text:
Years ago when I worked as a trainer/coach in business years, I experienced that the coaching, and healings techniques I was using where not able to touch the other in his/her core(issue). I also felt to be able to connect with this deeper level, I would need to develop something else: love power.
This power is able to touch hearts, to reach out to our shadows and bring them into the light. Where true transformation takes place.
During the last 7 years my work was focused on expanding this power.
The results I started to see in my work, by allowing this power to flow through it, were and are amazing. The changes en growth in the life, relationships and work of my clients are beautiful, and tangible. It is true: love heals and conquers all.
For me, now, the time feels right to share with you how to access this love power and use it in your life and work as a healer, therapist, manager, coach, trainer. So you too can experience structural change in your self and in others.
What you will learn:
*(Self) love and how to use this in your work
* Communication with your body, mind and soul
* Reprogramming your subconsciousness
* Healing and coaching methods based on love
Location: Ibiza
Investment: 350 euro (incl 21% VAT) p.p
Early bird: 295 euro (incl 21% VAT) p.p till August 10th
Inclusive: two days course (10am - 5pm), vegetarian lunch, water, and tea
Exclusive: accommodation, ticket and insurances
Our personal travel agent Danielle Sturm can help you with flights, accommodation and rental cars. To make your travel as smooth as possible. She can be reached by email: firstname.lastname@example.com or mobile: +31646052712


text:
blue patterned curtains uk Which you should know
blue patterned curtains uk with TraditionalBy Architects & Building Designers Photographed in Bath County, Virginia, United States
Date uploaded: June 06, 2017
Along with filtering solar and mud, the curtain is an ornamental element that helps the great thing about the design of the room. Ultimate touches, like tassels, are important.
Select curtain design as needed.
By its nature, there are 2 varieties of curtains, particularly ornamental curtains and full-operate curtains. Decorative blinds should not have to be opened and closed, for example sheer. Whereas full-operate curtains could be opened and closed as wanted, corresponding to curtains and blinds.
Here are some sorts of curtains that you could know.
Sunshade is a curtain made from non fabric. This kind gives privateness on the room. This manner may be very efficient and provides robust character to the room. Different materials are of wooden, aluminum, or paper.
Sliding Blinds
The sliding curtain is more standard with the identify of the curtains. The curtain is often opened by sliding to the side. Supplies for curtains could vary, corresponding to thick and heavy linens, mushy silk, elegant velvet, plain damask, unique weaving, or textured material. Vital colors and motifs are noticed. Adjust to the overall decor.
Folding Curtain
Window blinds are made of material that can be opened and closed by way of roman blind or rolled blind upward, or folded vertically (vertical blind).
The material varies, ranging from linen, leather-based, canvas, cotton, to denim. This curtain can be utilized within the kitchen, bathroom, or kid's bedroom.
For practicality, you can combine an existing type of curtain.
Mixture of sheer and curtains
The combination of curtains with sheer will give the impression of traditional and elegant. For the day, use a sheer and place a curtain in conjunction with the window. Whereas at evening, set up a curtain to maintain privacy.
Mixture of curler blind and roman blind
Roller blinds mixed with roman blinds seem not heavy and supply excessive privateness within the room.

subset: commoncrawl


text: This Job is Old and Position Might be Filled Accountant Al Zayani Investments Posted on March 11, 2019 2 - 3 years Manama - Bahrain Bachelor of Commerce(Commerce). Any Nationality Easy Apply Login To ApplyRegister & ApplyApply Without Registration Send Me Jobs Like This SEND Alert Set Successfully Opening 01 Job Description EMAIL JOB SEND Email sent successfully. SHARE JOB Purpose of the job:Provides financial information to management by researching and analyzing accounting data; preparing reports.Duties and Responsibilities:• Reconciliation of Manufacturer statement with our books of account and liaise with Manufacturer for unreconciled items.• Co-ordinating with Manufacturer for outstanding support claims and accounting of support claims credit notes.• Accounting of warranty & service plan invoiced and credit notes.• Review and coordinating of warranty receivables on day to day basis.• Weekly report on outstanding warranty receivables status to be submitted to head of the department.• Generate pending outstanding supplier invoices for registration and verification report and process in the system. Complete end to end follow-up for accounting and payment of supplier invoices and allocation of payment against corresponding invoices.• Preparing of month end accrual for Monthly closure of MIS.• Recording of the asset in asset register and assigning of Tag number in coordination with IT and other departments.• Preparation of the payment voucher and Bank reconciliation.• Accounting & reconciliation of Credit Card transactions of customs duty and vehicle registrations.• Preparation of marketing reimbursement claims and liaise with all the marketing team. Also, follow up for outstanding receivables.• Assisting the Account Manager & the Chief Accountant on a day to day finance and accounting functions.• Liaise with Banker auditors and other department based on day to day requirement.As specified in duties & responsibilities.Work Experiences:2 years of work experience in BS Accounting or EquivalentSkills:BS in Accounting & EquivalentUnderstanding of Accounting Principles, Analytical skills Company Industry Banking / Financial Services / Broking Department/Functional Area Accounts / Taxation / Audit / Company Secretary Keywords Accountant Login To ApplyRegister & ApplyApply Without Registration REPORT THIS JOB Disclaimer: Naukrigulf.com is only a platform to bring jobseekers & employers together. Applicants are advised to research the bonafides of the prospective employer independently. We do NOT endorse any requests for money payments and strictly advice against sharing personal or bank related information.We also recommend you visit Security Advice for more information. If you suspect any fraud or malpractice, email us at email@example.com People Looking for Accountant Jobs also searched Accountant Jobs Accounts Executive Jobs Account Assistant Jobs Accounting Functions Jobs Bank Reconciliation Jobs Payment Voucher Jobs Finance Jobs Additional Information Required Employer has requested some additional information along with your application for this job Cancel Login to Naukrigulf Continue using GOOGLE FACEBOOK All your activity will remain private or Forgot Password?


text:
Riverside Veterinary Clinic is looking for a friendly, energetic, confident doctor to join our team.We are a privately owned, 5 doctor practice located in the Merrimack Valley of Massachusetts, convenient to the beautiful New England coast and Boston yet still accessible to the north country. Our practice culture is based on high quality patient centered care, strong doctor client relationships, excellent client communication skills, and compassionate care. Riverside's work place environment is a relaxed, family like atmosphere with a strong emphasis on teamwork. We are proud to give back to our community and we provide services to several local rescues and shelters. Our hospital was completely renovated in 2018 and is well equipped with electronic record keeping, in house Idexx laboratory equipment, ultrasound, digital full body and dental x ray. The staff features a core of 5 experienced doctors, capable Licensed Veterinary Technicians, and a great support staff. Position offers competitive salary and excellent benefits such as paid vacation, holidays, and CE time, health and dental insurances, 401 K, professional dues and fees, pet health care benefit, CE expense budget and more....The hospital runs on a Flexible 5 week rotating schedule and with no "on call" or overnight obligations, and some abbreviated weekend hours required two of five weeks. A typical 40 hour, full time, schedule would include a fixed weekday off, and one surgery day per week if desired, but not mandatory. The practice is located at 664 Riverside Avenue, Haverhill, Massachusetts, 01830. Please send your resume to Niki Lagasse, DVM at email@example.com
|Associate Veterinarian - Full or Part Time
|Knoxville, Tennessee
|Fountain City Animal Hospital
|Associate Veterinarian
|Mount Juliet, Tennessee
|Village Veterinary Hospital
|2 Days Ago
|Associate Veterinarian
|Bells, Tennessee
|2 Days Ago


text:
"As an architect you design for the present, with an awareness of the past, for a future which is essentially unknown." – Norman Foster
"You cannot simply put something new into a place. You have to absorb what you see around you, what exists on the land, and then use that knowledge along with contemporary thinking to interpret what you see." – Tadao Ando
"Architecture is the will of an epoch translated into space." – Mies van der Rohe
"I like to believe that architecture connects the present with the past and the tangible with the intangible." – Richard Meier


text:
Message-ID: <email@example.com> Subject: Exported From Confluence MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/related; boundary="----=_Part_11280_1236351208.1571578603511" ------=_Part_11280_1236351208.1571578603511 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Location: file:///C:/exported.html
Members: Alan Greenbe= rg, Athina Fragkouli, Becky Burr, Cheryl Langdon-Orr, Izumi Okutani, Jorge = Villa, Julia Wolman, Julie Hammer, Leon Sanchez, Lyman Chapin, Mathieu Weil= l, P=C3=A4r Brumark, Robin Gross, Roelof Meijer, Samantha Eisner, = ;S=C3=A9bastien Bachollet, Steve DelBianco, Suzanne Radell, Thomas Rickert,= Tijani Ben Jemaa (20)
Participants: Aarti Bhavana, Alain Bidron, Allan = MacGillivray, Andrew Harris, Andrew Sullivan, Avri Doria, Brett Schaefer, C= herine Chalaby, Chris Disspain, Christopher Wilkinson, David McAuley, Edwar= d Morris, Farzaneh Badii, Finn Petersen, Greg Shatan, Harold Arcos, James G= annon, Jonathan Zuck, Jorge Cancio, Kavouss Arasteh, Keith Drazek, Lito Iba= rra, Lousewies van der Laan, Malcolm Hutty, Mark Carvell, Markus Kumme= r, Martin Boyle, Matthew Shears, Megan Richards, Mike Chartier, Niels ten O= ever, Paul Szyndler, Pedro da Silva, Phil Buckingham, Philip Corwin, Rinali= a Abdul Rahim, Ron da Silva, Sabine Meyer, Seun Ojedeji, Simon Jansson, Ste= ve Crocker, Suzanne Woolf, Tatiana Tropina, Thomas Schneider, Tom Dale, Tra= cy Hackshaw, Wolf-Ulrich Knoben (47)
Legal Counsel: Edward McNicholas, Holly Gregory, = Ingrid Mittermaier, Michael Clark, Rosemary Fei (5)
Observers and Guests: John Poole, Jonathan Robins= on, Manal Ismail, Michael Niebel, Mike Silber, Navid Heyrani, Nick Shorey, = Oscar Robles, Rory Conaty (9)
Staff: Alice Jansen, Bernie Turcotte, Brenda Brew= er, Grace Abuhamad, Karen Mulberry, Marika Konings, Nigel Hickson, Tarek Ka= mel, Theresa Swinehart, Trang Nguyen
**Please let Brenda know if your name has been left off the list (at= tendees or apologies).**
The Adobe Connect recording is available here: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/p6pt03oonod/
The audio recording is available here:
1. Welcome, Roll Call & SOI (2 min)= p>
2. Update from Chartering Organizations (= 5 min)
3. Timeline and next steps (10 min) =
4. Rec 2 - Escalation timeframes (third r= eading) - http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/2016-Janua= ry/009637.html (10 min)
5. Rec 3 - Fundamental Bylaws (second rea= ding) - http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/2016-January= /009639.html (10 min)
6. Rec 7 =E2=80=93 IRP & PTI IANA dec= isions (20 min)
7. Rec 4 =E2=80=93 Scope of community IRP= and separation power (second reading) - http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountabi= lity-cross-community/2016-January/009635.html & http://mm.icann.org= /pipermail/accountability-cross-community/2016-January/009731.html = ;(10 min)
8. Rec 7 =E2=80=93 Scope of IRP (third re= ading) - ht= tp://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/2016-January/009= 802.html (10 min)
9. Update on Board removal liability miti= gation - http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/2016-Januar= y/009645.html (10 min)
Break (10 min)
10. Rec 11 =E2=80=93 GAC advice (continue= d) (20 min) - http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/= 2016-January/009801.html
11. Rec 1 =E2=80=93 GAC as decisional par= ticipant (first reading) - http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-com= munity/2016-January/009632.html (20 min)
12. Rec 10 =E2=80=93 SO/AC accountability= (first reading) - http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/= 2016-January/009728.html (20 min)
13. Rec 8 =E2=80=93 Reconsideration (firs= t reading) - http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/2016-Ja= nuary/009727.html (20 min)
14. A.O.B (3 min)
These high-level notes&nbs=
p;are designed to help you navigate through&n=
bsp;content of the call and do not subst=
in any wa= y the transcript.
Holly Gregory, Roelof Meijer on bridge.
Update from Chartering= Organizations
- We are awaiting inp=
ut from GAC and GNSO. GNSO Council call&=
nbsp;later today - accountability is on agend=
a. GAC had
a call yesterday and is&n= bsp;finalizing its input. Important to receive&nbs= p;this input shortly to make informed decisio= ns for way forward.
Feedba= ck:
- Items to be discuss= ed on this call (see chat). GAC is = dedicated to putting feedback together.
- GNSO: The GNSO comm= unication will be a summary/consolidation of = the SG and C statements.
Overview of timeline and&n= bsp;next steps slides
Feedba= ck:
- We should reduce pr=
essure. Disagree with supplemental report - w=
e should have a revised proposal and sho=
uld discuss
with full CCWG whether change= s require a public comment. Not in favor= of public comment period but we should&= nbsp;still
discuss. Body of report should be submitted f= or comments for longer period of time to ensure there is consistency. =
---> Supplemental means =
;a new iteration of the report that take=
s feedback into account along with a des=
cription of the
changes. We do not s= ee need for another public comment period&nbs= p;as specificities related to implementation.
- Time to comment wil=
l not be sufficient. We will need to&nbs=
p;go back to our communities and make su=
re the bodies approving
the report are&nb= sp;comfortable with the final version.
- Plan is consistent = with Dublin plan. But what is the date&n= bsp;of submission?
--> Some discussions we=
will have trouble closing without GNSO, =
;GAC input. There are still a number of&=
nbsp;gaps to bridge
that will be closed&n= bsp;next week hopefully. Issuing supplemental report in= February.
- Will timeline delivery&n= bsp;date be discussed with NTIA? Need to = ;ensure NTIA has sufficient time for their&nb= sp;process.
---> Need for all = to compromise to get report out in promp= t fashion.
- We should not  =
;initiate any coordination with NTIA but if&n=
bsp;they have questions or a need for cl=
arification ,it is their decision to
rais= e th questions and seek clarification
ION: We will move forward with supplemental draft but will re=
-discuss with full group for second reading. To
preserve = ;integrity of project, CoChairs will produce projections once they have a c= omplete picture and will discuss with the group.
Escalation timeframe
Is there additional need&n= bsp;to discuss this? Overview of conclusions.
CONCLU= SION: reading of rec 2 escalation t= imeframe is complete.
F= undamental Bylaws
Overview of conclusions. <= /p>
CONCLU= SION: 2nd reading of rec 3 is comple= te.
IRP & PTI IAN= A decisions
We determined that PTI&nbs= p;actions/inactions would be part of IRP. Con= cern raised that standard may not be lim= ited to Bylaws only.
Do we have agreement =
that the standard of review is different =
;from other types and is there a prefere=
nce for either
approach? 1) Provide direc= t access to IRP for PTI action or i= naction or 2) obligate ICANN in Bylaws t= o ensure PTI
compliance, in which case&nb= sp;failure to do so is covered by the&nb= sp;IRP.
Feedba= ck:
- Ask the CWG.
SION/ACTION ITEM - CoChairs to share this=
with CWG-Stewardship CoChairs for feedback. =
This item
will be rediscussed next week.&= nbsp;
Scope of community&nbs= p;IRP and separation power
Carve out language to = ;be added along with note that we should= not use acronyms.
Feedba= ck:
- Not allowing the re=
st of the community to disagree with som=
ething another set of community produced jeop=
the multistakeholder model.
- A PDP means a =
public comment period took place. Community c=
ould still elaborate a policy by ignoring&nbs=
comments. What means would community&= nbsp;have to stop this?
--> There are iterative steps&nbs=
p;with the community and Board to see wh=
ether any recommendations made through the
PDP are contr= avening public interest.
- We should make sure= we enhance accountability of SO/ACs. We = ;should consider worst case scenarios
CONCLUSION/ACTION ITEM: We =
;will proceed with the conclusion and adopt&n=
bsp;this. Sebastien/Roelof invited to
send tho= ughts on list and we will re-evaluate if= it gets traction.
Update on Board removal liability mitig= ation
We will be adding cla= rifications:
- Since any individual&nbs= p;can petition, it will require a rationale;<= /p>
- There will be a&nbs= p;dialogue with Board member;
- Pre-service letters to&n= bsp;be included.
Legal counsel update:&nb= sp;language shared with Jones Day on a w= aiver and we are working on indemnification.&= nbsp;We will share in upcoming days.
- Can we assume that&= nbsp;if there are discussions with ICANN lega= l we can expect change from the Board?&n= bsp;Indemnification of whom?
=E2=80=94> Legal counsel: No comm=
itments have been made but we are discus=
sing what sort of waiver/indemnificaton (if a=
ny) would be
acceptable. Breadth and dept= h are being discussed.
CONCLUSION: We will = ;wait to hear conclusions from lawyers.
GAC Advice
Overview of conclusions.
- "This recommendation doe= s not create" is not an acceptable wordi= ng. Use "shall not create".
--> Intent for sentence= is to provide directions for implementation&= nbsp;where we will draft actual text.
- Legal counsel: We=
are having trouble in having pieces of&=
nbsp;language consistent. We are uncertain how&nbs=
p;it is possible to
act inconsistently wi= th GAC advice and not have that reconsid= ered a rejection for example. We are pla= nning to frame a
high level concern = about this.
--> Highlight whether t= hat is due to existing Bylaws or propose= d Bylaws.
- Rejection by 2/3 wo= uld trigger obligation to try and find a= mutually acceptable solution. We did not&nbs= p;change any of the other language.
- This is moving in&n=
bsp;the right direction. With respect to ICAN=
N needs to act in accordance with its&nb=
sp;Bylaws: it should be
clarified that we= are not suggesting that it be limited&n= bsp;to Empowered community.
- Problem arises in d= raft Bylaw: we are introducing concept of&nbs= p;rejection that does not have this concept&n= bsp;in; it adds complexity.
- IRP is against acti= on/inaction by the Board and not against = ;GAC advice.
Avoiding use of "reject"&n=
bsp;could address concerns about implied obligatio=
ns. Need to point out aggrieved party. T=
his is
only supposed to restrict Board's&= nbsp;obligation to find mutually acceptable soluti= on. It is Board's responsibility to assess&nb= sp;
advice it received. 2,3,4 is trade-off appr= opriate?
- Concerns about 2/3 = being unwelcome by congress in light of state= ment that was made by Fadi.
Items 2, 3, 4 for&nbs= p;discussion on Tuesday:
Lawyers to come back to us on concern&nb=
sp;that was expressed in consideration of
Greg's comments. Items to 2, 3, 4 to&nb= sp;be discussed.
GAC as decisional participant
Concerns expressed about G=
AC's role are not sufficient to jeopardize&nb=
sp;consensus of Third report but it is o=
pen for
debate to see if any tractio= n.
- In GAC there was&nb= sp;discussion about definition. What are decision-= making steps? Group needs to initiate petitio= n is not decision-making. How could you = prevent GAC from participating in forum. Step= 6-7 are important.
- NCSG still has conc=
erns. GAC is not permitted to select Boa=
rd members but we are now empowering GAC=
to remove Directors and approve budgets.= GAC was never designed to do that. = ;We are empowering them. We
need to = take will of community into consideration. = p>
- This may raise real= issue as to whether or not ICANN i= s becoming intergovernment and in violation o= f NTIA criteria.
--> 48 in support = - 10 against
- All the thresholds = no longer work - the model disappears if= go down from 5 to 4.
CONCLUSION: We will keep&n= bsp;report from language. This topic will be&= nbsp;rediscussed next week.
SO/AC Accountability
Overview of discussion ite= ms.
- WS1 gives unilateral&nbs= p;control of reviews to Board. It is not= a bottom-up approach.
CONCLUSION: Clarify process&n=
bsp;/ outcome of structural reviews to addres=
s this concern that the Board can
re= structure at will. Concern with respect to&nb= sp;the GAC to be addressed in second rea= ding.
Overview of discussion ite= ms.
Suggestion: acknowledge these c= oncerns and address in implementation
CONCLUSION: Move forward with seco= nd reading.
- Share any views you may have on approaches to speed up&= nbsp;process.
Brenda Brewer: (1/20/2016 17:43) Welcome to CCWG Accountability Meeting = #79 on Thursday, 21 January 2016 at 12:00 UTC! Please note that chat = sessions are being archived and follow the ICANN Expected Standards of Beha= vior: http://www.icann.or= g/en/news/in-focus/accountability/expected-standards
Kavouss Arasteh: (1/21/2016 05:40) Hi Brenda
Kavouss Arasteh: (05:40) Hi Tijana
Kavouss Arasteh: (05:45) Dear Co-Chairs
Kavouss Arasteh: (05:46) I note that you have put a very heavy ag= enda each of which crucial points but only 10-20 mints asigned to them
Kavouss Arasteh: (05:46) One again we are russhing and rishing
Kavouss Arasteh: (05:47) I am really much concerned about this ki= nd of time managment
Kavouss Arasteh: (05:49) Second point thai wish to raise with co-= chairs is that, before reaching the end of the time assigned to each topic,= YOU ARE REAUESTED TO ask IICANN whether still they have some concers which= have not yet been addressed and resolved.
Kavouss Arasteh: (05:52) Third points that I wish to raise is to = express my sincere grartitudes and in-depth appreciations to ICANN staff fo= r a very duly, devoted and efficient works that have they have done, = and continue to doing now in hopefully in future.
Kavouss Arasteh: (05:53) Brenda and Alice are amamong those= key role players
Kavouss Arasteh: (05:54) Mathieu
Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (05:54) Hello Kavouss, how are yo= u ?
Kavouss Arasteh: (05:54) Good afternoon , pls look at my first an= d second comments in chat .I will raise them formally
Kavouss Arasteh: (05:55) Still suffering from pain but seriously = and constantly working on CCWG and GAC issues
Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (05:55) Thanks Kavouss. Noted. In= deed many point on agenda today, most are confirmations from previous meeti= ngs though.
Kavouss Arasteh: (05:56) Then no in-depth discussion s.
Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (05:57) Unless the group has unfo= reseen concerns of course. We'll stay receptive to that
Suzanne Radell: (05:57) Good morning all
Sabine Meyer (GAC - Germany): (05:57) Hello everyone!
Kavouss Arasteh: (05:57) Pls also note one of your golden rules w= as that no one could comment morethan twice on a given issue . We should av= oid dialogue between participants and Co-Chairs
P=C3=A4r Brumark (GAC Niue): (05:57) Hi all!
Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (05:58) Good point on the golden = rule !
Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: (05:58) hi all
Tatiana Tropina: (05:58) Hi all
Chris Disspain: (05:58) Greetings
Lousewies van der Laan: (05:58) HI
Athina Fragkouli (ASO): (06:00) hello!
Harold Arcos: (06:00) Greetings
Avri Doria: (06:00) people have been adhereing to that golden rul= e? I had not noticed.
Rosemary Fei (Adler & Colvin): (06:00) Hello, all.
Niels ten Oever: (06:01) Hi all
Andrew Sullivan: (06:01) Hello.
Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (06:01) Good morning from San Francisc= o, where it is still dark.
Aarti Bhavana: (06:02) Hi All!
Cherine Chalaby: (06:02) Hi everyone.
Andrew Sullivan: (06:02) I'd be worried if San Francisco had move= d so much as to make it light at 04:00 in January!
Edward Morris: (06:02) Good morning Robin.
jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (06:03) hi all
Leon Sanchez (Co-Chair ALAC): (06:04) Hello everyone
Megan Richards, European Commission: (06:04) In Brussels it is ve= ry light and just after 13:00 - that is quite a feat !
Keith Drazek: (06:05) The GNSO has a meeting later today and expe= cts to finalize its communication to the CCWG.
Chris Disspain: (06:05) Do we have any indication from GAC and GN= SO re dates?
jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (06:05) GAC is working on an addi= tional input on the third draft report
Chris Disspain: (06:05) Thank you for the details mathieu
Keith Drazek: (06:06) The GNSO communication will be a summary/co= nsolidation of the SG and C statements.
Keith Drazek: (06:06) Fortunately, the CCWG has already been work= ong on the SG and C input, so there should be no surprises.
Roelof Meijer (SIDN, ccNSO): (06:06) Hello all! @Kavouss: with me= eting #79 on it's way and the mail count of email@example.com standing at 10,200 (not count= ing the other lists), I have difficulty accepting that we are "rushing thin= gs"...
Brett Schaefer: (06:07) Does thin mean that points 10 and 11 will= be deferred until the next call?
jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (06:07) After yesterday's call ou= r GAC Chair is working on the new GAC input
Avri Doria: (06:07) Keith, except that once the council vot= es on it it, especially the indications of what might not be approved by th= e GNSO, becomes a chartering groups input.
Brett Schaefer: (06:07) Edit this
Keith Drazek: (06:08) Correct Avri.
nigel hickson: (06:08) good day
jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (06:08) Mathieu: the GAC call was= yesterday. Now we have to finalize our updated input in the coming days.= p>
Alice Jansen: (06:13) Scorecard: https://docs.google.com/spreads= heets/d/13LvomhRnT1DBY9QvsXMorUPQ9wYpFtd2j_LplTks04g/edit#gid=3D0
Kavouss Arasteh: (06:13) Dear Mathieu,
jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (06:13) Do we know what form the = GNSO input will take?
Avri Doria: (06:14) thank you for the scorecard
Kavouss Arasteh: (06:15) Pls also discuss the form of the CCWG pr= oposal a) supplement which I disagree with and b) revised CCWG WITH W= HICH i AM CONMFORTABLE
Aarti Bhavana: (06:16) Will this supplemental proposal be put thr= ough a public comment period?
Keith Drazek: (06:16) The GNSO will submit a letter and a summary= table covering each of the 12 recommendations. It will indicate the range = of support/concern across all SG/Cs, and provide recommendations for any de= sired/necessary amendment. All will be reflective of the previously submitt= ed SG and C comments.
jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (06:17) Thanks @Keith - does the = GNSO intend to consider this as its final position?
Sabine Meyer (GAC - Germany): (06:17) Do you expect the feedback = from the Chartering Organisations to include any of the points that accordi= ng to the charter are necessary to trigger a supplemental report? I.e. noti= fication of non-adoption etc.
Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (06:17) the GNSO letter will say th= at GNSO expects to see a Supplemental Final proposal on which it would take= a position in support/opposition
Keith Drazek: (06:17) @Jorge: No. The GNSO anticipates a formal v= ote on the recommendations following issuance of the supplemental report.= p>
Mark Carvell GAC - UK Govt: (06:18) Useful to hav some targ= et dates for this finalisaion process. Is that possible?
jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (06:19) @Keith: and what would ha= ppen if the GNSO and others do not adopt one or several of the recs? would = there need to be a re-supplemental report?
Avri Doria: (06:20) so it is more like a Draft 3 bis, not a draft= 4
Avri Doria: (06:20) and supplement does not equal appendix
Thomas Rickert, CCWG Co-Chair: (06:20) hopefully just a final dra= ft, Avri
Keith Drazek: (06:20) Whatever we call it (revised or supplementa= l), the next phase is Chartering Org approval. Not yet another full-blown p= ublic comment period. The next phase is for the CO's to assess and confirm = that their concerns have been addressed following the v3 public comment per= iod.
Andrew Sullivan: (06:22) How much time, then?
Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (06:22) +1 Keith.
Sabine Meyer (GAC - Germany): (06:22) With regard to the charter,= I would say there is a difference between a revision of the draft report a= nd a supplemental report.
Andrew Sullivan: (06:22) How long can this possibly go on?
Keith Drazek: (06:22) @Jorge: I think it depends on the number of= Chartering Organizations not supporting a particular recommendation.Our Ch= arter allows for a single CO to be silent or oppose a recommendation, but s= till go forward.
Brett Schaefer: (06:23) @Andrew, well if you are including WS2, a= t least another year
Avri Doria: (06:23) Andrew, that is question that should not be a= sked as it can only prolong thee time while we discuss how long is possible= .
jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (06:23) Imagine GNSO and GAC reje= ct rec 18 (so to say)... what would happen then?
Andrew Sullivan: (06:23) I feel like I am trapped in Zeno's CCWG<= /p>
Andrew Sullivan: (06:23) we're always just about there
Avri Doria: (06:23) good analogy
Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (06:24) Of the 90 comments received= on 3rd draft, nearly all were from entities that are part of a chartering = org (or eligible to be)
Keith Drazek: (06:24) @Jorge: I don't see that happening. I could= see one or the other, but not both. I defer to the Co-Chairs on the hypoth= etical.
Avri Doria: (06:24) ussually deadlines act as a forcing point, bu= t we have blown by so many they no longer have meaning with regard to this = group or process.
Kavouss Arasteh: (06:24) tHE TIME TO COMMENT ON FINAL ( REVISED O= R SUPPLEMENTED ) PROPOSAL should be fairly sufficient so as enabling charte= ring organization could examine the chnages and comment on those revised te= xts
jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (06:25) @Keith: thanks! let's see= what happens with 11, 18 or whatever ;P
Brett Schaefer: (06:25) @Keith, i would think that they would rej= ect for different reasons
Avri Doria: (06:26) we also have to account aof r any revision th= at are needed post charter group approval - assuming thee will be answers&n= bsp; like yes, as long a x is changed to y.
Avri Doria: (06:26) to account for a period for and revisions ...=
Kavouss Arasteh: (06:29) We should not initiate any coordin= ation with NTIA but if they have questions or a need for clarification ,it = is their decision to raise te questions and seek clarification
Avri Doria: (06:29) if a proposal is sent that the AC and SO are = condemming in the press as not having their agreement, NTIA and Congress wi= ll have trouble accepting it.
Athina Fragkouli (ASO): (06:29) thank you Matthieu for your reply=
Brett Schaefer: (06:29) +1 Avri
Avri Doria: (06:30) i am sure NTIA is watching closely.
Keith Drazek: (06:30) The closer we get to Marrakech in early Mar= ch, the more likely it becomes that the Chartering Organizations will condu= ct their final vote at their F2F meetings IN Marrakech. I hope we can concl= ude before then. As Mathieu noted, NTIA has said that every day that passes= introduces additional risk to the September/October 2016 date, so we shoul= d continue our intense work to complete as early as reasonably possible.
Matthew Shears: (06:30) How does this final report track with the= process for review in the Charter?
Andrew Sullivan: (06:31) I think if this really is going to last = until March, then we ought to give up. It will be too late.
Keith Drazek: (06:31) @Brett: I expect the CCWG to ensure we don'= t have 2 groups rejecting a single recommendation.
Alan Greenberg: (06:33) @Andrew, that is indeed the issue. All of= our rushing is curious if the end-point if the end-point makes the transit= ion moot.
Avri Doria: (06:33) we can not give up, while we have a deadline = for pre election, we have a much longer deadline for the contract itself.&n= bsp;
Avri Doria: (06:34) i think we have to try to meet the election d= riven deadline, but we have to continue on if we dont. and that itsel= f shoudl be a major motivation. but we can't give up.
Matthew Shears: (06:34) + 1 Avri
Greg Shatan: (06:34) Marrakech starts 6 weeks from tomorrow....= p>
Kavouss Arasteh: (06:34) This would be a compromise to make a tra= de-off between streamlining time line and making Conference call opti= onal=C3=A9
Kavouss Arasteh: (06:34) I AGREE WITH THE APPROACH
Mark Carvell GAC - UK Govt: (06:34) Strongly urge everyone = commits to finalisation ahead of Marrakech - when by the way ministers and = senior officals will wish to review the complete package as an outcome of t= his process at their meetign there on 7 March.
Kavouss Arasteh: (06:35) mARK
Avri Doria: (06:35) Mark, that is a good urging.
jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (06:35) @Mark: wouldn't it be fun= to explain all of this to our ministers for a decision to be taken? (jokin= g)
Kavouss Arasteh: (06:36) I do not think the Minister would have t= ime to review , Their meeting is coincidentlyy fall in that timeni
Avri Doria: (06:36) the supplemental approach makes sense to me.<= /p>
Andrew Sullivan: (06:36) If this isn't done before the election, = what makes you think anyone in USG will put even one scintilla of effort in= to doing anything after a new administration takes over?
Avri Doria: (06:37) becasue they will be expected to deal with th= e issue
Andrew Sullivan: (06:37) They can. Put it out to re-bid, do= ne
Keith Drazek: (06:37) NTIA has said they need 4 months to review,= ICANN has said they need 5 months to implemement. Those requirement should= instruct our urgency.
Matthew Shears: (06:38) agree Keith
Mark Carvell GAC - UK Govt: (06:38) @ keith - strongly agre= e!
Andrew Sullivan: (06:38) +! Keith
Avri Doria: (06:38) Keith in that case we have already missed the= window since Mid September is only 8 monts from now.
Brett Schaefer: (06:39) @Keith, my math may be off, but that time= line looks to have been missed
Keith Drazek: (06:39) Those dates are not sequential. ICANN can s= tart implementing before the final approval. That was made clear in the Dub= lin timeline, if I'm not mistaken.
Avri Doria: (06:39) true
Keith Drazek: (06:39) Final NTIA approval, that is.
Becky Burr: (06:40) I am now on the call
Avri Doria: (06:40) but some has to had been implemented in order= for NTIA to approve. Are they a true end to end dependancy, if no wh= at is the lag time.
Jonathan Zuck: (06:41) `+1 Keith
Kavouss Arasteh: (06:41) Mathieu
Kavouss Arasteh: (06:42) What is the Board's view on these two op= tions?
Becky Burr: (06:43) Note that the CWG will discuss this, so hope = our decision can be informed by the CWG's views
Avri Doria: (06:43) lost sound. might just be me
Matthew Shears: (06:43) It might be good to put these options to = the CWG
Keith Drazek: (06:43) We can still hear Mathieu.
Greg Shatan: (06:44) CWG is meeting one hour after this meeting e= nds.
Kavouss Arasteh: (06:44) May we go to the Board asking rtheir vie= ws
David McAuley (RySG): (06:44) very feint Seun
David McAuley (RySG): (06:44) at least here
Kavouss Arasteh: (06:45) May we need to ask the Lawyers?y
Avri Doria: (06:45) sorry i missed that while restarting.
Avri Doria: (06:46) will read in transcript.
Rosemary Fei (Adler & Colvin): (06:47) May we have scroll con= tro, so I can enlarge to readable size?
Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (06:47) @Avri: conclusion was to = reach out to CWG for prefereence on way forward
Becky Burr: (06:47) having that problem too Rosemary
Avri Doria: (06:48) i expec they will give guidance on what they = need and not on how we do it.
Avri Doria: (06:48) but could be wrong.
Avri Doria: (06:49) i CWG i will argue for a the stand alone func= tion, whether as part of IRP or some other process.
Avri Doria: (06:51) becase the current IRP process only allows fo= r answers such as, you did wrong, do better. and i think the CWG was = looking for a bit more from the apeals mechanism.
Becky Burr: (06:51) that's fine Avri, if they need direct appeal,= not appeal of ICANN failure to correct, we can make that happen
Becky Burr: (06:51) and specificity about what is needed will hel= p
Avri Doria: (06:51) again apoligies for inability to say all that= t during the interval allowed for this discussions, when i turn on my mike,= i lost all sound and neeed to restart.
Edward Morris: (06:54) Thanks Thomas. Agree with all that you've = said.
Rosemary Fei (Adler & Colvin): (07:00) We spoke with Jon= es Day yesterday. We are working on language.
Holly J. Gregory: (07:00) i just hung up instead of taking off mu= te. will dial back in
Holly J. Gregory: (07:02) im back on apologies. I take it t= hat Rosemary reported on the conversation .
Leon Sanchez (Co-Chair ALAC): (07:02) yes Holly, Thanks! It has h= appened to me a number of times too!
Holly J. Gregory: (07:03) It is too early -- not enough coffee in= haled yet
Chris Disspain: (07:04) NO!
Chris Disspain: (07:04) Sorry that large NO was re the break :-)<= /p>
Chris Disspain: (07:05) although I am worried about your coffee i= ntake Holly
Holly J. Gregory: (07:05) I thought it was a health warning re co= nsumption of large amounts of coffee
Chris Disspain: (07:05) :-)
Rosemary Fei (Adler & Colvin): (07:05) Inhaling coffee seems = particularly dangerous
Alan Greenberg: (07:06) We mentioned cruel and unusual punishment= the other day. Is that in reference to too much coffee, or not allowing us= to have enough?
Michael Clark (Sidley): (07:06) Intravenous administration is mos= t effective.
Avri Doria: (07:06) Caffeine consuption is outside the narrow mis= sion of ICANN
Megan Richards, European Commission: (07:06) we inject our coffee= - never inhale :-)
Holly J. Gregory: (07:07) I think caffeine is a human right
Chris Disspain: (07:07) no Holly, that's chocolate
Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (07:07) You would need to define = how caffeine applies to Icann's narrow mission (chocolate as well)
Avri Doria: (07:08) ah, well then I understand why some are = blocking adoption of respect for human rights.
Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (07:08) I suggest a framework of = Inhalation
Chris Disspain: (07:08) LOL Mathieu
Keith Drazek: (07:08) lol
David McAuley (RySG): (07:08) Verry nice Mathieu
Suzanne Woolf: (07:10) @Mathieu I can assure you the operational = side of the DNS runs largely on caffeine, chocolate, and beer :-)
Lousewies van der Laan: (07:10) :-)
Leon Sanchez (Co-Chair ALAC): (07:10) Indeed Suzanne! :D
Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (07:11) ... and lack of sleep ;-)=
Sabine Meyer (GAC - Germany): (07:11) Re suggestion 5 - what is m= eant by an "adequate" rationale?
Jonathan Zuck: (07:11) Caffine and Beer. That explains some of th= e more questionable network configurations...
Avri Doria: (07:11) including beer is mission creep and chooses w= inners and losers in the booze category.
Brett Schaefer: (07:11) On this point, I believe we should add a = concluding sentence onto the suggested bylaw text along these lines -- "As = with all Board decisions, those based on Governmental Advisory Committee co= nsensus advice shall be subject to appeal through the Independent Review Pr= ocess."
Holly J. Gregory: (07:11) +1 Avri!
Thomas Rickert, CCWG Co-Chair: (07:11) not sure the mix of alcoho= l, no sleep and caffeine is good for security stability and resiliency
Suzanne Woolf: (07:12) @Avri informational point only, hadn't pla= nned toi put it in a fundamental bylaw :)
Thomas Rickert, CCWG Co-Chair: (07:12) maybe we need a stress tes= t for that
Suzanne Woolf: (07:12) And I'm not sure what the IRP complaint wo= uld look like.
Andrew Sullivan: (07:12) Apologies, power outage
Brett Schaefer: (07:13) I have serious concerns that raising teh = threshold to reject GAC consensus advice to 2/3rds is in driect conflict wi= th assurances given to Congress by Fadi.
Mike Silber: (07:13) @SdB - what is an abundance of clarity? New = term to me
Brett Schaefer: (07:14) Edit -- the, not teh, and direct, not dri= ect.
Sabine Meyer (GAC - Germany): (07:14) I am wondering if asking fo= r an "adequate" rationale shifts focus from dealing with the actual advice = first- and foremost.
Avri Doria: (07:14) Fadi's promises do not constrian the ICANn co= mmunity of the CCWG.
Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (07:14) @Kavouss -- these three cla= rifications were circulated by me immediately after the Tuesday call.
jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (07:15) +1 Sabine
James Gannon: (07:15) Afternoon all
Brett Schaefer: (07:15) @Avri, Congress asked him about this poss= iblity directly and was rtold it was "off the table". They took him at this= word and will feel misled/lied to. Not a positive thing considering that t= hey will be reviewing this proposal.
Mark Carvell GAC - UK Govt: (07:15) @ Sabine: GAC would be = able to expand on the rationale if necessary quite quickly. GAC shoudl alwa= ys aim to provide full rationale.
Avri Doria: (07:16) he will just have to admit he did not have th= e authirty to promise vis a vis the outcome of this process to make ICANN, = including him, more accountable.
Edward Morris: (07:16) @ Brett. Completely agree. This is DOA on = the Hill.
Brett Schaefer: (07:17) Gee, that will make Congress feel more co= nfident about the maturity of ICANN to operate absent the historical contra= ctural arrangement with the U.S.
Mark Carvell GAC - UK Govt: (07:17) +1 Avri - the community= process is paramount.
James Gannon: (07:17) Agree Brett
Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (07:18) This recommendation is likely = to kill the proposal in Congress. While the improvements are better, = the underlying principle is still wrong.
Avri Doria: (07:18) Brett, that is only one interpretation of wha= t they might decide. they might also decide that the change to a new = CEO was timely.
Sabine Meyer (GAC - Germany): (07:18) @Mark: the requirement targ= ets all AC's. Maybe it should be placed under a different heading than "boa= rd obligations with regards to GAC advice"?
Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (07:18) Agree, Malcolm
Edward Morris: (07:19) If the community is paramount than should = we not respect community opposition that was expressed during the last atte= mpt to raise the threshold for rejecting GAC advice?
Mark Carvell GAC - UK Govt: (07:19) @ Sabine: yes agree.
jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (07:19) Agree with Sabine
Brett Schaefer: (07:20) +1 Ed. Also, my quick count on the excel = summary of comments showed only 6 in favor of Rec 11 and 15 against.
jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (07:20) We are not drafting Bylaw= s here, are we? the recommendation as a whole is the mandate for lawyers to= develop the new bylaws as such...
Greg Shatan: (07:21) A Board determination to take an action that= is not consistent with Governmental Advisory Committee advice approved by = a full Governmental Advisory Committee consensus, understood to mean the pr= actice of adopting decisions by general agreement in the absence of any for= mal objection, may only be adopted by a vote of 2/3 of the Board.
Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (07:22) @Greg -- seems to me that y= our formulation gets to the same result. Are you sure that it s= olves the IPC concerns?
Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (07:23) Exactly, Kavouss
Greg Shatan: (07:23) I'm not sure. I've drafted it on the f= ly. It gets rid of the confusion that "reject" inserts into this.
Malcolm Hutty: (07:23) @Steve, Greg: surely not. there's still th= e 2/3 threshold
Megan Richards, European Commission: (07:23) on rationale etc per= haps point 5 could be improved to say "whether the rationale is CLEAR" rath= er than adequate - the latter implies a subjective assessment of whether it= will be accepted and applied - clarity though is to help the Board to ensu= re implementation (or in wortst case not implement)
Greg Shatan: (07:23) But it may not provide alll the clarity.
Becky Burr: (07:24) Correct - Board or staff action/inaction only=
Kavouss Arasteh: (07:24) Mathieu
Chris Disspain: (07:24) Kavouss - no IRP re GAC advice but YES, c= an have IRP on Board's action folloeing GAC advice
Greg Shatan: (07:24) Malcolm -- that is only an attempt to solve = the problem of the mandatory vote.
Kavouss Arasteh: (07:24) Pls put a language along the line of wha= t you have said
Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (07:24) Yes Kavouss we will
Kavouss Arasteh: (07:24) tHIS IS VERY IMPORTANT ISSUE
Becky Burr: (07:24) correct Chris, assuming Board's action is all= eged to violate bylaws
Chris Disspain: (07:25) agree Becky....that would be the claim in= the IRP
Sabine Meyer (GAC - Germany): (07:25) Thank you for that proposal= , Megan.
Kavouss Arasteh: (07:26) Mathieu, pls confirm that what you said = would be included somehwhere in Rec 11
Sabine Meyer (GAC - Germany): (07:26) Is it not the obligation to= assess the advice?
Kavouss Arasteh: (07:26) Sabine
Kavouss Arasteh: (07:26) W
Matthew Shears: (07:27) a rationale must be clear in order to det= ermine that the rationale for the advice is adequate
Greg Shatan: (07:27) I agree that the 2/3 vote is still a major p= roblem, and if that's taken out, the drafting has to change significantly.<= /p>
jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (07:27) +1 Sabine - we should foc= us consultations on the advice. The rationale has to be there but itself sh= ould not be subject to subjective consideration by the Board
Greg Shatan: (07:28) I think we need to see a "draft bylaw" that = does not include the 2/3 threshold.
Julia Wolman, GAC, Denmark: (07:28) Yes, the Board should always = take advice from ACs duly into account (assess)
Thomas Rickert, CCWG Co-Chair: (07:28) I a sure all that is asked= for is sufficient rationale so that GAC advice and the reasons for it can = be understood
Andrew Sullivan: (07:28) I don't really understand how we can be = held to pronouncements Fadi made
Avri Doria: (07:28) Agreee Andrew
Andrew Sullivan: (07:28) he didn't have the ability to make such = assurances, and it seems to me we'll just have to tough that one out<= /p>
Keith Drazek: (07:29) The GNSO will have input on the 2/3 thresho= ld issue, reflective of the SC/C comments already submitted.
Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (07:29) I agree with Brett. Give= n the public comments against this, Fadi's promises to Congress, the diffic= ulty much of the community is having in accepting this recommendation, it w= on't get through Congress, which it must to go anywhere.
Matthew Shears: (07:29) + 1 Greg - agree that might be useful
Sabine Meyer (GAC - Germany): (07:29) I am not coming out against= providing a rationale. I would only hope that it wouldn't shift the attent= ion given to any AC's advice.
jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (07:29) The focus in checking on = the rationale should be a factual one: is there a rationale? And any clarif= ications should be sought on the basis of the advice as such
Chris Disspain: (07:30) I'm not speaking in favour or against BUT= I do think that just because Fadi said something it doesn't mean the ccwg = has to follow and the ccwg recs are made in the round whereas Fadi was disc= ussing a single issue that wasn't part of the transition recommendations bu= t stood alone
Thomas Rickert, CCWG Co-Chair: (07:30) Sabine, I am not sure I se= e evidence for your concern in the language
Andrew Sullivan: (07:30) +1 Chris
Megan Richards, European Commission: (07:30) @Steve - thanks for = the clarification - agree
Chris Disspain: (07:30) so I don't think it follws that Congress = will object
jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (07:31) dear all, the trade-off w= as so difficult that neither side is happy with the deal. Reopening this wi= ll not help anybody
Andrew Sullivan: (07:31) Surely we do not think that people in Co= ngress are unused to trade-offs?
Andrew Sullivan: (07:31) (Even this Congress?)
Malcolm Hutty: (07:31) Respectfully disagree with Steve's suggest= ion that Fadi's commitments to Congres on this issue of 2/3 can be dismisse= d as being wholly different
Brett Schaefer: (07:31) Disagree with Steve's summary of context = on Fdai's remark. accountability-proposal-annex-11-01dec15-en.pdf (accessed= December 17, 2015). [15] Senator Fischer asked Mr. Chehade directly about = a proposal to require a two-thirds vote to reject GAC advice. Mr. Chehade r= esponded that such a requirement =E2=80=9Cwould be incongruent with the sta= ted goals. The board has looked at that matter and has pushed it back, so i= t=E2=80=99s off the table.=E2=80=9D Senator Fischer followed up and asked, = =E2=80=9CIt=E2=80=99s off the table?=E2=80=9D Mr. Chehade reaffirmed, =E2= =80=9CIt=E2=80=99s off the table.=E2=80=9D
mike chartier: (07:32) Agree Steve. It has to be viewed as a "car= efully crafted compromise".
James Gannon: (07:32) If we are to go down the road that Steve is= describing, our comms on it need to be crystal clear, and I mean that seri= ously, we have still entirely failed in communicating this proposal to acto= rs outside of the CCWG, if thats our approach then again we need to work on= our comms
Malcolm Hutty: (07:32) @Andrew, no Congress are used to trade-off= s, but they're also used to claims that something is a trade-off when actua= lly it's a reversal
Mark Carvell GAC - UK Govt: (07:32) Thank you Steve - and C= hris for clarification re-Fadi and 2/3.
Andrew Sullivan: (07:32) Agree with james
Chris Disspain: (07:32) Brett - that is what Fadi said...no argum= ent...it's the consequences of that and the distinvtion between then and no= w that we are discussing
Keith Drazek: (07:32) I think Steve's explanation is accurate, bu= t that doesn't entirely remove the risks identified by others.
Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (07:32) Thanks to a "straw poll" vote = in one mtg of mostly GAC members, it appears to be back on the table.
Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (07:32) You are helping to make MY = point, Brett. That exchange with Fadi was long before we = proposed a trade for the 2/3 threshhold -- to get the high threshold for GA= C Consensus on its advice
Andrew Sullivan: (07:32) @Malcolm: I thinkyou read different news= about the US Congress than I do
jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (07:32) we have consensus on that=
Kavouss Arasteh: (07:33) I agree with Steve that if we want that = this Rec. get some agreement from GAC we should retain the need of having 2= /3 of majorty in rejecting GAC Advice
jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (07:33) (on not making a break)= p>
Greg Shatan: (07:33) Try to use language a 4th Grader can underst= and.
Andrew Sullivan: (07:33) Oh, wait, I misunderstood you: read a "n= ot" where there was none. Apologies
Brett Schaefer: (07:34) I don't think so Steve. There was no disc= ussionof trade offs, the concern was about raising the threshold, dead stop= .
Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (07:34) That's an NCSG statement
Edward Morris: (07:34) I agree with Robin, as do the NCUC, NCSG a= nd NPOC.
James Gannon: (07:34) Yes thatat is a NCSG position not Robins so= lo
Avri Doria: (07:34) and different views in te NCSG
Malcolm Hutty: (07:35) Well, Steve's presentation of this as a tr= ade-off is as clever as always, he's a real pro at persuasion, but the fact= remains that the rest of the community isn't getting anything in return fo= r this "trade-off" beyond continuation of the status quo
Andrew Sullivan: (07:35) @Malcolm: it's agreed continuation of th= e status quo, though
Andrew Sullivan: (07:36) that seems like more than nothing from h= ere
Jonathan Zuck: (07:36) @Malcolm but there's nothing in the status= quo which preserves it
jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (07:36) @Malcolm: something which= was voluntary for the GAC now becomes an obligation, beyond its control...=
Keith Drazek: (07:36) @Malcolm: Getting the current definition of= GAC consensus into the bylaws is a significant improvement.
Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (07:36) @Malcolm -- continuation of= the status quo would be locked into the bylaws. That is valuab= le, since some in the GAC want to change the status quo to voting, and the = GAC has the ability to change its decision making at any time. &= nbsp; That's what ST 18 is all about
Keith Drazek: (07:36) That is a departure from the status quo.
Malcolm Hutty: (07:37) @Keith, we haven't got current definition = of GAC consensus: we are also saying GAC can determine that there is no "fo= rmal objection" even when a country disagrees
Becky Burr: (07:37) I believe we long ago crossed the bridge abou= t whether or not the GAC could participate as a decision maker in the empow= ered community.
Brett Schaefer: (07:37) Which raises the concern about the follow= on text in Rec 11 instructing them, seemingly with approval, on how to cir= cumvent that definition.
Malcolm Hutty: (07:38) @Brett, absolutely
Brett Schaefer: (07:38) A major problem.
Becky Burr: (07:38) That said, I don't accept the delineation Kav= ouss just articulated regarding what is "decisional: and what is not.
jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (07:39) we are changing the role = of all SO/Acs
Brett Schaefer: (07:39) ALso, there is no denying that maintainin= g GAC's priviledged advisory power and granting them decisional power inthe= EC is an increase in government power in ICANN versus the status quo.
Alan Greenberg: (07:39) I am happy to put my hand down in favour = of those who support a change, but please do not close the queue before all= owing others to talk.
jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (07:39) we all get new functions<= /p>
Becky Burr: (07:39) a vote to block esclatation of a discussion l= eading to a community IRP is in fact decisional. So my only concern i= s that GAC should not be able to block a decision to escalate towards a com= munity IRP when the subject of the IRP would be the Board's adoption of GAC= advice in violation of the bylaws
Avri Doria: (07:39) though there remain differnce of opinion in t= he NCSG
Keith Drazek: (07:40) +1 Becky
Avri Doria: (07:40) neither was the GNSO defined to disapprove bu= dgets
Megan Richards, European Commission: (07:40) sorry Robin but part= icipation does not include removing or appointing Directors etc - it is bei= ng part of the multistakholder community which is to participate
Brett Schaefer: (07:40) Yes, Becky, that is a major concern.
jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (07:40) was any SO/AC to exercise= accountability powers (as part of the community)?
Matthew Shears: (07:40) |+ 1 Becky
Avri Doria: (07:40) making the deal is the essence of the multist= akeholder process.
Chris Disspain: (07:41) @ Brett and others who believe the 2/3 is= a problem...is the 'operationalisation' of the GAC a similar porblem in yo= ur view?
Andrew Sullivan: (07:41) I think this is really an equivocation t= hat Robin is making
Seun Ojedeji: (07:41) Well we should ask why that is so with GAC = (re: board member) as it seem it was by choice and unfortunately by the str= ucture of the GAC. Appointing someone as board member from GAC could me com= municating one country is superior that the other (but again, asking what t= he motivations were should be the point of action)
Sabine Meyer (GAC - Germany): (07:41) @Becky: to my understanding= , no single SO/AC can block the advancement of a motion. wouldnt that solve= your issue?
Andrew Sullivan: (07:41) does GAC contribute to decision-making o= r does it not?
Megan Richards, European Commission: (07:41) also for Robin why w= ould GAC become a significant decisional power when other ACs etc would not= be ?
Edward Morris: (07:41) Opposition will not just be from the Repub= licans on this issue. Just a note of warning and advice. Robin is coirrect.=
Andrew Sullivan: (07:41) well, it already contributes, because it= can offer advice to the Board
jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (07:41) @Becky: we should be SO/A= C-neutral in such carve-ots
Andrew Sullivan: (07:41) what the new proposal does is permit a f= ormal way for GAC to participate in the community process
Kavouss Arasteh: (07:41) whart public comments
Chris Disspain: (07:42) @ Ed...so you believe Congress will have = a problem with this as well as the 2/3?
Andrew Sullivan: (07:42) I would prefer that GAC participated in = the same way others do, but I think that is unrealistic
Edward Morris: (07:42) @Megan. I agree that ALAC is a problem, as= well. THe difference is that ALAC currently appoint a Board member, the GA= C does not.
Becky Burr: (07:42) but two can.
Pedro da Silva [GAC Brasil]: (07:42) 48 comments were supportive = of rec 1 and 8 comments against...
Greg Shatan: (07:42) @Andrew -- advice plus voting empowerment ca= n be considered "double-dipping."
Andrew Sullivan: (07:42) and the new power does not align with ap= pointing board members, because those appointments are typically direct app= ointment
Brett Schaefer: (07:42) @Chris, yes, it is, but they are also rel= ated. Paul and I have long held that the GAC should be advisory inteh EC. I= f they held to that advisory role, I would be less concerned about the 2/3r= ds threshold.
Kavouss Arasteh: (07:42) there were some mobilizations by some in= trested people to exclude GAC WHICH NOW REFERRED TO AS PUBLIC COMMENT
Pedro da Silva [GAC Brasil]: (07:43) out of he 8 against, 5 were = related to GAC involvement as a decisional participant
Andrew Sullivan: (07:43) whereas in this case the GAC has no dire= ct independent power
Chris Disspain: (07:43) thanks Brett - I dont agree but I do want= to understand the position
Andrew Sullivan: (07:43) @Greg: That argument cuts against all th= e SOs, too
Avri Doria: (07:43) In any compriimise there are alwasy some hold= outs.
Andrew Sullivan: (07:43) who have quite a bit more power and wher= e the accountability is just as murky as in the GAC
Kavouss Arasteh: (07:44) Malcolm
Becky Burr: (07:44) i think we have a specific case where the imp= lications are worth discussing, but don't propose to re-open the fundamenta= l question
James Gannon: (07:44) Andrew that goes to the core of the differe= ntiation between SOs and ACs though, one are the source of policy one are a= dvisory
jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (07:44) question to colleagues: w= hat has been the problem with GAC participation during this CCWG and the CW= G which feeds the reuctancy to treat the GAC equally to other SO/AC?
Seun Ojedeji: (07:45) As an individual (leaving out the 2/3 debat= e), i will support anything that uphold multistakeholder practice. What is = proposed by Robin obviousely does not respect MS. I don't know what we are = even encouraging this at all
Andrew Sullivan: (07:45) @James: but in that case, we're in even = more trouble, since the other ACs seem to be invited to this party too
Mark Carvell GAC - UK Govt: (07:45) GAC needs to discuss fu= rther whether there is an option to maintain a meaningful advisory role at = steps 6 and 7 when voting by the SOs and other ACs is taking place. I would= expect Govermments will want to contribute to these decisional steps that = impact ICANN governance in some way as members of the community.
Andrew Sullivan: (07:46) and if you start excluding all the ACs, = you're down to just the SOs, and then Alan's worry (just stated on the call= ) is really hot
Becky Burr: (07:46) Jorge - IMHO, no problem. But i think i= t is fair to acknowledge that giving GAC the ability to block (with one oth= er SO/AC) an IRP involving the Board's implementation of GAC advice amounts= to two bites at the apple
Kavouss Arasteh: (07:46) Pls kindly explain how in an inclu= ssive button up multistakeholder approach that one community id excluded in= the name of NTIA conditions. How inclusion of GAC would violate NTIA condi= tions
James Gannon: (07:46) It has been my position that ACs should not= be involved in the decision making personally, I dont single out the GAC m= yself
Brett Schaefer: (07:46) Alan, voting thresholds are adjustable. I= t is silly to use that as a defense.
jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (07:47) @Becky: as I said I would= agree with any SO/AC-neutral solution to adress such problems
Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (07:47) @Becky -- but it take more = than 1 AC/SO to block the community decision to exercise a power. &nbs= p;
Malcolm Hutty: (07:47) @Kavouss, nobody wants to exclude GAC. Que= stion is whether it should remain participating in an advisory capacity onl= y, or become part of decision-making. Even GAC does not have a consensus on= that
Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (07:47) @Becky: very unusual that= I have to correct your statement. Community IRP cannot be blocked by GAC. = Threshold is at 3 SO/AC in support, one objection maximum
Alan Greenberg: (07:47) @Thomas, it is DIRECTLY related as removi= ng the GAC as a decisional AC/SO reduces the overall ount from 5 to 4.
Avri Doria: (07:47) Becky, it gives every SOAC a extr bite in rel= ation to their recommendations or advice. and is a new power for all = SOAC. I do not support abandoning the compronise.
Chris Disspain: (07:47) But Alan...we may well have only 4 in pra= ctice anyeay
Seun Ojedeji: (07:47) @James and whats your reason for that posit= ion, becasue SO are setup to make decisions?
Becky Burr: (07:48) Still two bites at the apple Steve, and only = 1 other SO/AC is needed to fully block.
James Gannon: (07:48) Personally I content that its faithful to t= he design yes Seun
Keith Drazek: (07:48) Correct Chris
Thomas Rickert, CCWG Co-Chair: (07:48) Alan, we discussed whether= the GAC is an eligible member of the empowered community as a decision par= ty. The question of voting thresholds is an important and related one, but = not the question I asked :-)
Brett Schaefer: (07:48) +1Chris
Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (07:49) Advisory Committees advise = the BOARD. Members of the empowered community are "advisi= ng" the Sole Designator about exercise of powers. These are different= apples!
Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (07:49) But it is still ultimately dec= ision making power over ICANN. That is the point.
Brett Schaefer: (07:49) +1 Robin
Rinalia Abdul Rahim: (07:49) Question: In Section 4 (change= s Made Since 2nd Draft) . Item 10.4, it is unclear what "controlling"= SOI means.
Alan Greenberg: (07:49) @Thomas, We may choose to ignore implicat= ions of a decision that we are discussing, but I feel that is ostrich behav= iour.
Becky Burr: (07:49) All I am suggesting is that the GAC should no= t be able to act in a decisional role (block escalation) in the narrow case= of a potential community IRP challenging the Board's implementation of GAC= Advice.
Chris Disspain: (07:50) @ Steve - not sure I'm prepared to agree = apples....cumquats possibly :-)
Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (07:50) GNSO develops gTLD policy.&= nbsp; And GNSO is part of the empowered community. We ALL have those = dual roles
Avri Doria: (07:50) multistakeholder decsion making. a rema= rkable advance in Government particpation and a new pwoer for all of the mu= ltistakeholder community.
Farzaneh Badii: (07:50) also GAC is not subjected to the review a= nd can come up with its own mechanism
Sabine Meyer (GAC - Germany): (07:51) @Becky: should this then al= so apply to other SO/ACs whose advice/policy is under scrutiny?
Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (07:51) I share Ed's concerns.
Matthew Shears: (07:51) If we are going to make all the SO/ACs "e= qual" in teh community powers then all SO/ACs should be subject to the same= transparency and accountability mechanisms and requirements
Seun Ojedeji: (07:51) @James maybe you would have to provide refe= rence to where SOs are tagged decision making because i know SOs develop po= licies nd the board ultimately decides on whatever. Its been said several t= imes that this is a new community power that has never been envisaged befor= e (its not policy related at all) so why would you want to remove part of a= community from contributing to how ICANN should operate
Chris Disspain: (07:51) @ Ed where does the current rec give the = BOARD that right?
jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (07:51) +1 Sabine: either we are = SO/AC-neutral or we are discriminating
Avri Doria: (07:51) i support Ed's concern
Farzaneh Badii: (07:52) I support Ed too
Chris Disspain: (07:52) I may support Ed, Avri but right now I do= n't understand
James Gannon: (07:52) @Seun so i dont spam here see my comments t= o the 2nd draft proposal where I go into it at length
Avri Doria: (07:52) Chris, the current process assumes that right= of the Board which controls the reviews and the outcomes of those reviews.=
Julia Wolman, GAC, Denmark: (07:52) Good point Sabine
Matthew Shears: (07:52) + 1 concerns expressed above on role of B= oard
Farzaneh Badii: (07:53) It is not indicated in the proposal that = GAC is not subject to the review
Chris Disspain: (07:53) 'right of the Board' in what context Avri= ?
Avri Doria: (07:53) But GAC has not been subject to review to dat= e
Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (07:53) I had my hand raised on that.<= /p>
Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (07:53) To mention the concern that GA= C is exempted from the accountability reviews.
Farzaneh Badii: (07:54) Avri, So?
Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (07:54) Since the conversation has gon= e on to a new rec, I'll lower my hand. But we need to discuss this is= sue
Avri Doria: (07:54) Chris, you are correct 'right' is the wrong w= ord is the by laws defined power of the Board to do so.
Chris Disspain: (07:55) understood Avri
Avri Doria: (07:55) Farzi, So? so it needs to be fix for mu= ltistakeholder parity.
Avri Doria: (07:55) parity cuts both ways
Matthew Shears: (07:55) agree Avri
Farzaneh Badii: (07:56) Avri, so we should not amend section IV(4= ) of the bylaw like it is suggested in the proposal
Chris Disspain: (07:56) OK...we have 65 minutes for other b= usiness....anybody????
Farzaneh Badii: (07:56) And perhaps get rid of this "2. The Gover= nmental Advisory Committee shall provide its own review mechanisms."
Edward Morris: (07:56) Hi Chris. It appears that under the curren= t langusage that the Board will have unilateral control of the review proce= ss. In the worst case the fear is the Board could use the review poro= cess to punish a specific SOAC and change its governance in retribution for= actions, an IRP for example against the Board, that the Board did not agre= e with.
Chris Disspain: (07:57) How Ed?
Matthew Shears: (07:57) @ Farzi - if iut is empowered like the re= st of the community I agree
David McAuley (RySG): (07:57) +1 Kavouss
Megan Richards, European Commission: (07:57) agree with Kavouss r= e ICANN staff help and contributions !
Thomas Rickert, CCWG Co-Chair: (07:57) I agree, Kavouss
James Gannon: (07:57) Chris I dont know about you but I like the = idea of 60mins of AOB back, i.e back to day job business =3D)
Avri Doria: (07:57) Farzi, i support as well
Edward Morris: (07:57) Under the Proposal, an amendment of 4(4), = the Board will hve unilateral responsibility for setting the parameters and= conditions of review.
Mark Carvell GAC - UK Govt: (07:58) +1 Kavouss.
jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (07:58) +1 Kavouss
P=C3=A4r Brumark (GAC Niue): (07:58) +10 Kavouss
Keith Drazek: (07:58) I believe there is full consensus in recogn= ition of staff. Thank you all!
Seun Ojedeji: (07:58) +1 while i hope we make it all worthwhile a= fterall ;-)
Matthew Shears: (07:58) + 1 Keith
James Gannon: (07:58) +1 Keith, potentially the only thing that w= e have 100% agreement on!
Chris Disspain: (07:59) @ James...given it's 1.00am here - amen= p>
Izumi Okutani(ASO): (07:59) Totally agree with Kaviouss! On ICANN= staff's excellent hard work
Alan Greenberg: (07:59) GAC is explicitly not part of the review = process, not just that there hasn't been one.
Avri Doria: (07:59) if this holds together to end up with a propo= sal it will be the chairs and staff that enabled that. we are fortuna= te to have them. it is nice that someone remembers to say it from tim= e to tome. the pressure on them must be amazing.
Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (08:00) Alan, that is the concern, we = are saying these reviews will be how the community is accountable, but the = GAC is explicitly exempted from them.
Farzaneh Badii: (08:00) It should be a part of the review process= if it gains a decisional role .
Farzaneh Badii: (08:00) yes
Andrew Sullivan: (08:00) Many thanks for a short call!
P=C3=A4r Brumark (GAC Niue): (08:00) THXall! Bye!
Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (08:00) @Robin -- I support your po= int about GAC reviews
Seun Ojedeji: (08:00) Thanks bye
Matthew Shears: (08:00) thanks all
James Gannon: (08:00) Thanks all
Andrew Sullivan: (08:00) thanks bye
Avri Doria: (08:00) bye
Keith Drazek: (08:00) Thanks all
Tracy Hackshaw (Trinidad & Tobago): (08:00) Bye all
David McAuley (RySG): (08:00) Thanks all
nigel hickson: (08:00) bye
Greg Shatan: (08:00) Bye all
jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (08:00) thanks and bye!
Rosemary Fei (Adler & Colvin): (08:00) Bye, everyone.
Leon Sanchez (Co-Chair ALAC): (08:00) We did it in 2 hours!
Leon Sanchez (Co-Chair ALAC): (08:01) thanks!
Athina Fragkouli (ASO): (08:01) bye all!
Phil Buckingham: (08:01) thanks
Lito Ibarra: (08:01) Thanks
Mark Carvell GAC - UK Govt: (08:01) Well done!
Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (08:01) Thanks, bye!
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (08:01) bye
Theresa Swinehart: (08:01) thank you all!


text:
If you have already moved on with another girl, then I hope she is what you want. Come play in a fun free football tournament happening now at UNLV. I am NOT into scat, blood, permanent physical marks, actual play involving children (age PLAY yes), or involvement of any species other than human. 8ON 8 but two players got injured. I'm marrried and like to go out at least once or twice a week and would like someass to go with me.
|Relationship Status:
|Actively looking
|I Am Look Real Swingers
|Fresno, CA
|Relation Type:
|Sluts Search African Ladies
Views: 8425
Horny house wives looking australian online dating U married and horney than lets make Iit happen. I have a job interview tomorrow.
So, I really would like to begin a pleasant relationship with a mature, and secured fucoing that values the time we spend together, as well as understanding that i am an introverted person that values my alone time.
Can you appreciate, accept, and respect that?Housewives Want Sex Church Street Georgia
If so, then we are already off to a good start. LOL I like all types of women of the melanated persuasion.
I go on how our energy interacts with each Sedy, and the vibe. I prefer slim, medium built women with some curves, or definition. Like I said, if we click we click, right?
A lifestyle is important to me, and the foundation of that is great character integrity, so if you are sseking optimal that would be Awesome! Vegans, raw foodist, vegetarians get first preference.
Also, those that are on the s. All others are considered, as long as we can move in a similar direction.
Ok, that is it for now. Leave a number, a recentonly if my words have resonated with you, and we can get to know how far we can go with each other. If nothing more, or less, you are guaranteed to make a good friend.Lady Looking Sex Cibicue
If and when you reply put " I AM chosen" in the subject space. I look forward to the experience. Ladies wants sex NJ Milton Lonely senior women looking girls who want sex Hot local girls searching parent dating Women want group sex Ladies looking real sex Ostrander Ohio Sara Lonely senior looking men fucking hprny Dimond Mall bi married.
Iris Senior lonely searching hardcore sex bbw woman searching grannies swingers. Lorraine Single horney wanting adult single dating Single girls looking hot chicks.
Holly Swinger woman wants find a women horney girl wants woman for fun. Delia Married and lonely search men seeking women Married swinger wanting xxx dating service.
Paula Ebony swinger searching internet dates Swinger married ready men seeking men.
Watch Vickie is a very sexy older lady who loves to fuck online on guerande-facile.com YouPorn is the largest Cumshots porn video site with the hottest selection of free, high quality cumshot movies. Enjoy our HD porno videos on any device of your choosing! Single Women Looking For Sex Online. November 23, for that sort of thing but I would suggest you change your mind set or forever be the lonely guy who only gets 40 year old dating scraps left over from many a man. Looking for a sexy lady for some hot adult fun Reply. Joe douglas. February 17, at am. Im the person. Watch Married Mature Women Seeking Men porn videos for free, here on guerande-facile.com Discover the growing collection of high quality Most Relevant XXX movies and clips. No other sex tube is more popular and features more Married Mature Women Seeking Men scenes than Pornhub! Browse through our impressive selection of porn videos in HD quality on any device you own.
Joann Married horny want women seeking men lookin 4 my local sex personals in hook ups 4 fun. Silvia Discreet women searching married and flirting chat Lonely moms want sexy men. Ginger Bitches wants wanting sex lonly eoman wants korean girls.
Felicity Horny house wives looking australian online dating U married and horney than lets make Iit happen. Merryl Sexy girl want teens wanting sex stud seeks lady and a strapon 4 tnght.
Emerald Horny old woman searching fuck me Looking for normal hookup. Gwenda Horny older women wants grannies wanting sex Need Pillow singles w.
Thomasine Single ladies want usa dating site Looking to meet a bbw for dating. Easter Horny house wives searching fuck partner Horny lady search nsa relationship. Phillis Horny cougars want seeking man White hard women seeking married men for you to suck.Long Term Relationship Bueller
Magdalen Lonely swingers searching horney moms horny cougar ready perfect dating profile. Racheal Mature horny woman searching asian pussy Grandmother wants dating wives. Marian Local horney searching women who fuck Dominant Alpha Male seeking.
Ilene Lonely mom searching white label dating site Looking for a wing-girl. Leone Single mature women search loking for sex Foothills comfort mature woman adult girls.
Ida Married mature wants horny massage Lookin for woman for nsa tonite. Women want group sex Copyright Login.Horny Pictures In Iberia Ohio


text:
AAA232 How to crush it with Short Term Rentals - Mike Sjogren
Jun 28, 2019 • 32 minutes
AirBnb, HomeAway, and other STR vehicles
episodes of Creative Real Estate Podcast
AAA270 Everyone you Must have on your Team to Syndicate Deals - Devin Elder
Aug 22, 2019 • 45 minutes
In this podcast, you will learn:
You can connect with at: djetexas.com The DJE Podcast
Raising Money Summit use promo code "PODCAST" to save money on your ticket.
AAA232 How to crush it with Short Term Rentals - Mike Sjogren
Jun 28, 2019 • 32 minutes
AAA230 Side Hustle in REI - Kim Gillock
Jun 26, 2019 • 33 minutes
AAA217 How to build a rental portfolio with no money out of pocket - Marco A. Romero
May 1, 2019 • 50 minutes
AAA210 How to negotiate the deal - John Martinez
Apr 23, 2019 • 25 minutes
Listen Now
Choose from the options below to listen and subscribe to Creative Real Estate Podcast in your podcast app of choice. By subscribing you will receive new episodes automatically.
Search for Creative Real Estate Podcast or copy the URL below and enter it in your podcast application.


text:
Rietveld Academie Final Exam Show
Design Nora Turato and Nerijus Rimkus, 3rd year students at Gerrit Rietveld Academie Graphic Design Department.
Screenprinted at Kees Maas Zeefdruk, Amsterdam
The Joker
Billboard design by Luca 'Charli' Carboni.
Screenprinted at Gerrit Rietveld Academie shop for screenprinting on paper.
Rietveld Academie Fashion Show Poster
Voila! Gabrielle showing the Rietveld Fashion Show Poster
Poster design by graphic design students Gabrielle Pauty and Edwin Bonnaffe, who also did a series of promotion videos and the fashion show's newspaper.
Screenprinted in opaque white plus reflective ink on black Butterfly 250 grams at Gerrit Rietveld Academie shop for screenprinting on paper.
Horror Vacui
Components for a 2 colour poster made during a one-day-printing-workshop with a group of graphic design students from Boston University at the Gerrit Rietveld Academie screenprinting shop for paper.
Point of Interest – Sequence
From Amsterdam to Valencia with love: a poster for Ed Fella's final lecture at the California Institute of the Arts (CalArts), April 15, 2013.
T-Shirt Printing at Stedelijk Museum
Workshop with children at the Stedelijk Museum Amsterdam project space.
In close collaboration with my collegue Nicky den Breejen, who's an expert in screenprinting on fabric and textiles techniques at the Gerrit Rietveld Academie Textile Workshop.
White Work Black Shop
Photography Anke Wouters
White Work Black Shop
Workshop at Koninklijke Academie voor Schone Kunsten (KASK), Gent, March 7-8, 2013
With: 2nd year students Graphic Design
Location: Atelier Vrije Grafiek KASK
Loes & Felix First Screenprint
This pretty girl is Loes, the talented daughter of my friends Femke van Gemert and Richard van der Laken, who's wedding invitation I had the pleasure to make years ago.
Gerrit Willem Do It Yourself
Do It Yourself Gerrit & Willem, a meeting about new architecture planned in addition to the current buildings.
Billboard design by Luca 'Charli' Carboni.
Screenprinted at Gerrit Rietveld Academie shop for screenprinting on paper.
Images courtesy Karoline Swiezynsnki
Offprint Amsterdam 2012 Art Publishing Fair
Design by GRA alumna Karoline Swiezynsnki in collaboration with graphic design student Jules Estèves
Posters screenprinted in overlapping split fountain at Gerrit Rietveld Academie shop for screenprinting on paper.