<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
Robin<br>
<br>
Thanks so much - fascinating and shocking. <br>
<br>
Matthew<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 7/22/2015 8:43 AM, Robin Gross
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:5FB10356-FC5D-4162-95D2-4833763972C7@ipjustice.org"
type="cite">
<div>Hi all,</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I recently wrote this analysis of the .africa Independent
Review Panel (IRP) Declaration, which has implications for other
gtlds that may have been similarly denied.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Thanks,</div>
<div>Robin</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.ipjustice.org/internet-governance/icann-accountability-deficits-revealed-in-panel-ruling-on-africa/">http://www.ipjustice.org/internet-governance/icann-accountability-deficits-revealed-in-panel-ruling-on-africa/</a></div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>
<h2 class="entry-title" style="box-sizing: border-box; color:
rgb(51, 51, 51); margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px;
margin-bottom: 25px; margin-left: 0px; font-style: normal;
font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 19px;
line-height: 27px; font-family: 'Antic Slab', Arial,
Helvetica, sans-serif; padding-bottom: 0px; letter-spacing:
normal; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform:
none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;
-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: rgb(255,
255, 255); position: static; z-index: auto; ">ICANN
Accountability Deficits Revealed in Panel Ruling on .AFRICA</h2>
<div class="post-content" style="box-sizing: border-box; color:
rgb(116, 116, 116); font-family: 'PT Sans', Arial, Helvetica,
sans-serif; font-size: 14px; font-style: normal; font-variant:
normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal;
line-height: 20px; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px;
text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;
-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: rgb(255,
255, 255); position: static; z-index: auto; "><strong
style="box-sizing: border-box;">“Fortress ICANN” No Longer
Able to Shield Itself from Accountability</strong>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-top: 0px;
margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 20px; margin-left: 0px; "><br
class="webkit-block-placeholder">
</div>
<p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 20px;">In an
important test of ICANN’s primary accountability mechanism,
its Independent Review Process (IRP), the organization has
been handed a stinging blow over its mishandling of the bid
for the new generic Top-Level Domain (gTLD) .AFRICA.</p>
<p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 20px;">At
the crux of the issue are two competing applications for the
.AFRICA new gTLD and the decision by ICANN’s Board to
abdicate its responsibility to ensure that ICANN’s
evaluation and subsequent rewarding of the domain was
carried out fairly, transparently, and in accordance with
the organization’s Bylaws, Articles of Organization, and
established policies.</p>
<p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 20px;">The
unanimous IRP Panel of 3 distinguished adjudicators declared
that both the actions and inactions of ICANN’s Board with
respect to the application of DotConnect Africa Trust for
the .AFRICA gTLD were inconsistent with ICANN’s Articles of
Incorporation and Bylaws. The Panel found that both ICANN’s
Board, and its constituent body, the GAC, breached their
obligations to act transparently and in conformity with
procedures that ensured fairness.</p>
<p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 20px;">As a
result, the Panel recommended that ICANN continue to refrain
from delegating the .AFRICA gTLD and permit DCA Trust’s
application to proceed through the remainder of the new gTLD
application process. Although the award did not include
reimbursing DCA Trust’s legal fees and expenses, ICANN was
found to be liable for bearing all the costs of the IRP and
the totality of the costs of the IRP provider, more than
U.S. $400,000.</p>
<p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 20px;">Several
days after the Panel’s unanimous declaration, the ICANN
Board of Directors met on 16 July 2015 and decided to accept
the Panel’s finding and place DCA Trust’s application back
in the evaluation process. Given the growing pressure on
ICANN to accept meaningful accountability reform, including
an independent IRP that is truly capable of correcting the
organization’s mistakes, the Board had little choice but to
accept the Panel’s recommendation.</p>
<p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 20px;">The
Panel noted that the IRP is the only independent third-party
process that allows review of board actions to ensure their
consistency with the Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws.
Furthermore ICANN requires all new gTLD applicants to
relinquish all their rights to seek redress against ICANN in
courts of law for any harm caused by ICANN or any misconduct
by ICANN.</p>
<p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 20px;">Accountability
requires that an organization explain or give reasons for
its activities, accept responsibility for them, and disclose
the results in a transparent manner. Not only did ICANN fail
to provide a rationale for denying DCA Trust’s application,
it did not even require that a reason be provided before
killing the application that ICANN was paid $185,000 to
evaluate fairly. Neither principles of equity nor ICANN’s
corporate Bylaws and Articles would allow that decision to
stand unchallenged.</p>
<p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 20px;"><strong
style="box-sizing: border-box;">ICANN’s Board Violated Its
Obligations of Due Diligence and Fairness</strong></p>
<p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 20px;">After
ICANN’s Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) issued
“consensus advice” objecting to DCA Trust’s application,
ICANN’s Board summarily awarded the .AFRICA domain to the
African Union Commission, DCA Trust’s competitor. When DCA
Trust filed for a reconsideration of that Board decision
based on irregularities and non-transparency of the GAC
decision making process and also based on allegations of
staff misconduct discriminating against DCA Trust, the
reconsideration request was also dismissed out of hand by
ICANN’s Board.</p>
<p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 20px;">However
ICANN’s Bylaws require the organization’s Board and its
internal constituent bodies to operate to the maximum extent
feasible in an open and transparent manner and consistent
with procedures designed to ensure fairness.</p>
<p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 20px;">Due
diligence required a conversation with the GAC about its
objection, even where the advice was consensus advice. But
ICANN’s Board was found to give undue deference to the GAC
objection and failed to investigate the basis for the
decision, even though it is consensus advice.</p>
<p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 20px;">This
IRP declaration is important because it implies the board
can no longer passively accept GAC consensus advice to
object to a new gTLD application (or anything else) without
conducting adequate diligence into the decision making
process and exercising independent judgment of its own.
ICANN’s Board cannot hide behind murky “GAC objections” to
block applications given the Board’s affirmative duties of
due diligence and fairness in carrying out its activities.</p>
<p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 20px;">What
this ruling reveals is that GAC has been granted too much
autonomy in ICANN’s decision making process given the
Board’s ultimate responsibility for GAC as a “constituent
body” of ICANN. But ICANN’s Board has no involvement in,
much less control over, whether the GAC grants to any party
voting membership status; that decision remains within the
sole discretion of the GAC. Thus, although the Board is
legally responsible for the decisions, GAC holds a growing
power over those decisions, but bears no legal
responsibility for them.</p>
<p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 20px;">ICANN’s
board failed to conduct due diligence and investigate if the
organization’s constituent bodies, the GAC in particular,
were operating in a manner of openness, transparency, and
fairness.</p>
<p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 20px;">Because
the board did not investigate allegations of inappropriate
staff conduct after being put on notice of discriminatory
actions, it was found to have violated the organization’s
Bylaws’ obligation to exercise appropriate care and
diligence in carrying out its duties and activities. By
failing to apply ICANN procedures in a neutral and objective
manner with procedural fairness, ICANN breached its Articles
and Bylaws.</p>
<p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 20px;"><strong
style="box-sizing: border-box;">ICANN’s Board Gave
Improper Deference to Unaccountable Government Advisory
Committee</strong></p>
<p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 20px;">The
Guidebook lists three specific reasons why GAC could issue a
consensus objection to a gTLD application, yet upon
investigation, the IRP Panel uncovered that GAC is not
constrained in any manner, and in operation, it can object
to a domain name application for any reason or for no reason
at all.</p>
<p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 20px;">The
Panel noted that GAC’s own witness, its former Chair,
Heather Dryden, admitted during the IRP hearing that GAC did
not act with transparency nor in a manner designed to ensure
fairness.</p>
<p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 20px;">In
her testimony, GAC’s former Chair explained that, “there
isn’t GAC agreement about what the rights are” of the
contending parties, and that “not all countries have a
shared view about what those entities … should be able to
do.” Dryden went on to explain, “because that would only get
clarified if there is a circumstance where that link is
forced. In our business we talk about creative ambiguity. We
leave things unclear so we don’t have conflict.”</p>
<p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 20px;">Ms.
Dryden also stated that the GAC made its decision without
providing any rationale and primarily based on politics
rather than on potential violations of national laws and
sensitivities. Indeed she testified that GAC is not required
to provide any rationale with its consensus objections.</p>
<p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 20px;"><strong
style="box-sizing: border-box;">Testimony from its former
Chair at an IRP hearing was shockingly illuminating on how
GAC reaches decisions:</strong></p>
<p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 20px;
padding-left: 30px;">Arbitrator Kessedjian:<br
style="box-sizing: border-box;">
So, basically you’re telling us that the GAC take a decision
to object to an applicant, and no reasons, no rationale, no
discussion of the concepts that are in the rules?</p>
<p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 20px;
padding-left: 30px;">The Witness:<br style="box-sizing:
border-box;">
I’m telling you the GAC did not provide a rationale. And
that was not a requirement for issuing a GAC –</p>
<p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 20px;
padding-left: 30px;">Honorable Judge Cahill:<br
style="box-sizing: border-box;">
But you are also want to check to see if the countries are
following the right – following the rules, if there are
reasons for rejecting this or it falls within the three
things that my colleague’s talking about.</p>
<p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 20px;
padding-left: 30px;">The Witness:<br style="box-sizing:
border-box;">
The practice among governments is that governments can
express their view, whatever it may be. And so there’s a[…]
deference to that. That’s certainly the case here as well.
The – if a country tells – tells the GAC or says it has a
concern, that not really something that – that’s evaluated,
in the sense you mean, by the other governments. That’s not
the way governments work with each other.”</p>
<p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 20px;
padding-left: 30px;">Honorable Judge Cahill:<br
style="box-sizing: border-box;">
So you don’t go into the reasons at all with them?</p>
<p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 20px;
padding-left: 30px;">The Witness:<br style="box-sizing:
border-box;">
To the issue of consensus objection, no.</p>
<p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 20px;">But
the Panel was unimpressed with such a sloppy decision making
process, particularly given ICANN’s duty to act the public
interest and to obey its own Bylaws. According to the Panel:</p>
<p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 20px;">“ICANN
was bound by its Bylaws to conduct adequate diligence to
ensure that it was applying its procedures fairly. Section 1
of Article III of ICANN’s Bylaws, require it and its
constituent bodies to “operate to the maximum extent
feasible in an open and transparent manner and consistent
with procedures designed to ensure fairness. The Board must
also as per Article IV, Section 3, Paragraph 4 exercise due
diligence and care in having a reasonable amount of facts in
front of it.”</p>
<p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 20px;">Thus
ICANN Board was legally required to conduct a meaningful
review of its previous decision to accept the GAC objection
advice and it did not. The Panel declared, “[I]n light of
the clear ‘Transparency’ obligation provisions found in
ICANN’s Bylaws, the Panel would have expected the ICANN
Board to, at a minimum, investigate the matter further
before rejecting DCA Trust’s application.” The Panel said it
would have had a similar expectation with respect to the
Board’s response to the GAC consensus objection.</p>
<p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 20px;">Instead
of investigating the conflict or providing a meaningful
reconsideration of its prior decision, the Board simply
accepted the GAC objection as if it were definitive on the
matter, rather than an input to consider. The law does not
allow ICANN’s Board to abdicate its responsibility to govern
ICANN to the GAC; nor may it violate its Bylaws’ obligations
to conduct ICANN’s affairs with fairness and transparency,
simply because GAC desires a specific policy objective.</p>
<p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 20px;">ICANN’s
claim that “the Guidebook explicitly states that Early
Warnings may be issued for any reason” did not hold much
sway with the Panel, which declared that ICANN must follow
rules, notably its Bylaws and Articles, which require
transparency and fairness in the administration of its
duties.</p>
<p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 20px;">At
the 16 July special Board meeting, ICANN’s Board stated it
would ask the GAC if it wishes to refine its consensus
advice to object to DCA Trust’s application, provide further
information regarding that advice, or otherwise address the
concerns raised in the Panel’s declaration regarding GAC.
The continued development and impact of GAC advice on
ICANN’s decision-making process is particularly worth
watching going forward.</p>
<p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 20px;"><strong
style="box-sizing: border-box;">ICANN Staff’s Various
Attempts to Impede IRP Accountability</strong></p>
<p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 20px;">The
Panel noted a number of times throughout the lengthy IRP
process when ICANN staff attempted to reduce the ability of
the Panel to provide meaningful accountability. Just as
ICANN’s Cross Community Working Group on Accountability
begins to examine “ICANN staff accountability” in the
overall accountability framework of the organization, the
Panel’s declaration is all too illuminating on the
significant hurdles one must traverse when trying to hold
ICANN accountable for its actions. At every turn, ICANN
staff, particularly its lawyers, attempted to erect barriers
in the process that would insulate the organization from
responsibility and render the IRP impotent.</p>
<p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 20px;
padding-left: 30px;"><em style="box-sizing: border-box;">“The
Panel is also of the view that any attempt by ICANN in
this case to prevent it from carrying out its independent
review of ICANN’s Board’s actions in the manner that the
Panel considers appropriate under the circumstances
deprives the accountability and review process set out in
the Bylaws of any meaning.”</em></p>
<p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 20px;">Some
examples that came out during the proceedings:</p>
<p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 20px;"><strong
style="box-sizing: border-box;">ICANN claimed the Panel
could not examine witnesses.</strong> The Panel decided
otherwise and noted that both ICANN’s Bylaws and the
Supplementary Rules require an IRP Panel to examine and
decide whether the board has acted consistently with it
obligations. Without the ability to examine witnesses and
test the veracity of their claims, the Panel would be unable
to ensure that the parties to an IRP are treated with equity
and given a fair opportunity to present their case.</p>
<p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 20px;"><strong
style="box-sizing: border-box;">ICANN claimed the Panel
could not suggest a remedy if violations were found.</strong> The
Panel disagreed with ICANN’s claim because if the IRP
mechanism is intended to provide a remedy for a claimant
materially injured or harmed by Board action or inaction,
then naturally the IRP Panel may recommend how the ICANN
Board might fashion a remedy to redress such injury or harm.</p>
<p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 20px;"><strong
style="box-sizing: border-box;">ICANN claimed the Panel’s
standard of review was to be “deferential” to the board of
directors</strong>, rather than a de novo standard, which
is an objective and independent one, examining whether the
Board acted or failed to act in a manner inconsistent with
ICANN’s Articles or Bylaws. The Panel declared that the IRP
was specifically designed and set up to offer the Internet
community, a de novo standard of review that would ensure
that ICANN acted in a manner consistent with its Articles
and Bylaws.</p>
<p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 20px;"><strong
style="box-sizing: border-box;">ICANN claimed that an IRP
was not permitted to address whether the GAC did anything
inappropriate</strong> and could only consider Board
actions or inactions. The Panel, however, noted that GAC was
clearly a constituent body of ICANN and was therefore
required to act transparently and in a neutral and objective
manner and that it was empowered to examine that conduct.</p>
<p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 20px;">Astonishingly,
before publishing the Panel’s declaration, ICANN redacted
key text from the declaration in at least 39 separate places
to further hide its misdeeds. According to sources who have
seen the un-redacted ruling, the deleted text primarily
discusses specific instances of ICANN staff misconduct
including ICANN’s senior management’s drafting of the letter
which it then relied upon to provide the winning bid for
.AFRICA to DCA Trust’s competitor. There appear to be
redactions also of the GAC former chair’s testimony
explaining how “the political process” at ICANN works.</p>
<p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 20px;">Clearly
it is inappropriate for ICANN to abuse its position in the
publication of the IRP declaration to censor instances of
ICANN staff misconduct and GAC unaccountability from public
view. As the redacted declaration is already significantly
damning with respect to revealing ICANN accountability
failures, it begs the question as to just how much more
unflattering the redacted text must be. Even after ICANN was
severely rebuked by the Panel in its ruling for its many
instances of inappropriate conduct in this matter, ICANN
continued with its usual practice of hiding the extent of
its misconduct from the public it allegedly serves. A new
culture of transparency in every aspect of key decisions
must take root at ICANN before the organization can be given
any greater responsibility to serve the public, rather than
not itself.</p>
<p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 20px;">The
Panel stated that, “ICANN is not an ordinary California
nonprofit organization. Rather it has a large international
purpose and responsibility to coordinate and ensure the
stable and secure operation of the Internet’s unique
identifier systems.”</p>
<p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 20px;"><strong
style="box-sizing: border-box;">Important Precedent
Over-Turning “Presumption” that GAC Advice Must be Obeyed</strong></p>
<p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 20px;">This
ruling is significant in many respects, including
demonstrating the absolute necessity of having an IRP that
is truly independent of ICANN’s Board and staff. Managing
the Internet’s domain name system requires a level of
competence and trustworthiness to the public interest that
ICANN has not yet shown itself mature enough to undertake
without an independent adjudicator of ICANN’s actions.</p>
<p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 20px;">This
ruling could also have important precedential value for the
many other new gTLDs, which have also been negatively
impacted by GAC advice or objections that may not comport
with ICANN’s legal obligations to follow rules in a fair,
transparent, and objective manner after conducting due
diligence.</p>
<p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 20px;">The
“presumption” that GAC consensus objections to new domains
shall be obeyed by ICANN’s Board has been solidly overturned
by the Panel since neither the Board, nor the GAC itself
have required the GAC to follow rules or process, to operate
fairly, or even state reasons to objections that can be
addressed.</p>
<p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 20px;">Furthermore,
the Board may not abdicate its responsibility and hide
behind GAC decisions without undertaking its own independent
inquiry and exercising its own judgment as to whether proper
process and appropriate decisions were taken. The light
shown on the non-transparent and lawless nature of ICANN’s
GAC calls the actions and structure of the entire
organization into question.</p>
<blockquote style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color:
rgb(246, 246, 246); font-style: italic; font-variant:
normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 14px; line-height:
20px; font-family: 'PT Sans', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;
color: rgb(116, 116, 116); border-left-width: 4px;
border-left-style: solid; border-color: rgb(103, 183, 225);
padding: 15px; background-position: initial initial;
background-repeat: initial initial;">
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-top: 0px;
margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">ICANN
cannot promise the world transparency, fairness, due
diligence, and objectivity in its exercise of these
important responsibilities at the same time that it does
not require those qualities of its constituent bodies,
including GAC, the Board, and ICANN’s staff.</div>
</blockquote>
<p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 20px;">Another
important consideration from this ruling is the tremendous
cost and time that one must invest to try to hold ICANN
accountable. DCA Trust could have easily spent a million
dollars to bring this action to completion in lawyers’ fees,
panelists’ fees, and other expenses. New gTLD applicants are
required to waive all their rights to legal enforcement by
courts of law, so the IRP is the only independent mechanism
available to those harmed by ICANN, and one must be prepared
to spend millions of U.S. Dollars in order to have their
rights enforced. Not exactly a mechanism that is accessible
for 99% of the world’s population, despite ICANN’s global
impact and claim of public service. In any event, the
.AFRICA is among the most important and precedential IRP
declarations ICANN has ever received.</p>
<div class="fusion-fullwidth fullwidth-box" style="box-sizing:
border-box; background-attachment: scroll;
-webkit-background-size: cover; background-size: cover;
border-color: rgb(234, 233, 233); border-bottom-width: 0px;
border-top-width: 0px; border-bottom-style: solid;
border-top-style: solid; padding: 20px 0px;
background-position: 0% 0%; background-repeat: no-repeat
no-repeat;">
<div class="avada-row" style="box-sizing: border-box;
margin: 0px auto; max-width: 1100px;">
<div class="fusion-title title" style="box-sizing:
border-box; margin: 0px 0px 31px; overflow: hidden;
display: table;">
<h1 class="title-heading-left" style="box-sizing: border-box; display: table-cell; white-space: pre; float: left; padding: 0px 8px 0px 0px; margin: 0px; font-family: 'Antic Slab', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); font-weight: normal; line-height: 48px; font-size: 35px;">ICANN Staff Redactions:</h1>
</div>
<span class="fusion-imageframe imageframe imageframe-none
imageframe-1" style="box-sizing: border-box; display:
inline-block; z-index: 1; position: relative; max-width:
100%;"><img alt="" class="img-responsive"
style="box-sizing: border-box; border-style: none;
vertical-align: top; max-width: 100%; height: auto;"
id="9b0cdb95-637a-4a2d-9a14-a09b194868ab"
apple-width="yes" apple-height="yes"
src="cid:part2.04090401.05040401@cdt.org" height="519"
width="837"></span><span class="fusion-imageframe
imageframe imageframe-none imageframe-2"
style="box-sizing: border-box; display: inline-block;
z-index: 1; position: relative; max-width: 100%;"><img
alt="" class="img-responsive" style="box-sizing:
border-box; border-style: none; vertical-align: top;
max-width: 100%; height: auto;"
id="1ec32eb5-0616-4082-9305-6971a5be7441"
apple-width="yes" apple-height="yes"
src="cid:part3.06040607.07020405@cdt.org" height="595"
width="837"></span><span class="fusion-imageframe
imageframe imageframe-none imageframe-3"
style="box-sizing: border-box; display: inline-block;
z-index: 1; position: relative; max-width: 100%;"><img
alt="" class="img-responsive" style="box-sizing:
border-box; border-style: none; vertical-align: top;
max-width: 100%; height: auto;"
id="17f44170-e7e6-4bb4-be11-94a7d0b945d7"
apple-width="yes" apple-height="yes"
src="cid:part4.07030405.02010301@cdt.org" height="636"
width="837"></span><span class="fusion-imageframe
imageframe imageframe-none imageframe-4"
style="box-sizing: border-box; display: inline-block;
z-index: 1; position: relative; max-width: 100%;"><img
alt="" class="img-responsive" style="box-sizing:
border-box; border-style: none; vertical-align: top;
max-width: 100%; height: auto;"
id="bb549197-58c6-4fb8-aaf2-20db09121460"
apple-width="yes" apple-height="yes"
src="cid:part5.05040402.06040906@cdt.org" height="490"
width="837"></span><span class="fusion-imageframe
imageframe imageframe-none imageframe-5"
style="box-sizing: border-box; display: inline-block;
z-index: 1; position: relative; max-width: 100%;"><img
alt="" class="img-responsive" style="box-sizing:
border-box; border-style: none; vertical-align: top;
max-width: 100%; height: auto;"
id="4a49b564-5da4-4856-916c-2d7bc9a529e1"
apple-width="yes" apple-height="yes"
src="cid:part6.06010803.07090905@cdt.org" height="401"
width="837"></span></div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="meta-info" style="box-sizing: border-box;
border-top-width: 1px; border-top-style: solid; border-color:
rgb(224, 222, 222); border-bottom-width: 1px;
border-bottom-style: solid; margin-top: 16px; padding: 5px
0px; font-size: 13px; clear: both; overflow: hidden;
margin-bottom: 55px; color: rgb(116, 116, 116); font-family:
'PT Sans', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-style: normal;
font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing:
normal; line-height: 20px; orphans: auto; text-align: start;
text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal;
widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width:
0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
<div class="meta-info-wrapper" style="box-sizing: border-box;">By <span
class="vcard" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><span
class="fn" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.ipjustice.org/author/patrick-2/"
title="Posts by Robin Gross" rel="author"
style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration: none;
color: rgb(51, 51, 51);">Robin Gross</a></span></span><span
class="sep" style="box-sizing: border-box; padding: 0px
5px;">|</span><span style="box-sizing: border-box;">July
16th, 2015</span><span class="sep" style="box-sizing:
border-box; padding: 0px 5px;">|</span><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.ipjustice.org/category/internet-governance/"
rel="category tag" style="box-sizing: border-box;
text-decoration: none; color: rgb(51, 51, 51);">Internet
Governance</a>, <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.ipjustice.org/category/publications/"
rel="category tag" style="box-sizing: border-box;
text-decoration: none; color: rgb(51, 51, 51);">Publications</a></div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
Matthew Shears
Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
+ 44 (0)771 247 2987</pre>
</body>
</html>