RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task

["Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hi all,
I find myself a bit more concerned about the possible effect of such a rule on 
quashing motions for reconsideration.  There may even be changed circumstances 
that might justify reconsideration and one would not want to make a rule that 
no motion that has previously been voted upon can be brought before the Council 
again.

I also tend to wonder whether a Councilor, especially a newer Councilor, 
laboring under a misimpression about the conflict of interest rules, might not, 
in itself, constitute a changed circumstance.  Maybe I am less critical because 
the Councilor in question is an IPC Councilor and also a very good lawyer.  If 
he was confused about this, I consider it possible that anyone might be.  So I 
tend to disagree that if the Councilor in question had been NCSG, that there 
would have been a uproar about the change in vote (or at least there shouldn't 
be in an ideal ICANN world).

There is an aspect of this which for me involves "Do unto others as you would 
have others do unto you."  So it seems that if we say this is okay the way it 
happened, the same leniency is given going forward to any Councilor who labors 
under a misunderstanding of Council rules, subject perhaps to the discretion of 
the Chair in bringing the motion again.

The harder line would be:  "Dear Councilor: You are responsible for knowing all 
the rules before you vote and no misunderstanding on your part as to any issue 
can serve as a basis for resubmission of a motion."  If we go this route, new 
Councilors should definitely be trained accordingly.  Do new GNSO Councilors 
receive training and orientation as is the norm for most Boards?
Anne

[cid:031522619@15012013-0BAC]Anne E. Aikman-Scalese
Of Counsel
Lewis and Roca LLP * Suite 700
One South Church Avenue * Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611
Tel (520) 629-4428 * Fax (520) 879-4725
AAikman@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:AAikman@xxxxxxxxx> * 
www.LewisandRoca.com/Aikman<http://www.lewisandroca.com/Aikman>
P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.
This e-mail contains legally privileged and confidential information
intended only for the individual or entity named within the message.
If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the
agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or
copying of this communication is prohibited.  If this communication
was received in error, please notify us by reply e-mail and delete the original 
message.


________________________________
From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx 
[mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Alain Berranger
Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2013 11:26 AM
To: Jen Wolfe
Cc: Neuman, Jeff; Mary.Wong@xxxxxxxxxxx; avri@xxxxxxx; 
gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task

Thanks Jennifer,

Common sense speaks again! The black belt argument will often close a 
discussion, though!!!! ;-) Many involved with ICANN would likely benefit from 
six sigma training... including myself!

Let's see what the Standing Committee on GNSO Improvements Implementation I 
discussions will lead too.

Cheers, Alain

On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 9:37 AM, Jen Wolfe 
<jwolfe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:jwolfe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
Hi everyone,

I hope your new year is  off to a great start.  I know I am new to the council 
and this committee so forgive me if I am misunderstanding our role, but what 
confused me about this particular issue was that all of the councilors had the 
opportunity for discussion, to ask questions and for consensus.  A vote was 
taken and then a councilor asked further clarifying questions and then wanted 
to change his vote.  From a strictly process standpoint, I am not clear on why 
a new vote should be allowed once the time for discussion and clarifying 
questions close.  In any other parliamentary procedure, legislative body or 
corporate governance on boards, once a vote is taken, that's it, even if 
someone misunderstood something procedurally or substantively.

I fully understand the need for consensus, but once discussion closes and a 
vote is taken, from a process and procedural standpoint, it's a slippery slope 
to start allowing votes to be re-opened because one person asked a clarifying 
question after the vote was taken.  It not only takes up valuable time of the 
council in discussing new issues, but could be used inappropriately in the 
future if this were permissible.

I look forward to participating in this committee.  I have a black belt in six 
sigma process improvement and pride myself on finding ways to function more 
efficiently and hope I can provide meaningful contributions to this committee.

Have a great weekend!

jennifer c. WOLFE, esq., apr, SSBB
managing director, wolfe domain, a digital brand strategy adivsory firm
managing partner, wolfe, sadler, breen, morasch & colby, an intellectual 
property law firm
IAM 300 - TOp 300 global ip strategists 2011 & 2012
Follow Me: [Description: Description: cid:image001.png@01CDC0CD.AB7D59C0] 
<http://www.linkedin.com/in/jenwolfe>  [Description: Description: 
cid:image002.png@01CDC0CD.AB7D59C0] <http://pinterest.com/wolfedomain/>  
[Description: Description: cid:image003.png@01CDC0CD.AB7D59C0] 
<https://twitter.com/jenwolfe>
Blog: What will you do when your CEO asks why you didn't apply for a 
gTLD?<http://jenwolfe.com/c-suite/>
Book: Domain Names 
Rewired<http://www.amazon.com/Domain-Names-Rewired-Strategies-Protection/dp/1118312627>


From: 
owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx>
 
[mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx>]
 On Behalf Of Neuman, Jeff
Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2013 3:05 PM
To: Alain Berranger; Mary.Wong@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:Mary.Wong@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: avri@xxxxxxx<mailto:avri@xxxxxxx>; 
gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx>

Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task

All,

I am still missing the rationale as to why the NCSG representatives believe 
this rule should be in place for a bottom-up consensus driven organization.

Please help me understand.

Jeffrey J. Neuman
Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs

From: Alain Berranger [mailto:alain.berranger@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2013 3:01 PM
To: Mary.Wong@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:Mary.Wong@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: avri@xxxxxxx<mailto:avri@xxxxxxx>; 
gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx>; 
jonathan.robinson@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:jonathan.robinson@xxxxxxxxxxx>; Neuman, 
Jeff
Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task


I agree fully with Mary's arguments.

Best, Alain
On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 12:16 PM, 
<Mary.Wong@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:Mary.Wong@xxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
Thanks, Jonathan and Jeff. As I won't be on the SCI call this week, my view, 
FWIW, is that a motion that is properly introduced, seconded and voted on 
should NOT be re-introduced (whether in its original form or tweaked) in the 
absence of clear evidence indicating fraud, duress or other similar 
circumstance surrounding the original introduction/seconding/vote in relation 
to the motion. In this regard, Councilors' ignorance of the rules (e.g. effect 
of an abstention), and lack of instruction/direction from a Councilor's 
particular constituency/SG, should NOT count as the type of circumstance that 
ought to permit a reintroduction or re-vote on what in substance is the same 
motion.


Cheers
Mary
Mary W S Wong
Professor of Law
Director, Franklin Pierce Center for IP
Chair, Graduate IP Programs
UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAW
Two White Street
Concord, NH 03301
USA
Email: mary.wong@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:mary.wong@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Phone: 1-603-513-5143<tel:1-603-513-5143>
Webpage: http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.php
Selected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: 
http://ssrn.com/author=437584

>>> "Jonathan Robinson" 01/10/13 1:12 AM >>>
All,

My understanding of the role of the SCI is to determine how improvements may be 
made for the future.

When the motion was re-submitted to the December meeting, I do not believe that 
there was any procedure to guide the Council on the re-introduction of a motion 
that had recently been voted on.

This specific issue has highlighted that we may need something to guide us on 
this in future.  I do not believe that the SCI?s hands are tied at all.

We have one useful example which raised concerns and now need to look at  as 
general solution as possible for the future in order to cover both the example 
that raised the concern and other cases which may occur in future.

Thanks,


Jonathan

From: 
owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx>
 
[mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx>]
 On Behalf Of Mary.Wong@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:Mary.Wong@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: 09 January 2013 16:58
To: avri@xxxxxxx<mailto:avri@xxxxxxx>; 
gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: jonathan.robinson@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:jonathan.robinson@xxxxxxxxxxx>; 
Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx<mailto:Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task

I support Avri's points generally, and would add the following in this specific 
instance:

- the initial vote was properly proposed, seconded and voted on.

- just as ignorance of the law is no excuse, the fact that Councilors were not 
aware of the implications of an abstention (when, frankly, they should be as 
it's in the rules plain as day) should not permit a re-introduction of 
something that was properly introduced and voted on.

- In this case I don't know if the specific constituency impacted had given 
instructions to its Councilors as to how to vote. Even if they did not, the 
fact remains that these are very clearly set out in the GNSO rules, and if a 
constituency or Councilors did not know or did not make the time to 
discuss/decide, that is a very poor excuse for reintroducing a motion (again, 
one properly introduced, seconded and voted on).

- In an ideal world, the Council should have suspended the matter and referred 
the issue of a re-introduction/reconsideration of such a motion (without 
necessarily specifying the actual motion or context) to the SCI before 
re-opening the vote. As it is, it seems as though the SCI's hands are somewhat 
tied since the second motion did get voted on and went through - the mind 
boggles at an SCI determination that this re-introduction and vote was improper 
or invalid, especially in the currrent somewhat sensitive context within which 
ICANN is operating.

Cheers
Mary
Mary W S Wong
Professor of Law
Director, Franklin Pierce Center for IP
Chair, Graduate IP Programs
UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAW
Two White Street
Concord, NH 03301
USA
Email: mary.wong@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:mary.wong@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Phone: 1-603-513-5143<tel:1-603-513-5143>
Webpage: http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.php
Selected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: 
http://ssrn.com/author=437584

>>> Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx<mailto:avri@xxxxxxx>> 01/09/13 2:01 PM >>>

Another thought experiment.

There was a recent g-council vote where, in a rare event, the NCSG Policy 
Council had decided on an unanimous vote on an issue. But during the vote, some 
voters got confused and voted against.

Would it have been appropriate for us to demand a re-vote?

Had one of us been g-council Chair, would it have ben right for us to just 
reschedule the vote without even getting the g-councl to discuss and perhaps 
even vote on the notion of reconsidering the vote?

A general question, anytime from now on, when a SG or Constituency beleive that 
its voters went against the will of the SG/C should they be able to have a vote 
rescheduled at the next meeting?

avri


On 9 Jan 2013, at 00:54, Avri Doria wrote:

>
> Even Robert's Rules of Order has rules on when and how a motion can be 
> reconsidered or rescinded (10.5). The Board of ICANN has rules on 
> reconsideration in the ByLaws.
>
> One specific requirement for reconsideration under Roberts is that one of 
> those on the prevailing side ask for the reconsideration. In this case it was 
> the Chair who had been on the losing side.
>
> We need rules on when it is done and on how it should be done.
>
> avri
>
>
>
> On 9 Jan 2013, at 00:30, J. Scott Evans wrote:
>
>> I tend to agree,
>>
>> From: Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:AAikman@xxxxxxxxx>>;
>> To: 'Avri Doria' <avri@xxxxxxx<mailto:avri@xxxxxxx>>; Jeff Neuman 
>> <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx<mailto:Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>>; 
>> gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx> 
>> <gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx>>;
>> Cc: Jonathan Robinson 
>> <jonathan.robinson@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:jonathan.robinson@xxxxxxxxxxx>>;
>> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task
>> Sent: Wed, Jan 9, 2013 5:27:47 AM
>>
>>
>> Hi all,
>> What I am struggling with procedurally is a basic "Robert's Rules" type 
>> inquiry. Namely: - I don't know of anything procedurally that would permit a 
>> motion that is moved and seconded from being voted on, no matter how 
>> obnoxious anyone finds the motion to be. I guess this is what we are going 
>> to discuss tomorrow.
>
> the issue was voting again after it had already been defeated.
>
>>
>> I would like to ask whether there are specific provisions in the GNSO 
>> Operating Procedures regarding introduction of motions that staff can 
>> provide prior to our call.
>
> It is all in the g-counci Procedures.
> And is says nothing on reconsideration or rescinding of decisions already 
> made.
>
>
>>
>> Thank you
>> Anne
>>
>>
>> Anne E. Aikman-Scalese
>> Of Counsel
>> Lewis and Roca LLP * Suite 700
>> One South Church Avenue * Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611
>> Tel (520) 629-4428<tel:%28520%29%20629-4428> * Fax (520) 
>> 879-4725<tel:%28520%29%20879-4725>
>> AAikman@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:AAikman@xxxxxxxxx> * 
>> www.LewisandRoca.com/Aikman<http://www.LewisandRoca.com/Aikman>
>> P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.
>> This e-mail contains legally privileged and confidential information
>> intended only for the individual or entity named within the message.
>> If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the
>> agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are
>> hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or
>> copying of this communication is prohibited. If this communication
>> was received in error, please notify us by reply e-mail and delete the 
>> original message.
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: 
>> owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx>
>>  [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
>> Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2013 10:16 PM
>> To: Jeff Neuman; 
>> gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx>
>> Cc: Jonathan Robinson
>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task
>>
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I guess I do not support that.
>>
>> I think a motion should only be voted on once. and that to bring it back, 
>> something must have changed or a reasonable amount of time should have past.
>>
>> And no we use votes to count the up to the thresholds defined for motions to 
>> pass. We may euphemistically use the word consensus, but it has NOTHING to 
>> do with consensus. If anything the consensus is in the work of the WGs and 
>> not in the votes of the management team, i.e. g-council.
>>
>> I believe that what happened in that meeting is something that should never 
>> be allowed to happen again. And if we need rules to keep the chair from 
>> doing things like that, something I admit never entered my imagination of 
>> things that could go wrong, then we need new rules.
>>
>> A thought experiment: Just imagine the uproar in the council if an NCUC 
>> based g-council chair had dared to some like this when the vote did not go 
>> her way.
>>
>> avri
>>
>> On 8 Jan 2013, at 21:24, Neuman, Jeff wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Avri,
>>>
>>> Yes, I know we use voting to measure consensus. But in the end, the spirit 
>>> is to achieve consensus on policy items. The fact that it took two votes to 
>>> do so should not prejudice the results. Again, if there was some evidence 
>>> of wrong doing, fraud etc., that would be one thing. But that did not 
>>> happen.
>>>
>>> I support the ability to re-vote on any item unless there is evidence of 
>>> misconduct, harassment, fraud, etc.
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>>
>>> Jeffrey J. Neuman
>>>
>>> Sent from iPad. Please excuse any typos.
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri@xxxxxxxx]
>>> Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2013 08:29 PM Eastern Standard Time
>>> To: Neuman, Jeff
>>> Cc: 
>>> gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx>; 
>>> Jonathan Robinson
>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Sorry, that may be what the reviews intended at one point, but that is not 
>>> what the current regulations say. Due to the agreement between the SG at 
>>> the time, a very strict voting regime was adopted and approved by the Board 
>>> for the g-council. G-council has such a complicated voting structure that 
>>> the Secretariat has a special tool to help them figure out when a motion 
>>> has passed or not.
>>>
>>> To now claim that g-council is a consensus body does not match the reality 
>>> of the situation.
>>>
>>> avri
>>>
>>>
>>> On 8 Jan 2013, at 19:37, Neuman, Jeff wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I will restate what I said on the Council call. We are not supposed to as 
>>>> a group focus on voting. We are supposed to come to "consensus" on items. 
>>>> If there is a "consensus" at any time of the Council on any given policy 
>>>> (provided that the processes were followed by the working group making the 
>>>> recommendation), then that is what should govern. The last evolution and 
>>>> reform of icann report by the London School of Economics as supported by 
>>>> the Board Governance Committee emphasized this over and over again. We are 
>>>> not supposed to be a voting body, so lets focus back on consensus.
>>>>
>>>> All of the comments I have seen from those that did not like the result in 
>>>> the last council meeting have not addressed the fact that ultimately there 
>>>> was a "consensus" on the issue. The fact that there had to be a second 
>>>> measurement of consensus on the item to me seems irrelevant and 
>>>> unnecessarily procedural. There was no abuse of process. There was no 
>>>> abuse within the working group making the recommendation. There is not 
>>>> evidence that there were improper conflicts, etc. Absent any showing of 
>>>> abuse, harassment, fraud, illegality, or willful negligence, I believe 
>>>> having a second measurement of consensus is not an issue.
>>>>
>>>> Best regards,
>>>>
>>>> Jeffrey J. Neuman
>>>>
>>>> Sent from iPad. Please excuse any typos.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri@xxxxxxxx]
>>>> Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2013 05:31 PM Eastern Standard Time
>>>> To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>> Cc: Jonathan Robinson; Neuman, Jeff
>>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 8 Jan 2013, at 17:16, Ron Andruff wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Assuming that the ultimate desired outcome was for Councillors to vote as 
>>>>> they were permitted to (and possibly directed to by their group), two 
>>>>> remedies were possible.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I take real issue with this in that this can only be the case when it is 
>>>> accordance with adherence to all rules of neutrality, transparency and 
>>>> accountability.
>>>>
>>>> Once a vote is given, it is taken and clues from anyone on how to make the 
>>>> vote work out better are not, in my view or the view of my stakeholder 
>>>> group, legitimate. It is not for voter to decide that they should be able 
>>>> vote they way they meant to when they voted another way. If it was, those 
>>>> poor old jewish voters on finding out the ballot in Florida was confusing 
>>>> could have taken back their votes for Buchanan, and Gore would have been 
>>>> President of the US. and yes, we may wish with all our hearts that it had 
>>>> been otherwise, but it wasn't. Voting does not work according to wishes 
>>>> unsaid, it works in terms of the vote given.
>>>>
>>>> avri
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ----------------------
>> For more information about Lewis and Roca LLP, please go to 
>> www.lewisandroca.com<http://www.lewisandroca.com>.
>>
>> Phoenix (602)262-5311<tel:%28602%29262-5311> Reno 
>> (775)823-2900<tel:%28775%29823-2900>
>> Tucson (520)622-2090<tel:%28520%29622-2090> Albuquerque 
>> (505)764-5400<tel:%28505%29764-5400>
>> Las Vegas (702)949-8200<tel:%28702%29949-8200> Silicon Valley 
>> (650)391-1380<tel:%28650%29391-1380>
>>
>> This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to 
>> which it is addressed. If the reader of this message is not the intended 
>> recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message 
>> to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, 
>> distribution or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have 
>> received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by 
>> replying to the sender of this E-Mail by return E-Mail or by telephone.
>> In accordance with Internal Revenue Service Circular 230, we advise you that 
>> if this email contains any tax advice, such tax advice was not intended or 
>> written to be used, and it cannot be used, by any taxpayer for the purpose 
>> of avoiding penalties that may be imposed on the taxpayer
>>
>



--
Alain Berranger, B.Eng, MBA
Member, Board of Directors, CECI, 
http://www.ceci.ca<http://www.ceci.ca/en/about-ceci/team/board-of-directors/>
Executive-in-residence, Schulich School of Business, 
www.schulich.yorku.ca<http://www.schulich.yorku.ca>
Treasurer, Global Knowledge Partnership Foundation, 
www.gkpfoundation.org<http://www.gkpfoundation.org>
NA representative, Chasquinet Foundation, 
www.chasquinet.org<http://www.chasquinet.org>
Chair, NPOC, NCSG, ICANN, http://npoc.org/
O:+1 514 484 7824<tel:%2B1%20514%20484%207824>; M:+1 514 704 
7824<tel:%2B1%20514%20704%207824>
Skype: alain.berranger


AVIS DE CONFIDENTIALITÉ
Ce courriel est confidentiel et est à l'usage exclusif du destinataire 
ci-dessus. Toute personne qui lit le présent message sans en être le 
destinataire, ou l'employé(e) ou la personne responsable de le remettre au 
destinataire, est par les présentes avisée qu'il lui est strictement interdit 
de le diffuser, de le distribuer, de le modifier ou de le reproduire, en tout 
ou en partie . Si le destinataire ne peut être joint ou si ce document vous a 
été communiqué par erreur, veuillez nous en informer sur le champ  et détruire 
ce courriel et toute copie de celui-ci. Merci de votre coopération.

CONFIDENTIALITY MESSAGE
This e-mail message is confidential and is intended for the exclusive use of 
the addressee. Please note that, should this message be read by anyone other 
than the addressee, his or her employee or the person responsible for 
forwarding it to the addressee, it is strictly prohibited to disclose, 
distribute, modify or reproduce the contents of this message, in whole or in 
part. If the addressee cannot be reached or if you have received this e-mail in 
error, please notify us immediately and delete this e-mail and destroy all 
copies. Thank you for your cooperation.




--
Alain Berranger, B.Eng, MBA
Member, Board of Directors, CECI, 
http://www.ceci.ca<http://www.ceci.ca/en/about-ceci/team/board-of-directors/>
Executive-in-residence, Schulich School of Business, 
www.schulich.yorku.ca<http://www.schulich.yorku.ca>
Treasurer, Global Knowledge Partnership Foundation, 
www.gkpfoundation.org<http://www.gkpfoundation.org>
NA representative, Chasquinet Foundation, 
www.chasquinet.org<http://www.chasquinet.org>
Chair, NPOC, NCSG, ICANN, http://npoc.org/
O:+1 514 484 7824; M:+1 514 704 7824
Skype: alain.berranger


AVIS DE CONFIDENTIALITÉ
Ce courriel est confidentiel et est à l'usage exclusif du destinataire 
ci-dessus. Toute personne qui lit le présent message sans en être le 
destinataire, ou l'employé(e) ou la personne responsable de le remettre au 
destinataire, est par les présentes avisée qu'il lui est strictement interdit 
de le diffuser, de le distribuer, de le modifier ou de le reproduire, en tout 
ou en partie . Si le destinataire ne peut être joint ou si ce document vous a 
été communiqué par erreur, veuillez nous en informer sur le champ  et détruire 
ce courriel et toute copie de celui-ci. Merci de votre coopération.

CONFIDENTIALITY MESSAGE
This e-mail message is confidential and is intended for the exclusive use of 
the addressee. Please note that, should this message be read by anyone other 
than the addressee, his or her employee or the person responsible for 
forwarding it to the addressee, it is strictly prohibited to disclose, 
distribute, modify or reproduce the contents of this message, in whole or in 
part. If the addressee cannot be reached or if you have received this e-mail in 
error, please notify us immediately and delete this e-mail and destroy all 
copies. Thank you for your cooperation.