TR: ST18 breathrough text
Dear Colleagues, During the call today, we found a common way forward on the ST18 recommendation, based on joint inputs from Denmark and Keith Drazek. This is intended to clarify the actual text that will be presented as our proposal on the Draft Report. Thank you all of you for your contributions to this significant step forward. Best and happy thanksgiving to all our US friends, Mathieu De : Steve DelBianco [mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org] Envoyé : jeudi 26 novembre 2015 17:03 À : ACCT-Staff; Thomas Rickert; Mathieu Weill; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía; Cheryl Langdon-Orr; Becky Burr; Jordan Carter Objet : ST18 breathrough text Here’s what we need in the 3rd report: Article XI, Section 2, Item 1 j. The advice of the Governmental Advisory Committee on public policy matters shall be duly taken into account, both in the formulation and adoption of policies. In the event that the ICANN Board determines to take an action that is not consistent with the Governmental Advisory Committee advice, it shall so inform the Committee and state the reasons why it decided not to follow that advice. Any GAC advice approved by a full GAC consensus, understood to mean the practice of adopting decisions by general agreement in the absence of any formal objection, may only be rejected by a vote of two-thirds (2/3) of the Board. With respect to such advice, the Governmental Advisory Committee and the ICANN Board will try, in good faith and in a timely and efficient manner, to find a mutually acceptable solution. The GAC has the autonomy to refine its Operating Procedures to specify how objections are raised and considered (for example, disallowing a single country to continue an objection on the same issue if no other countries will join in an objection). When transmitting consensus advice to the Board for which the GAC seeks to receive special consideration, the GAC has the obligation to confirm the lack of any formal objection.
With all respect, I believe there was substantial consensus and no objection on the call to accepting my suggestion that the last sentence of the first paragraph be clarified to eliminate any ambiguity as to which GAC advice would require an effort to find a mutually acceptable solution, as follows: With respect to such consensus advice, the Governmental Advisory Committee and the ICANN Board will try, in good faith and in a timely and efficient manner, to find a mutually acceptable solution. Absent such clarification, this sentence could be read as imposing that duty in regard to any GAC advice transmitted to the Board, regardless of whether it was supported by consensus. Even with this clarification, the Board would still have to duly take into account any GAC advice, as per the first sentence. 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 From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mathieu Weill Sent: Thursday, November 26, 2015 11:09 AM To: accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] TR: ST18 breathrough text Dear Colleagues, During the call today, we found a common way forward on the ST18 recommendation, based on joint inputs from Denmark and Keith Drazek. This is intended to clarify the actual text that will be presented as our proposal on the Draft Report. Thank you all of you for your contributions to this significant step forward. Best and happy thanksgiving to all our US friends, Mathieu De : Steve DelBianco [mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org] Envoyé : jeudi 26 novembre 2015 17:03 À : ACCT-Staff; Thomas Rickert; Mathieu Weill; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía; Cheryl Langdon-Orr; Becky Burr; Jordan Carter Objet : ST18 breathrough text Here’s what we need in the 3rd report: Article XI, Section 2, Item 1 j. The advice of the Governmental Advisory Committee on public policy matters shall be duly taken into account, both in the formulation and adoption of policies. In the event that the ICANN Board determines to take an action that is not consistent with the Governmental Advisory Committee advice, it shall so inform the Committee and state the reasons why it decided not to follow that advice. Any GAC advice approved by a full GAC consensus, understood to mean the practice of adopting decisions by general agreement in the absence of any formal objection, may only be rejected by a vote of two-thirds (2/3) of the Board. With respect to such advice, the Governmental Advisory Committee and the ICANN Board will try, in good faith and in a timely and efficient manner, to find a mutually acceptable solution. The GAC has the autonomy to refine its Operating Procedures to specify how objections are raised and considered (for example, disallowing a single country to continue an objection on the same issue if no other countries will join in an objection). When transmitting consensus advice to the Board for which the GAC seeks to receive special consideration, the GAC has the obligation to confirm the lack of any formal objection.
Yes, that was my understanding as well. Matthew On 26/11/2015 17:43, Phil Corwin wrote:
With all respect, I believe there was substantial consensus and no objection on the call to accepting my suggestion that the last sentence of the first paragraph be clarified to eliminate any ambiguity as to which GAC advice would require an effort to find a mutually acceptable solution, as follows:
/With//respect to such *consensus *advice, the Governmental Advisory Committee and the ICANN Board will try, in good faith and in a timely and efficient manner, to find a mutually acceptable solution. /
//
Absent such clarification, this sentence could be read as imposing that duty in regard to any GAC advice transmitted to the Board, regardless of whether it was supported by consensus. Even with this clarification, the Board would still have to duly take into account any GAC advice, as per the first sentence.
*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/*
*From:*accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Mathieu Weill *Sent:* Thursday, November 26, 2015 11:09 AM *To:* accountability-cross-community@icann.org *Subject:* [CCWG-ACCT] TR: ST18 breathrough text
Dear Colleagues,
During the call today, we found a common way forward on the ST18 recommendation, based on joint inputs from Denmark and Keith Drazek.
This is intended to clarify the actual text that will be presented as our proposal on the Draft Report.
Thank you all of you for your contributions to this significant step forward.
Best and happy thanksgiving to all our US friends,
Mathieu
*De :*Steve DelBianco [mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org] *Envoyé :* jeudi 26 novembre 2015 17:03 *À :* ACCT-Staff; Thomas Rickert; Mathieu Weill; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía; Cheryl Langdon-Orr; Becky Burr; Jordan Carter *Objet :* ST18 breathrough text
Here’s what we need in the 3rd report:
Article XI, Section 2, Item 1
j. The advice of the Governmental Advisory Committee on public policy matters shall be duly taken into account, both in the formulation and adoption of policies. In the event that the ICANN Board determines to take an action that is not consistent with the Governmental Advisory Committee advice, it shall so inform the Committee and state the reasons why it decided not to follow that advice. Any GAC advice approved by a full GAC consensus, understood to mean the practice of adopting decisions by general agreement in the absence of any formal objection, may only be rejected by a vote of two-thirds (2/3) of the Board. With respect to such advice, the Governmental Advisory Committee and the ICANN Board will try, in good faith and in a timely and efficient manner, to find a mutually acceptable solution.
The GAC has the autonomy to refine its Operating Procedures to specify how objections are raised and considered (for example, disallowing a single country to continue an objection on the same issue if no other countries will join in an objection). When transmitting consensus advice to the Board for which the GAC seeks to receive special consideration, the GAC has the obligation to confirm the lack of any formal objection.
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
-- Matthew Shears Director - Global Internet Policy and Human Rights Center for Democracy & Technology mshears@cdt.org + 44 771 247 2987 --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Agreed this was what was discussed in the chat aswell. Its merely a clarification on what the intent was. -James From: <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Matthew Shears <mshears@cdt.org<mailto:mshears@cdt.org>> Date: Thursday 26 November 2015 at 5:47 p.m. To: Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>>, Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr<mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr>>, "accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>" <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] ST18 breathrough text Yes, that was my understanding as well. Matthew On 26/11/2015 17:43, Phil Corwin wrote: With all respect, I believe there was substantial consensus and no objection on the call to accepting my suggestion that the last sentence of the first paragraph be clarified to eliminate any ambiguity as to which GAC advice would require an effort to find a mutually acceptable solution, as follows: With respect to such consensus advice, the Governmental Advisory Committee and the ICANN Board will try, in good faith and in a timely and efficient manner, to find a mutually acceptable solution. Absent such clarification, this sentence could be read as imposing that duty in regard to any GAC advice transmitted to the Board, regardless of whether it was supported by consensus. Even with this clarification, the Board would still have to duly take into account any GAC advice, as per the first sentence. 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 From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mathieu Weill Sent: Thursday, November 26, 2015 11:09 AM To: accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] TR: ST18 breathrough text Dear Colleagues, During the call today, we found a common way forward on the ST18 recommendation, based on joint inputs from Denmark and Keith Drazek. This is intended to clarify the actual text that will be presented as our proposal on the Draft Report. Thank you all of you for your contributions to this significant step forward. Best and happy thanksgiving to all our US friends, Mathieu De : Steve DelBianco [mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org] Envoyé : jeudi 26 novembre 2015 17:03 À : ACCT-Staff; Thomas Rickert; Mathieu Weill; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía; Cheryl Langdon-Orr; Becky Burr; Jordan Carter Objet : ST18 breathrough text Here’s what we need in the 3rd report: Article XI, Section 2, Item 1 j. The advice of the Governmental Advisory Committee on public policy matters shall be duly taken into account, both in the formulation and adoption of policies. In the event that the ICANN Board determines to take an action that is not consistent with the Governmental Advisory Committee advice, it shall so inform the Committee and state the reasons why it decided not to follow that advice. Any GAC advice approved by a full GAC consensus, understood to mean the practice of adopting decisions by general agreement in the absence of any formal objection, may only be rejected by a vote of two-thirds (2/3) of the Board. With respect to such advice, the Governmental Advisory Committee and the ICANN Board will try, in good faith and in a timely and efficient manner, to find a mutually acceptable solution. The GAC has the autonomy to refine its Operating Procedures to specify how objections are raised and considered (for example, disallowing a single country to continue an objection on the same issue if no other countries will join in an objection). When transmitting consensus advice to the Board for which the GAC seeks to receive special consideration, the GAC has the obligation to confirm the lack of any formal objection. _______________________________________________ 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 -- Matthew Shears Director - Global Internet Policy and Human Rights Center for Democracy & Technology mshears@cdt.org<mailto:mshears@cdt.org> + 44 771 247 2987 [https://ipmcdn.avast.com/images/logo-avast-v1.png]<https://www.avast.com/?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient> This email has been sent from a virus-free computer protected by Avast. www.avast.com<https://www.avast.com/?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-ema...>
Agreed - let’s not lose this important clarification. Robin
On Nov 26, 2015, at 9:49 AM, James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net> wrote:
Agreed this was what was discussed in the chat aswell. Its merely a clarification on what the intent was.
-James
From: <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Matthew Shears <mshears@cdt.org <mailto:mshears@cdt.org>> Date: Thursday 26 November 2015 at 5:47 p.m. To: Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com <mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>>, Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr <mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr>>, "accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>" <accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] ST18 breathrough text
Yes, that was my understanding as well.
Matthew
On 26/11/2015 17:43, Phil Corwin wrote:
With all respect, I believe there was substantial consensus and no objection on the call to accepting my suggestion that the last sentence of the first paragraph be clarified to eliminate any ambiguity as to which GAC advice would require an effort to find a mutually acceptable solution, as follows:
With respect to such consensus advice, the Governmental Advisory Committee and the ICANN Board will try, in good faith and in a timely and efficient manner, to find a mutually acceptable solution.
Absent such clarification, this sentence could be read as imposing that duty in regard to any GAC advice transmitted to the Board, regardless of whether it was supported by consensus. Even with this clarification, the Board would still have to duly take into account any GAC advice, as per the first sentence.
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
From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Mathieu Weill Sent: Thursday, November 26, 2015 11:09 AM To: accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] TR: ST18 breathrough text
Dear Colleagues,
During the call today, we found a common way forward on the ST18 recommendation, based on joint inputs from Denmark and Keith Drazek.
This is intended to clarify the actual text that will be presented as our proposal on the Draft Report.
Thank you all of you for your contributions to this significant step forward.
Best and happy thanksgiving to all our US friends, Mathieu
De : Steve DelBianco [mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org <mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org>] Envoyé : jeudi 26 novembre 2015 17:03 À : ACCT-Staff; Thomas Rickert; Mathieu Weill; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía; Cheryl Langdon-Orr; Becky Burr; Jordan Carter Objet : ST18 breathrough text
Here’s what we need in the 3rd report: Article XI, Section 2, Item 1
j. The advice of the Governmental Advisory Committee on public policy matters shall be duly taken into account, both in the formulation and adoption of policies. In the event that the ICANN Board determines to take an action that is not consistent with the Governmental Advisory Committee advice, it shall so inform the Committee and state the reasons why it decided not to follow that advice. Any GAC advice approved by a full GAC consensus, understood to mean the practice of adopting decisions by general agreement in the absence of any formal objection, may only be rejected by a vote of two-thirds (2/3) of the Board. With respect to such advice, the Governmental Advisory Committee and the ICANN Board will try, in good faith and in a timely and efficient manner, to find a mutually acceptable solution.
The GAC has the autonomy to refine its Operating Procedures to specify how objections are raised and considered (for example, disallowing a single country to continue an objection on the same issue if no other countries will join in an objection). When transmitting consensus advice to the Board for which the GAC seeks to receive special consideration, the GAC has the obligation to confirm the lack of any formal objection.
_______________________________________________ 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 <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community> --
Matthew Shears Director - Global Internet Policy and Human Rights Center for Democracy & Technology mshears@cdt.org <mailto:mshears@cdt.org> + 44 771 247 2987 <https://www.avast.com/?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-ema...> This email has been sent from a virus-free computer protected by Avast. www.avast.com <https://www.avast.com/?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Thank you Phil, I think you are right that removing that ambiguity is consistent with our discussion earlier today. Probably the easiest fix would be to merge sentences as such “Any GAC advice approved by a full GAC consensus, understood to mean the practice of adopting decisions by general agreement in the absence of any formal objection, may only be rejected by a vote of two-thirds (2/3) of the Board, and the Governmental Advisory Committee and the ICANN Board will then try, in good faith and in a timely and efficient manner, to find a mutually acceptable solution.” Best Mathieu De : Phil Corwin [mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com] Envoyé : jeudi 26 novembre 2015 18:43 À : Mathieu Weill; accountability-cross-community@icann.org Objet : RE: ST18 breathrough text With all respect, I believe there was substantial consensus and no objection on the call to accepting my suggestion that the last sentence of the first paragraph be clarified to eliminate any ambiguity as to which GAC advice would require an effort to find a mutually acceptable solution, as follows: With respect to such consensus advice, the Governmental Advisory Committee and the ICANN Board will try, in good faith and in a timely and efficient manner, to find a mutually acceptable solution. Absent such clarification, this sentence could be read as imposing that duty in regard to any GAC advice transmitted to the Board, regardless of whether it was supported by consensus. Even with this clarification, the Board would still have to duly take into account any GAC advice, as per the first sentence. 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 From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mathieu Weill Sent: Thursday, November 26, 2015 11:09 AM To: accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] TR: ST18 breathrough text Dear Colleagues, During the call today, we found a common way forward on the ST18 recommendation, based on joint inputs from Denmark and Keith Drazek. This is intended to clarify the actual text that will be presented as our proposal on the Draft Report. Thank you all of you for your contributions to this significant step forward. Best and happy thanksgiving to all our US friends, Mathieu De : Steve DelBianco [mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org] Envoyé : jeudi 26 novembre 2015 17:03 À : ACCT-Staff; Thomas Rickert; Mathieu Weill; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía; Cheryl Langdon-Orr; Becky Burr; Jordan Carter Objet : ST18 breathrough text Here’s what we need in the 3rd report: Article XI, Section 2, Item 1 j. The advice of the Governmental Advisory Committee on public policy matters shall be duly taken into account, both in the formulation and adoption of policies. In the event that the ICANN Board determines to take an action that is not consistent with the Governmental Advisory Committee advice, it shall so inform the Committee and state the reasons why it decided not to follow that advice. Any GAC advice approved by a full GAC consensus, understood to mean the practice of adopting decisions by general agreement in the absence of any formal objection, may only be rejected by a vote of two-thirds (2/3) of the Board. With respect to such advice, the Governmental Advisory Committee and the ICANN Board will try, in good faith and in a timely and efficient manner, to find a mutually acceptable solution. The GAC has the autonomy to refine its Operating Procedures to specify how objections are raised and considered (for example, disallowing a single country to continue an objection on the same issue if no other countries will join in an objection). When transmitting consensus advice to the Board for which the GAC seeks to receive special consideration, the GAC has the obligation to confirm the lack of any formal objection.
It is better to make it clear that if there is not full consensus then it isn't "advice" that triggers the bylaw obligations. Milton L Mueller Professor, School of Public Policy Georgia Institute of Technology On Nov 26, 2015, at 12:57, Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr<mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr>> wrote: Thank you Phil, I think you are right that removing that ambiguity is consistent with our discussion earlier today. Probably the easiest fix would be to merge sentences as such “Any GAC advice approved by a full GAC consensus, understood to mean the practice of adopting decisions by general agreement in the absence of any formal objection, may only be rejected by a vote of two-thirds (2/3) of the Board, and the Governmental Advisory Committee and the ICANN Board will then try, in good faith and in a timely and efficient manner, to find a mutually acceptable solution.” Best Mathieu De : Phil Corwin [mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com] Envoyé : jeudi 26 novembre 2015 18:43 À : Mathieu Weill; accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Objet : RE: ST18 breathrough text With all respect, I believe there was substantial consensus and no objection on the call to accepting my suggestion that the last sentence of the first paragraph be clarified to eliminate any ambiguity as to which GAC advice would require an effort to find a mutually acceptable solution, as follows: With respect to such consensus advice, the Governmental Advisory Committee and the ICANN Board will try, in good faith and in a timely and efficient manner, to find a mutually acceptable solution. Absent such clarification, this sentence could be read as imposing that duty in regard to any GAC advice transmitted to the Board, regardless of whether it was supported by consensus. Even with this clarification, the Board would still have to duly take into account any GAC advice, as per the first sentence. 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 From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mathieu Weill Sent: Thursday, November 26, 2015 11:09 AM To: accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] TR: ST18 breathrough text Dear Colleagues, During the call today, we found a common way forward on the ST18 recommendation, based on joint inputs from Denmark and Keith Drazek. This is intended to clarify the actual text that will be presented as our proposal on the Draft Report. Thank you all of you for your contributions to this significant step forward. Best and happy thanksgiving to all our US friends, Mathieu De : Steve DelBianco [mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org] Envoyé : jeudi 26 novembre 2015 17:03 À : ACCT-Staff; Thomas Rickert; Mathieu Weill; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía; Cheryl Langdon-Orr; Becky Burr; Jordan Carter Objet : ST18 breathrough text Here’s what we need in the 3rd report: Article XI, Section 2, Item 1 j. The advice of the Governmental Advisory Committee on public policy matters shall be duly taken into account, both in the formulation and adoption of policies. In the event that the ICANN Board determines to take an action that is not consistent with the Governmental Advisory Committee advice, it shall so inform the Committee and state the reasons why it decided not to follow that advice. Any GAC advice approved by a full GAC consensus, understood to mean the practice of adopting decisions by general agreement in the absence of any formal objection, may only be rejected by a vote of two-thirds (2/3) of the Board. With respect to such advice, the Governmental Advisory Committee and the ICANN Board will try, in good faith and in a timely and efficient manner, to find a mutually acceptable solution. The GAC has the autonomy to refine its Operating Procedures to specify how objections are raised and considered (for example, disallowing a single country to continue an objection on the same issue if no other countries will join in an objection). When transmitting consensus advice to the Board for which the GAC seeks to receive special consideration, the GAC has the obligation to confirm the lack of any formal objection. _______________________________________________ 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
participants (6)
-
James Gannon -
Mathieu Weill -
Matthew Shears -
Mueller, Milton L -
Phil Corwin -
Robin Gross