Fundamental Bylaws memo
Hi all For those not on the call, the attached is to deal with a gap in the draft comment report. It has only come into existence in the past 24h as we realised the gap. Apols for the short notice, as explained by Mathieu. Jordan -- 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 *
Dear colleagues, And to add to Jordan's points, for those that we're not on the call, this will be discussed in the session starting at 19.00UTC on Thursday 23rd April. Best, Mathieu Weill --------------- Depuis mon mobile, désolé pour le style
Le 23 avr. 2015 à 06:12, Jordan Carter <jordan@internetnz.net.nz> a écrit :
Hi all
For those not on the call, the attached is to deal with a gap in the draft comment report.
It has only come into existence in the past 24h as we realised the gap.
Apols for the short notice, as explained by Mathieu.
Jordan
-- 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
<2015-04-23 fundamental bylaws.pdf> <2015-04-23 fundamental bylaws.docx> _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
On 23/04/2015 05:11, Jordan Carter wrote:
Hi all
For those not on the call, the attached is to deal with a gap in the draft comment report.
It has only come into existence in the past 24h as we realised the gap.
Apols for the short notice, as explained by Mathieu.
Dear Jordan and Becky, Thank you for spotting this omission, and producing this proposal to address it. I would like to support it in all respects save one, the threshold for changing fundamental bylaws, which I think you have set too low. You say that "ICANN should be able to expand its Mission only under very limited circumstances". I agree, but I do not think that 3/4 Board plus an unspecified supermajority of the community council is high enough. Compare the process to spill the Board, a near consensus ("75%/85%") is required in 2/3s of the SOs and ACs to even ask the community council to consider a spill. I do not think that spilling the Board should be harder to achieve than expanding the Mission, so I propose that we also require a near consensus in 2/3s of the SOACs (including at least one SO) for a change in Fundamental Bylaws to be considered by the community council. Kind Regards, Malcolm. -- Malcolm Hutty | tel: +44 20 7645 3523 Head of Public Affairs | Read the LINX Public Affairs blog London Internet Exchange | http://publicaffairs.linx.net/ London Internet Exchange Ltd 21-27 St Thomas Street, London SE1 9RY Company Registered in England No. 3137929 Trinity Court, Trinity Street, Peterborough PE1 1DA
This is exactly why we asked whether a higher threshold should be set to change the mission. Thanks Malcolm J. Beckwith Burr Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel and Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20006 Office: + 1.202.533.2932 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / becky.burr@neustar.biz / www.neustar.biz On 4/24/15, 3:17 AM, "Malcolm Hutty" <malcolm@linx.net> wrote:
On 23/04/2015 05:11, Jordan Carter wrote:
Hi all
For those not on the call, the attached is to deal with a gap in the draft comment report.
It has only come into existence in the past 24h as we realised the gap.
Apols for the short notice, as explained by Mathieu.
Dear Jordan and Becky,
Thank you for spotting this omission, and producing this proposal to address it.
I would like to support it in all respects save one, the threshold for changing fundamental bylaws, which I think you have set too low.
You say that "ICANN should be able to expand its Mission only under very limited circumstances". I agree, but I do not think that 3/4 Board plus an unspecified supermajority of the community council is high enough.
Compare the process to spill the Board, a near consensus ("75%/85%") is required in 2/3s of the SOs and ACs to even ask the community council to consider a spill. I do not think that spilling the Board should be harder to achieve than expanding the Mission, so I propose that we also require a near consensus in 2/3s of the SOACs (including at least one SO) for a change in Fundamental Bylaws to be considered by the community council.
Kind Regards,
Malcolm.
-- Malcolm Hutty | tel: +44 20 7645 3523 Head of Public Affairs | Read the LINX Public Affairs blog London Internet Exchange | https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__publicaffairs.linx.net _&d=AwICAg&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8W DDkMr4k&m=HXgUKFkivaGJZUVML_V17iw2OUntW3L36uW-DBL-jdU&s=Yd_BPLMdkEtqXkDcHc d5RRiq_2UeVQQ-6BBwRbdtGzs&e=
London Internet Exchange Ltd 21-27 St Thomas Street, London SE1 9RY
Company Registered in England No. 3137929 Trinity Court, Trinity Street, Peterborough PE1 1DA
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_ listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=AwICAg&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lU Lrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=HXgUKFkivaGJZUVML_V17i w2OUntW3L36uW-DBL-jdU&s=7uenw2h9lZhPvFJ6HdcJzcpHXAU7sfBqQiMRZvU3JyM&e=
I agree completely with Malcolm. Of all the dangers we face in the IANA transition, the prospect of ICANN using its control of the IANA function policy to foster other policy preferences is the most likely to arise, even from good motives ..... and therefore the most essential to forestall. Paul Paul Rosenzweig paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com O: +1 (202) 547-0660 M: +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066 Link to my PGP Key -----Original Message----- From: Burr, Becky [mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz] Sent: Friday, April 24, 2015 10:37 AM To: Malcolm Hutty; Jordan Carter; Accountability Cross Community Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Fundamental Bylaws memo This is exactly why we asked whether a higher threshold should be set to change the mission. Thanks Malcolm J. Beckwith Burr Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel and Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20006 Office: + 1.202.533.2932 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / becky.burr@neustar.biz / www.neustar.biz On 4/24/15, 3:17 AM, "Malcolm Hutty" <malcolm@linx.net> wrote:
On 23/04/2015 05:11, Jordan Carter wrote:
Hi all
For those not on the call, the attached is to deal with a gap in the draft comment report.
It has only come into existence in the past 24h as we realised the gap.
Apols for the short notice, as explained by Mathieu.
Dear Jordan and Becky,
Thank you for spotting this omission, and producing this proposal to address it.
I would like to support it in all respects save one, the threshold for changing fundamental bylaws, which I think you have set too low.
You say that "ICANN should be able to expand its Mission only under very limited circumstances". I agree, but I do not think that 3/4 Board plus an unspecified supermajority of the community council is high enough.
Compare the process to spill the Board, a near consensus ("75%/85%") is required in 2/3s of the SOs and ACs to even ask the community council to consider a spill. I do not think that spilling the Board should be harder to achieve than expanding the Mission, so I propose that we also require a near consensus in 2/3s of the SOACs (including at least one SO) for a change in Fundamental Bylaws to be considered by the community council.
Kind Regards,
Malcolm.
-- Malcolm Hutty | tel: +44 20 7645 3523 Head of Public Affairs | Read the LINX Public Affairs blog London Internet Exchange | https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__publicaffairs.linx. net _&d=AwICAg&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahO P8W DDkMr4k&m=HXgUKFkivaGJZUVML_V17iw2OUntW3L36uW-DBL-jdU&s=Yd_BPLMdkEtqXkD cHc d5RRiq_2UeVQQ-6BBwRbdtGzs&e=
London Internet Exchange Ltd 21-27 St Thomas Street, London SE1 9RY
Company Registered in England No. 3137929 Trinity Court, Trinity Street, Peterborough PE1 1DA
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailm an_ listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=AwICAg&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC _lU Lrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=HXgUKFkivaGJZUVML_V 17i w2OUntW3L36uW-DBL-jdU&s=7uenw2h9lZhPvFJ6HdcJzcpHXAU7sfBqQiMRZvU3JyM&e=
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
+1... That's also why I like the shared services concept or even the independent IANA concept. Never liked the idea of policy formation and implementation in the same camp...not a good recipe. RD On Apr 24, 2015 10:53 AM, "Paul Rosenzweig" < paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> wrote:
I agree completely with Malcolm. Of all the dangers we face in the IANA transition, the prospect of ICANN using its control of the IANA function policy to foster other policy preferences is the most likely to arise, even from good motives ..... and therefore the most essential to forestall.
Paul
Paul Rosenzweig paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com O: +1 (202) 547-0660 M: +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066 Link to my PGP Key
-----Original Message----- From: Burr, Becky [mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz] Sent: Friday, April 24, 2015 10:37 AM To: Malcolm Hutty; Jordan Carter; Accountability Cross Community Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Fundamental Bylaws memo
This is exactly why we asked whether a higher threshold should be set to change the mission. Thanks Malcolm
J. Beckwith Burr Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel and Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20006 Office: + 1.202.533.2932 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / becky.burr@neustar.biz / www.neustar.biz
On 4/24/15, 3:17 AM, "Malcolm Hutty" <malcolm@linx.net> wrote:
On 23/04/2015 05:11, Jordan Carter wrote:
Hi all
For those not on the call, the attached is to deal with a gap in the draft comment report.
It has only come into existence in the past 24h as we realised the gap.
Apols for the short notice, as explained by Mathieu.
Dear Jordan and Becky,
Thank you for spotting this omission, and producing this proposal to address it.
I would like to support it in all respects save one, the threshold for changing fundamental bylaws, which I think you have set too low.
You say that "ICANN should be able to expand its Mission only under very limited circumstances". I agree, but I do not think that 3/4 Board plus an unspecified supermajority of the community council is high enough.
Compare the process to spill the Board, a near consensus ("75%/85%") is required in 2/3s of the SOs and ACs to even ask the community council to consider a spill. I do not think that spilling the Board should be harder to achieve than expanding the Mission, so I propose that we also require a near consensus in 2/3s of the SOACs (including at least one SO) for a change in Fundamental Bylaws to be considered by the community council.
Kind Regards,
Malcolm.
-- Malcolm Hutty | tel: +44 20 7645 3523 Head of Public Affairs | Read the LINX Public Affairs blog London Internet Exchange | https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__publicaffairs.linx. net _&d=AwICAg&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahO P8W DDkMr4k&m=HXgUKFkivaGJZUVML_V17iw2OUntW3L36uW-DBL-jdU&s=Yd_BPLMdkEtqXkD cHc d5RRiq_2UeVQQ-6BBwRbdtGzs&e=
London Internet Exchange Ltd 21-27 St Thomas Street, London SE1 9RY
Company Registered in England No. 3137929 Trinity Court, Trinity Street, Peterborough PE1 1DA
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailm an_ listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=AwICAg&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC _lU Lrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=HXgUKFkivaGJZUVML_V 17i w2OUntW3L36uW-DBL-jdU&s=7uenw2h9lZhPvFJ6HdcJzcpHXAU7sfBqQiMRZvU3JyM&e=
_______________________________________________ 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
Well a typcial RIR has such in the same camp, although you may argue that its not at global level but hey, gTLD for instance practically has just 1 level and can be likened to a typical RIR serving its region(in terms of its policy and implementation). That said, you bet the USD digits differ hence the interests ;-) Cheers! On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 4:13 PM, Rudolph Daniel <rudi.daniel@gmail.com> wrote:
+1... That's also why I like the shared services concept or even the independent IANA concept. Never liked the idea of policy formation and implementation in the same camp...not a good recipe. RD On Apr 24, 2015 10:53 AM, "Paul Rosenzweig" < paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> wrote:
I agree completely with Malcolm. Of all the dangers we face in the IANA transition, the prospect of ICANN using its control of the IANA function policy to foster other policy preferences is the most likely to arise, even from good motives ..... and therefore the most essential to forestall.
Paul
Paul Rosenzweig paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com O: +1 (202) 547-0660 M: +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066 Link to my PGP Key
-----Original Message----- From: Burr, Becky [mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz] Sent: Friday, April 24, 2015 10:37 AM To: Malcolm Hutty; Jordan Carter; Accountability Cross Community Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Fundamental Bylaws memo
This is exactly why we asked whether a higher threshold should be set to change the mission. Thanks Malcolm
J. Beckwith Burr Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel and Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20006 Office: + 1.202.533.2932 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / becky.burr@neustar.biz / www.neustar.biz
On 4/24/15, 3:17 AM, "Malcolm Hutty" <malcolm@linx.net> wrote:
On 23/04/2015 05:11, Jordan Carter wrote:
Hi all
For those not on the call, the attached is to deal with a gap in the draft comment report.
It has only come into existence in the past 24h as we realised the gap.
Apols for the short notice, as explained by Mathieu.
Dear Jordan and Becky,
Thank you for spotting this omission, and producing this proposal to address it.
I would like to support it in all respects save one, the threshold for changing fundamental bylaws, which I think you have set too low.
You say that "ICANN should be able to expand its Mission only under very limited circumstances". I agree, but I do not think that 3/4 Board plus an unspecified supermajority of the community council is high
enough.
Compare the process to spill the Board, a near consensus ("75%/85%") is required in 2/3s of the SOs and ACs to even ask the community council to consider a spill. I do not think that spilling the Board should be harder to achieve than expanding the Mission, so I propose that we also require a near consensus in 2/3s of the SOACs (including at least one SO) for a change in Fundamental Bylaws to be considered by the community council.
Kind Regards,
Malcolm.
-- Malcolm Hutty | tel: +44 20 7645 3523 Head of Public Affairs | Read the LINX Public Affairs blog London Internet Exchange | https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__publicaffairs.linx. net _&d=AwICAg&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahO P8W DDkMr4k&m=HXgUKFkivaGJZUVML_V17iw2OUntW3L36uW-DBL-jdU&s=Yd_BPLMdkEtqXkD cHc d5RRiq_2UeVQQ-6BBwRbdtGzs&e=
London Internet Exchange Ltd 21-27 St Thomas Street, London SE1 9RY
Company Registered in England No. 3137929 Trinity Court, Trinity Street, Peterborough PE1 1DA
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailm an_ listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=AwICAg&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC _lU Lrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=HXgUKFkivaGJZUVML_V 17i w2OUntW3L36uW-DBL-jdU&s=7uenw2h9lZhPvFJ6HdcJzcpHXAU7sfBqQiMRZvU3JyM&e=
_______________________________________________ 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
-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng <http://www.fuoye.edu.ng> Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email: <http://goog_1872880453>seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng <seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng>* The key to understanding is humility - my view !
Well yes I would sat it is not global...and From my interaction with RIRs ..the process seems to work with consensus taken seriously...with ICANN/IANA..the scale is quite different and the consequences for getting it wrong are huge(?) RD On Apr 24, 2015 11:22 AM, "Seun Ojedeji" <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote:
Well a typcial RIR has such in the same camp, although you may argue that its not at global level but hey, gTLD for instance practically has just 1 level and can be likened to a typical RIR serving its region(in terms of its policy and implementation).
That said, you bet the USD digits differ hence the interests ;-)
Cheers!
On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 4:13 PM, Rudolph Daniel <rudi.daniel@gmail.com> wrote:
+1... That's also why I like the shared services concept or even the independent IANA concept. Never liked the idea of policy formation and implementation in the same camp...not a good recipe. RD On Apr 24, 2015 10:53 AM, "Paul Rosenzweig" < paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> wrote:
I agree completely with Malcolm. Of all the dangers we face in the IANA transition, the prospect of ICANN using its control of the IANA function policy to foster other policy preferences is the most likely to arise, even from good motives ..... and therefore the most essential to forestall.
Paul
Paul Rosenzweig paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com O: +1 (202) 547-0660 M: +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066 Link to my PGP Key
-----Original Message----- From: Burr, Becky [mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz] Sent: Friday, April 24, 2015 10:37 AM To: Malcolm Hutty; Jordan Carter; Accountability Cross Community Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Fundamental Bylaws memo
This is exactly why we asked whether a higher threshold should be set to change the mission. Thanks Malcolm
J. Beckwith Burr Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel and Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20006 Office: + 1.202.533.2932 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / becky.burr@neustar.biz / www.neustar.biz
On 4/24/15, 3:17 AM, "Malcolm Hutty" <malcolm@linx.net> wrote:
On 23/04/2015 05:11, Jordan Carter wrote:
Hi all
For those not on the call, the attached is to deal with a gap in the draft comment report.
It has only come into existence in the past 24h as we realised the
gap.
Apols for the short notice, as explained by Mathieu.
Dear Jordan and Becky,
Thank you for spotting this omission, and producing this proposal to address it.
I would like to support it in all respects save one, the threshold for changing fundamental bylaws, which I think you have set too low.
You say that "ICANN should be able to expand its Mission only under very limited circumstances". I agree, but I do not think that 3/4 Board plus an unspecified supermajority of the community council is high enough.
Compare the process to spill the Board, a near consensus ("75%/85%") is required in 2/3s of the SOs and ACs to even ask the community council to consider a spill. I do not think that spilling the Board should be harder to achieve than expanding the Mission, so I propose that we also require a near consensus in 2/3s of the SOACs (including at least one SO) for a change in Fundamental Bylaws to be considered by the community council.
Kind Regards,
Malcolm.
-- Malcolm Hutty | tel: +44 20 7645 3523 Head of Public Affairs | Read the LINX Public Affairs blog London Internet Exchange | https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__publicaffairs.linx. net _&d=AwICAg&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahO P8W DDkMr4k&m=HXgUKFkivaGJZUVML_V17iw2OUntW3L36uW-DBL-jdU&s=Yd_BPLMdkEtqXkD cHc d5RRiq_2UeVQQ-6BBwRbdtGzs&e=
London Internet Exchange Ltd 21-27 St Thomas Street, London SE1 9RY
Company Registered in England No. 3137929 Trinity Court, Trinity Street, Peterborough PE1 1DA
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailm an_ listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=AwICAg&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC _lU Lrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=HXgUKFkivaGJZUVML_V 17i w2OUntW3L36uW-DBL-jdU&s=7uenw2h9lZhPvFJ6HdcJzcpHXAU7sfBqQiMRZvU3JyM&e=
_______________________________________________ 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
-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng <http://www.fuoye.edu.ng> Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email: <http://goog_1872880453>seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng <seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng>*
The key to understanding is humility - my view !
Thanks for spotting this. Let's hope there are no more issues caused by this unnecessary and objectionable haste. el -- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPhone 6
On Apr 23, 2015, at 05:11, Jordan Carter <jordan@internetnz.net.nz> wrote:
Hi all
For those not on the call, the attached is to deal with a gap in the draft comment report.
It has only come into existence in the past 24h as we realised the gap.
Apols for the short notice, as explained by Mathieu.
Jordan
-- 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
<2015-04-23 fundamental bylaws.pdf> <2015-04-23 fundamental bylaws.docx> _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
participants (8)
-
Burr, Becky -
Dr Eberhard W Lisse -
Jordan Carter -
Malcolm Hutty -
Mathieu Weill -
Paul Rosenzweig -
Rudolph Daniel -
Seun Ojedeji