In a non-monopolistic environment, I would completely agree that a corporation's board (whether for profit or not for profit) would adequately address the situation, since customers (in the case of for-profit) or members (in the case of non-profit) would either cease purchasing the company's products/services or cancel membership in a non-profit organization (as examples). For example, if I am not happy with a company that has proven it cannot keep my information confidential, I can simply take my shopping elsewhere. If I am not happy with a non-profit because it is not serving my needs, I can go to other non-profits (or even form my own). But here, in the monopolistic environment where contracted parties have no choice but to deal with ICANN, leaving these types of issues to the Board without other meaningful redress is not enough accountability. After all, it is not as if the contracted parties could go elsewhere if dissatisfied with the operations of ICANN (or in this case the lack of security measures to protect information). Thus, we have a true accountability problem. To summarize, in a monopolistic environment where demand for services are inelastic, relying on a board to hold staff accountable for these types of failures in my opinion is not enough. Without the potential for losing customers or community participation because of such failures, there is little incentive for the board to act. These are just my personal opinions. Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: jeff.neuman@valideus.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com> or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> T: +1.703.635.7514 M: +1.202.549.5079 @Jintlaw From: Jordan Carter [mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz] Sent: Monday, March 2, 2015 8:33 PM To: Jeff Neuman Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Other forms of Accountability? Thanks Jeff for sharing this. I think the practical work going on in the Working Parties is dealing with many broader items than just the ICANN Board. Your example posits an interesting question: is "accountability" focused on the governance level, or on operations? That is, is a staff level execution failure something the community or customers has accountability tools to deal with, beyond ensuring the Board holds CE to account? One way of looking at this example is that it's up to the Board to hold its Chief Executive responsible for delivering secure services and that that's where it lies. If the Board fails to do so, some of the mechanisms under debate would help deal with that. Review and redress options would also provide some relief to those damaged. Thoughts? Jordan On 3 March 2015 at 07:01, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>> wrote: Removing Board Directors, while taking up most of the discussion for the last few weeks does not address most of the accountability issues we have with ICANN. Not sure if you saw this article: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/03/02/icann_suffers_another_security_breac... Which accountability measures do we have to safeguard us from this? Thanks. Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: jeff.neuman@valideus.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com> or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> T: +1.703.635.7514<tel:%2B1.703.635.7514> M: +1.202.549.5079<tel:%2B1.202.549.5079> @Jintlaw _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community -- Jordan Carter Chief Executive InternetNZ 04 495 2118 (office) | +64 21 442 649 (mob) jordan@internetnz.net.nz<mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz> Skype: jordancarter A better world through a better Internet

I guess I am saying something different. I am not talking about holding the staff individually accountable, but rather holding the organization accountable for the actions/inactions of its staff. This could be in the form of Service Level credits to customers, independent community lead audits, monetary sanctions (paid to a community fund) for failures, required remedial actions in cases of security breaches which include mandatory disclosures (credit checks if financial information is disclosed), Required outsourcing of certain functions if iCANN itself cannot implement in a secure manner, etc. Each of the above are absolutely implementable. As I said, if ICANN were not a monopoly, the market in theory could handle some of this with customers walking away to competitors or members leaving a non-profit to join others (or not paying dues). Here, that is not an option. Sent from my iPad On Mar 3, 2015, at 12:24 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> wrote: dEAR aLL, when the issue of the Board accountability and Staff accountability was first discussed, I mentioned that apart from the Board members and the CEO and President of the ICANN no other accountabilty would be implementable in regard with appointed staff who are directly reporting to the CEO and President and through whom to the Board.$ Consequently we can not held staff directly responsibile to the community fort and action . Regards Kavouss 2015-03-03 5:06 GMT+01:00 Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>>: In a non-monopolistic environment, I would completely agree that a corporation’s board (whether for profit or not for profit) would adequately address the situation, since customers (in the case of for-profit) or members (in the case of non-profit) would either cease purchasing the company’s products/services or cancel membership in a non-profit organization (as examples). For example, if I am not happy with a company that has proven it cannot keep my information confidential, I can simply take my shopping elsewhere. If I am not happy with a non-profit because it is not serving my needs, I can go to other non-profits (or even form my own). But here, in the monopolistic environment where contracted parties have no choice but to deal with ICANN, leaving these types of issues to the Board without other meaningful redress is not enough accountability. After all, it is not as if the contracted parties could go elsewhere if dissatisfied with the operations of ICANN (or in this case the lack of security measures to protect information). Thus, we have a true accountability problem. To summarize, in a monopolistic environment where demand for services are inelastic, relying on a board to hold staff accountable for these types of failures in my opinion is not enough. Without the potential for losing customers or community participation because of such failures, there is little incentive for the board to act. These are just my personal opinions. Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: jeff.neuman@valideus.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com> or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> T: +1.703.635.7514<tel:%2B1.703.635.7514> M: +1.202.549.5079<tel:%2B1.202.549.5079> @Jintlaw From: Jordan Carter [mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz<mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz>] Sent: Monday, March 2, 2015 8:33 PM To: Jeff Neuman Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Other forms of Accountability? Thanks Jeff for sharing this. I think the practical work going on in the Working Parties is dealing with many broader items than just the ICANN Board. Your example posits an interesting question: is "accountability" focused on the governance level, or on operations? That is, is a staff level execution failure something the community or customers has accountability tools to deal with, beyond ensuring the Board holds CE to account? One way of looking at this example is that it's up to the Board to hold its Chief Executive responsible for delivering secure services and that that's where it lies. If the Board fails to do so, some of the mechanisms under debate would help deal with that. Review and redress options would also provide some relief to those damaged. Thoughts? Jordan On 3 March 2015 at 07:01, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>> wrote: Removing Board Directors, while taking up most of the discussion for the last few weeks does not address most of the accountability issues we have with ICANN. Not sure if you saw this article: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/03/02/icann_suffers_another_security_breac... Which accountability measures do we have to safeguard us from this? Thanks. Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: jeff.neuman@valideus.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com> or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> T: +1.703.635.7514<tel:%2B1.703.635.7514> M: +1.202.549.5079<tel:%2B1.202.549.5079> @Jintlaw _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community -- 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> 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> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

I don't think there's any question about that. For sure, ICANN falls under multiple antitrust jurisdictions which, in addition to providing some accountability, is also a potential stress test, given the range of powers antitrust authorities have around the world. -----Original Message----- From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Dr Eberhard Lisse Sent: Tuesday, March 3, 2015 5:20 AM To: accountability-cross-community@icann.org; directors@omadhina.net Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Other forms of Accountability? Can we add the issue of whether ICANN falls under antitrust legislation (such as the Sherman Act), and if so what the implications are, to the questions to the legal experts, please? el On 2015-03-03 07:35, Jeff Neuman wrote:

I guess I am saying something different. I am not talking about holding the staff individually accountable, but rather holding the organization accountable for the actions/inactions of its staff. This could be in the form of Service Level credits to customers, independent community lead audits, monetary sanctions (paid to a community fund) for failures, required remedial actions in cases of security breaches which include mandatory disclosures (credit checks if financial information is disclosed), Required outsourcing of certain functions if iCANN itself cannot implement in a secure manner, etc. Each of the above are absolutely implementable.

As I said, if ICANN were not a monopoly, the market in theory could handle some of this with customers walking away to competitors or members leaving a non-profit to join others (or not paying dues). Here, that is not an option.

Sent from my iPad [...]

Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

hi all, On 3 March 2015 at 14:31, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi,

While I agree on the monopolistic analysis, I will just like to note that ICANN is not the only organisation in such situation; RIRs for instance is another example and they are ran by board.

The RIRs are membership organisations. Their boards are elected by their members and the members essentially own the organisations - and so there is a powerful direct accountability mechanism already in place to deal with problems - a mechanism that ICANN lacks.

I think it will be dangerous OR at least not advisable to subject staff to direct accountability to the community. The best that could be done is to get the board to do it's job and I think the ultimate ability to remove a board member would be enough incentive for any board to deliver on it's mandate.

I agree we can't have staff reporting to the community, but do think Jeff's posts give us food for thought. Jordan

Regards sent from Google nexus 4 kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 3 Mar 2015 05:30, "Jeff Neuman" <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> wrote:

...

In a non-monopolistic environment, I would completely agree that a corporation's board (whether for profit or not for profit) would adequately address the situation, since customers (in the case of for-profit) or members (in the case of non-profit) would either cease purchasing the company's products/services or cancel membership in a non-profit organization (as examples). For example, if I am not happy with a company that has proven it cannot keep my information confidential, I can simply take my shopping elsewhere. If I am not happy with a non-profit because it is not serving my needs, I can go to other non-profits (or even form my own).

But here, in the monopolistic environment where contracted parties have no choice but to deal with ICANN, leaving these types of issues to the Board without other meaningful redress is not enough accountability. After all, it is not as if the contracted parties could go elsewhere if dissatisfied with the operations of ICANN (or in this case the lack of security measures to protect information). Thus, we have a true accountability problem.

To summarize, in a monopolistic environment where demand for services are inelastic, relying on a board to hold staff accountable for these types of failures in my opinion is not enough. Without the potential for losing customers or community participation because of such failures, there is little incentive for the board to act.

These are just my personal opinions.

*Jeffrey J. Neuman*

*Senior Vice President *|*Valideus USA* | *Com Laude USA*

1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600

Mclean, VA 22102, United States

E: jeff.neuman@valideus.com or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com

T: +1.703.635.7514

M: +1.202.549.5079

@Jintlaw

*From:* Jordan Carter [mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz] *Sent:* Monday, March 2, 2015 8:33 PM *To:* Jeff Neuman *Cc:* accountability-cross-community@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Other forms of Accountability?

Thanks Jeff for sharing this. I think the practical work going on in the Working Parties is dealing with many broader items than just the ICANN Board.

Your example posits an interesting question: is "accountability" focused on the governance level, or on operations?

That is, is a staff level execution failure something the community or customers has accountability tools to deal with, beyond ensuring the Board holds CE to account?

One way of looking at this example is that it's up to the Board to hold its Chief Executive responsible for delivering secure services and that that's where it lies. If the Board fails to do so, some of the mechanisms under debate would help deal with that. Review and redress options would also provide some relief to those damaged.

Thoughts?

Jordan

On 3 March 2015 at 07:01, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> wrote:

Removing Board Directors, while taking up most of the discussion for the last few weeks does not address most of the accountability issues we have with ICANN.

Not sure if you saw this article: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/03/02/icann_suffers_another_security_breac...

Which accountability measures do we have to safeguard us from this?

Thanks.

*Jeffrey J. Neuman*

*Senior Vice President *|*Valideus USA* | *Com Laude USA*

1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600

Mclean, VA 22102, United States

E: *jeff.neuman@valideus.com <jeff.neuman@valideus.com>* or *jeff.neuman@comlaude.com <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>*

T: +1.703.635.7514

M: +1.202.549.5079

@Jintlaw

_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

--

Jordan Carter

Chief Executive *InternetNZ*

04 495 2118 (office) | +64 21 442 649 (mob) jordan@internetnz.net.nz Skype: jordancarter

*A better world through a better Internet *

_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

-- Jordan Carter Chief Executive *InternetNZ* 04 495 2118 (office) | +64 21 442 649 (mob) jordan@internetnz.net.nz Skype: jordancarter *A better world through a better Internet *

If I can't spell my name it's time to go to bed. Greg On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 1:58 AM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:

While staff can't be reporting to the community, they can certainly be accountable to the community -- directly or indirectly. A 360 degree review of staff (especially community-facing or -visible staff) including the staff in that circumference wouldn't be a bad idea at all.

Geg

On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 1:49 AM, Jordan Carter <jordan@internetnz.net.nz> wrote:

...

hi all,

On 3 March 2015 at 14:31, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote:

...

Hi,

While I agree on the monopolistic analysis, I will just like to note that ICANN is not the only organisation in such situation; RIRs for instance is another example and they are ran by board.

The RIRs are membership organisations. Their boards are elected by their members and the members essentially own the organisations - and so there is a powerful direct accountability mechanism already in place to deal with problems - a mechanism that ICANN lacks.

...

I think it will be dangerous OR at least not advisable to subject staff to direct accountability to the community. The best that could be done is to get the board to do it's job and I think the ultimate ability to remove a board member would be enough incentive for any board to deliver on it's mandate.

I agree we can't have staff reporting to the community, but do think Jeff's posts give us food for thought.

Jordan

...

Regards sent from Google nexus 4 kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 3 Mar 2015 05:30, "Jeff Neuman" <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> wrote:

...

In a non-monopolistic environment, I would completely agree that a corporation’s board (whether for profit or not for profit) would adequately address the situation, since customers (in the case of for-profit) or members (in the case of non-profit) would either cease purchasing the company’s products/services or cancel membership in a non-profit organization (as examples). For example, if I am not happy with a company that has proven it cannot keep my information confidential, I can simply take my shopping elsewhere. If I am not happy with a non-profit because it is not serving my needs, I can go to other non-profits (or even form my own).

But here, in the monopolistic environment where contracted parties have no choice but to deal with ICANN, leaving these types of issues to the Board without other meaningful redress is not enough accountability. After all, it is not as if the contracted parties could go elsewhere if dissatisfied with the operations of ICANN (or in this case the lack of security measures to protect information). Thus, we have a true accountability problem.

To summarize, in a monopolistic environment where demand for services are inelastic, relying on a board to hold staff accountable for these types of failures in my opinion is not enough. Without the potential for losing customers or community participation because of such failures, there is little incentive for the board to act.

These are just my personal opinions.

*Jeffrey J. Neuman*

*Senior Vice President *|*Valideus USA* | *Com Laude USA*

1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600

Mclean, VA 22102, United States

E: jeff.neuman@valideus.com or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com

T: +1.703.635.7514

M: +1.202.549.5079

@Jintlaw

*From:* Jordan Carter [mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz] *Sent:* Monday, March 2, 2015 8:33 PM *To:* Jeff Neuman *Cc:* accountability-cross-community@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Other forms of Accountability?

Thanks Jeff for sharing this. I think the practical work going on in the Working Parties is dealing with many broader items than just the ICANN Board.

Your example posits an interesting question: is "accountability" focused on the governance level, or on operations?

That is, is a staff level execution failure something the community or customers has accountability tools to deal with, beyond ensuring the Board holds CE to account?

One way of looking at this example is that it's up to the Board to hold its Chief Executive responsible for delivering secure services and that that's where it lies. If the Board fails to do so, some of the mechanisms under debate would help deal with that. Review and redress options would also provide some relief to those damaged.

Thoughts?

Jordan

On 3 March 2015 at 07:01, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> wrote:

Removing Board Directors, while taking up most of the discussion for the last few weeks does not address most of the accountability issues we have with ICANN.

Not sure if you saw this article: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/03/02/icann_suffers_another_security_breac...

Which accountability measures do we have to safeguard us from this?

Thanks.

*Jeffrey J. Neuman*

*Senior Vice President *|*Valideus USA* | *Com Laude USA*

1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600

Mclean, VA 22102, United States

E: *jeff.neuman@valideus.com <jeff.neuman@valideus.com>* or *jeff.neuman@comlaude.com <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>*

T: +1.703.635.7514

M: +1.202.549.5079

@Jintlaw

_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

--

Jordan Carter

Chief Executive *InternetNZ*

04 495 2118 (office) | +64 21 442 649 (mob) jordan@internetnz.net.nz Skype: jordancarter

*A better world through a better Internet *

_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

-- Jordan Carter

Chief Executive *InternetNZ*

04 495 2118 (office) | +64 21 442 649 (mob) jordan@internetnz.net.nz Skype: jordancarter

*A better world through a better Internet *

_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

--

*Gregory S. Shatan **ï* *Abelman Frayne & Schwab*

*Partner* *| IP | Technology | Media | Internet*

*666 Third Avenue | New York, NY 10017-5621*

*Direct* 212-885-9253 *| **Main* 212-949-9022

*Fax* 212-949-9190 *|* *Cell *917-816-6428

*gsshatan@lawabel.com <gsshatan@lawabel.com>*

*ICANN-related: gregshatanipc@gmail.com <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>*

*www.lawabel.com <http://www.lawabel.com/>*

-- *Gregory S. Shatan **ï* *Abelman Frayne & Schwab* *Partner* *| IP | Technology | Media | Internet* *666 Third Avenue | New York, NY 10017-5621* *Direct* 212-885-9253 *| **Main* 212-949-9022 *Fax* 212-949-9190 *|* *Cell *917-816-6428 *gsshatan@lawabel.com <gsshatan@lawabel.com>* *ICANN-related: gregshatanipc@gmail.com <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>* *www.lawabel.com <http://www.lawabel.com/>*

I see that some are using the term 'monopoly'. I personally think that a better choice of wording is 'sole source'. Marilyn Cade Sent from my iPad

On Mar 2, 2015, at 11:30 PM, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> wrote:

In a non-monopolistic environment, I would completely agree that a corporation’s board (whether for profit or not for profit) would adequately address the situation, since customers (in the case of for-profit) or members (in the case of non-profit) would either cease purchasing the company’s products/services or cancel membership in a non-profit organization (as examples). For example, if I am not happy with a company that has proven it cannot keep my information confidential, I can simply take my shopping elsewhere. If I am not happy with a non-profit because it is not serving my needs, I can go to other non-profits (or even form my own).

But here, in the monopolistic environment where contracted parties have no choice but to deal with ICANN, leaving these types of issues to the Board without other meaningful redress is not enough accountability. After all, it is not as if the contracted parties could go elsewhere if dissatisfied with the operations of ICANN (or in this case the lack of security measures to protect information). Thus, we have a true accountability problem.

To summarize, in a monopolistic environment where demand for services are inelastic, relying on a board to hold staff accountable for these types of failures in my opinion is not enough. Without the potential for losing customers or community participation because of such failures, there is little incentive for the board to act.

These are just my personal opinions.

Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: jeff.neuman@valideus.com or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com T: +1.703.635.7514 M: +1.202.549.5079 @Jintlaw

From: Jordan Carter [mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz] Sent: Monday, March 2, 2015 8:33 PM To: Jeff Neuman Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Other forms of Accountability?

Thanks Jeff for sharing this. I think the practical work going on in the Working Parties is dealing with many broader items than just the ICANN Board.

Your example posits an interesting question: is "accountability" focused on the governance level, or on operations?

That is, is a staff level execution failure something the community or customers has accountability tools to deal with, beyond ensuring the Board holds CE to account?

One way of looking at this example is that it's up to the Board to hold its Chief Executive responsible for delivering secure services and that that's where it lies. If the Board fails to do so, some of the mechanisms under debate would help deal with that. Review and redress options would also provide some relief to those damaged.

Thoughts?

Jordan

On 3 March 2015 at 07:01, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> wrote: Removing Board Directors, while taking up most of the discussion for the last few weeks does not address most of the accountability issues we have with ICANN.

Not sure if you saw this article: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/03/02/icann_suffers_another_security_breac...

Which accountability measures do we have to safeguard us from this?

Thanks.

Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: jeff.neuman@valideus.com or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com T: +1.703.635.7514 M: +1.202.549.5079 @Jintlaw

_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

-- Jordan Carter

Chief Executive InternetNZ

04 495 2118 (office) | +64 21 442 649 (mob) jordan@internetnz.net.nz Skype: jordancarter

A better world through a better Internet

_______________________________________________ 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