoM2kB7g8&e= > > > > > > > > -- > > Jordan Carter > > > Chief Executive > *InternetNZ* > > > 04 495 2118 (office) | +64 21 442 649 > > <tel:%2B64%2021%20442%20649> (mob) > > jordan@internetnz.net.nz > < > mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz <jordan@internetnz.net.nz>> > > Skype: jordancarter > > /A better world through a > better Internet / > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list > > Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org > < > mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org > <Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>> > > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community > > < > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=AwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=rX8zWSdUbF0XJ6RQyX5HABE7NaQIgAXHj6WfvEXkLh8&s=Yqq66BmsF0-t9R7GjryZsv1k1c4OBxUhFvNoM2kB7g8&e= > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list > > Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org > < > mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org > <Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>> > > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community > > < > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=AwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=rX8zWSdUbF0XJ6RQyX5HABE7NaQIgAXHj6WfvEXkLh8&s=Yqq66BmsF0-t9R7GjryZsv1k1c4OBxUhFvNoM2kB7g8&e= > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list > > Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org > < > mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org > <Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>> > > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community > > < > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=AwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=rX8zWSdUbF0XJ6RQyX5HABE7NaQIgAXHj6WfvEXkLh8&s=Yqq66BmsF0-t9R7GjryZsv1k1c4OBxUhFvNoM2kB7g8&e= > > > > > > > -- > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > /Seun Ojedeji, > Federal University Oye-Ekiti > > web: //http://www.fuoye.edu.ng > < > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.fuoye.edu.ng&d=AwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=rX8zWSdUbF0XJ6RQyX5HABE7NaQIgAXHj6WfvEXkLh8&s=JO_X0eTa_TpfkJXFV8e7p5fCVLDvN5atmTw0JvZra7w&e= > > > //Mobile: +2348035233535 <tel:%2B2348035233535>// > > //alt email:seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng > < > mailto:seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng <seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng>>/ > > > The key to understanding is humility - my view ! > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list > > Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org > < > mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org > <Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>> > > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list > > Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org > > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community > > --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. > https://www.avast.com/antivirus > _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community > mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community > > > _______________________________________________ > Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list > Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community > > > _______________________________________________ > Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list > Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community > >