[Igf-team] Global IGF 2017 - NCSG
Marita Moll
mmoll at ca.inter.net
Sun Apr 30 16:37:57 EEST 2017
As for speakers, s there any interest in approaching the Canadian
Internet Registration Authority (CIRA). They have been very active at
the IGF. I don't know who they are sending this year but they would
definitely have things to say about how they are dealing with the
cybersecurity issues.
I am on their board of directors so I could make some inquiries.
Marita Moll
On 4/30/2017 7:46 AM, James Gannon wrote:
>
> Thanks all, discussion on the list is great but we need content into
> the google doc =)
>
> -James
>
> *From:*Igf-team [mailto:igf-team-bounces at lists.ncsg.is] *On Behalf Of
> *Farell Folly
> *Sent:* Sunday, April 30, 2017 12:09 PM
> *To:* Lucas Moura <moura.lucas at gmail.com>
> *Cc:* Robert Guerra <rguerra at privaterra.org>; igf-team at lists.ncsg.is
> *Subject:* Re: [Igf-team] Global IGF 2017 - NCSG
>
> Good job Lucas
>
> Proposals 1, 2 and 5 sound good too me
>
> 1- because this a hot topic in ICANN and the undergoing discussions
> in RDS PDP WG focus on the next gen. We have materials ready for that
>
> 2 and 5 because of their particular focus on users.
>
> Best Regards
> @__f_f__
> about.me/farell <http://about.me/farell>
> ________________________________.
> Mail sent from my mobile phone. Excuse for brievety.
>
> Le 30 avr. 2017 03:57, "Lucas Moura" <moura.lucas at gmail.com
> <mailto:moura.lucas at gmail.com>> a écrit :
>
> Hey everyone ,
>
> Related to DNS Security, below are some topics that I think that
> would be okay to cover in a IGF workshop. As long our time is
> running short, below are some ideas how to deal with the break a
> part moment of the workshop
>
> 1. Whois Privacy (proxy whois and the relationship with abuse of
> domains)
>
> 2. indentifier technology health indicator and how this affects
> the nom comercial users
>
> 3. How the Urds are affecting nom commercial users in the internet
> governance ecosystem
>
> 4. Ways to approach Security groups(like SSAC and RSSAC) in Icann
> to the groups like NCUC
>
> 5. How to build a better relationship between "user" community and
> the security community ( and how this relationship can become a
> win-win one)
>
> 6. How to enable groups like Ralos to participate and contribute
> to the security of Dns industry
>
> 7. A hands on with the challenges of IDN and the newGTLD related
> to security and stability of DNS.
>
> Before the break a part moment would be nice if we could explain
> in a nutshell the Dns security scenario and the role of groups
> like NCSG.
>
> Maybe use as example the participation of someone from the SSR2
> review group to show some "channels" that already exists in this area.
>
> On Sat, 29 Apr 2017 at 17:37 Robert Guerra <rguerra at privaterra.org
> <mailto:rguerra at privaterra.org>> wrote:
>
> Bill,
>
> As I mentioned on the google doc - I polled th ssac and heard
> back th following:
>
> * there's an interest and willingness to collaborate on this
> proposal . Special ally, there's an interest to bring a
> Security , operations and technical perspective (if that is of
> interest)
>
> * ssac members available
>
> I polled the ssac and At least 2 members got back to me who
> would be happy to participate on the panel (in person or
> virtually)
>
> - the two persons are -
>
> 1. Ben Butler from GoDaddy who likely would be able to speak
> to RDS/Whois , domain hijacking and takedown
>
> 2. Jeff Bedser , who is more a cyber investigations expert who
> can speak to law enforcement , takedown as well as cooperation
> that's needed when doing investigations for ip takedowns and
> cybercrime
>
> * if a DNS operations , DNSSEC or registry operations is also
> desired, let me know and I'll teach out directly to others on
> the ssac who have, in the past, participated such as Merike Kaeo
>
> * ssac has contacts with law enforcement community . If that
> perspective is desired and can be added , let me know to see
> if I can get the FBI contact I mentioned earlier to confirm
> (who likely will attend anyway)
>
> Let me know so I can follow-up accordingly
>
> Regards
>
> Robert
>
> --
> Robert Guerra
>
>
> From: Martin Pablo Silva Valent <mpsilvavalent at gmail.com>
> <mailto:mpsilvavalent at gmail.com>
> Date: April 29, 2017 at 12:27:48 PM
> To: Farell Folly <farellfolly at gmail.com>
> <mailto:farellfolly at gmail.com>
> CC: Kuerbis, Brenden N <brenden.kuerbis at pubpolicy.gatech.edu>
> <mailto:brenden.kuerbis at pubpolicy.gatech.edu>, Robert Guerra
> <rguerra at privaterra.org> <mailto:rguerra at privaterra.org>,
> igf-team at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:igf-team at lists.ncsg.is>
> <igf-team at lists.ncsg.is> <mailto:igf-team at lists.ncsg.is>,
> William Drake <wjdrake at gmail.com> <mailto:wjdrake at gmail.com>
>
>
> Subject: Re: [Igf-team] Global IGF 2017 - NCSG
>
>
>
> Agree 100% on with Bill, unless someone has something
> already cooked that we can go behind, let's reach out to
> those experts, and hope some others ncsg experts follow,
> thanks James !!! I am not an expert but I think the topic
> is something different, new and concrete compared to other
> panels and our usual work, worth for a try. So even if it
> is not my field I am more than willing to fully support
> and engage.
>
> If by the end of today we don't have any new opinions I
> say let's bring the experts we have in our contacts. I
> know there is a civil society cibersecurity approach to DNS!
>
> Cheers,
>
> Martin
>
> On 29 Apr 2017 8:37 a.m., "Farell Folly"
> <farellfolly at gmail.com <mailto:farellfolly at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> +1 Martin and William.
>
> Best Regards
> @__f_f__
> about.me/farell <http://about.me/farell>
> ________________________________.
> Mail sent from my mobile phone. Excuse for brievety.
>
> Le 29 avr. 2017 07:45, "William Drake"
> <wjdrake at gmail.com <mailto:wjdrake at gmail.com>> a écrit :
>
> Hi
>
> So if time pressures and switching costs mean that
> NCSG wants to to stick with the blue skies idea of
> DNS security issues for its IGF proposal this
> year, we’re going to need some engagement from
> people who know these issues well. James Gannon
> is here in the group and can certainly help a lot
> if he has the bandwidth, not sure who else feels
> close enough to the topic. Folks please speak up
> if you’re feel you’re in a position to help lead.
>
> I would also suggest we try to get some guidance
> from friendly folks we know who are subject
> experts on the issues. Here’s some suggestions of
> people who could a) be speakers if they’re coming
> to Geneva and willing and b) either way could help
> craft a session description and agenda if they’re
> inclined:
>
> 1. Brenden Kuerbis from NCUC/SG (who I’m taking
> the liberty of Ccing without asking him first, sorry)
>
> From the SSAC
> https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/ssac-biographies-2017-02-16-en
>
> 2. Robert Guerra (also on the Cc as he expressed
> interest in talking about security @ IGF in
> another convo)
>
> 3. Patrik Fältström (SSAC Chair)
>
> 4. Mark Seiden
>
> 5. Suzanne Woolf
>
> 6. Ram Mohan
>
> 7. Don Blumenthal
>
> If we could get these folks engaged we’d have good
> guidance and (if they’re coming and willing) the
> start of a good panel, with private
> sector/technical community/civil society. It
> would need geo/gender balance as well.
>
> If people agree with this approach we could write
> to them and try to get something going. Choice of
> format would depend how many bodies we have etc.
>
> In the meanwhile, Brenden and Robert, your
> thoughts please. Martin’s place holder description
> would obviously need to be built out and specified
> in keeping with the IGF proposal form which asks
> for agenda and description of the convo flow etc:
>
> /The workshop will look at cybersecurity
> specifically in relation to DNS, including
> management interfaces, owner authentication
> processes, RDS/whois and related problems like
> domain hijacking, privacy endangerment, spam etc,
> not from purely technical perspective but also in
> how they should affect ICANN policy. The idea is
> that even non-technical people developing policy
> should acquire an understanding on how and what
> kind of security issues they should consider when
> making policy decisions./
>
> Thanks
>
> Bill
>
> On Apr 28, 2017, at 19:27, Martin Pablo Silva
> Valent <mpsilvavalent at GMAIL.COM
> <mailto:mpsilvavalent at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> Dear all,
>
> Because of time we cannot go into detail on
> each subject, I would suggest to choose one
> and just work with it. We may not all be
> experts but we should be able to bring them.
> We can change it to other besides Security as
> long as you have already something sort out.
> To save time I suggest we use all the same
> setting we used last year that was successful.
> If we can agree on the subject, the more time
> consuming and difficult will be to get the
> speakers, although her ewe might need Bill
> guidance, I think we can change this a little
> bit later in order to submit it on time. If
> you already have a subject to do that we can
> write down and work around this is your time
> to talk. All ideas are welcomed, have always
> been.
>
> Here I summarize the question we need to
> answer so you can just answer this email
> instead of going to the doc, I will then
> consolidate things on the doc.
>
> *1) ¿Session Format?**
>
> We can go for the 60 Min Break-out Group
> Discussions, we can also go for the 90 minutes
> it really depends on what we have to do. We
> could use the same format that we used last
> year here.
>
> *2) Session Format Description: *
>
> The easiest way it to have multi-stakeholder
> balanced roundtable with the basic subjects of
> the agenda and open the floor for
> in-site/remote participation. Again, if anyone
> have in mind an already thought idea for this
> just bring it in.
>
> *3) Proposer and co-proposer: *
>
> NCSG chair, Tapani and who ever is co-hosting
> the workshop, if we are going for
> cybersecurity then it should be someone with
> an organization regarding that.
>
> *4) Speakers*
>
> *Depending on the subject. If you have names
> for the cybersecurity let’s start listing
> that, we can maybe find that co-host there if
> it is not already in this list.*
>
>
> *5) Content of the Session * (we outlined
> ciber security, but you can use this space if
> you have an alternative)
> 5.1) outline for the session*
>
> A workshop in Internet Governance Forum on
> cybersecurity and DNS.
>
> *5.2) description of the intended agenda for
> the session and the issues that will be
> discussed.*
>
> The workshop will look at cybersecurity
> specifically in relation to DNS, including
> management interfaces, owner authentication
> processes, RDS/whois and related problems like
> domain hijacking, privacy endangerment, spam
> etc, not from purely technical perspective but
> also in how they should affect ICANN policy.
> The idea is that even non-technical people
> developing policy should acquire an
> understanding on how and what kind of security
> issues they should consider when making policy
> decisions.
>
> *6) Relevance of the Issue **
>
> Please provide a concise description of the
> Internet Governance issue that your session
> will explore, including how this issue relates
> to Internet governance broadly, as well as to
> the main theme of IGF 2017: “Shape Your
> Digital Future!” In other words, please tell
> us why this workshop is important to include
> in the IGF programme.
>
> *7) Interventions
> *Same model as last year
>
> *8) Diversity*
>
>
> *9) Here we need people that are going to be
> in the IGF already:*
>
> *9.1) Onsite Moderator
> 9.2) Online Moderator
> 9.3) Rapporteur*
>
> *10) Online Participation * Yes, we will have
> remote acces and moderators to que any on-line
> participation into the room.
> *
> *11) Discussion facilitation
> *We can use the same model as last year
>
>
> *Past IGF Participation
> *
> *History in IGF :* How many other workshop has
> the NCSG and Co-organziers have? Report Links
>
>
> *VOLUNTARY INFORMATION / RESOURCES FOR PROPOSERS
> *
> XVIII. Sustainable Development Goals
>
> If your workshop proposal is based upon one or
> more of the UN Sustainable Development Goals,
> please indicate which numbers here. Note that
> this information is voluntary and collected
> for programming purposes only; this item has
> no bearing on the MAG’s evaluation of your
> workshop proposal.
>
> XIX. Connecting with IGF Intersessional Groups
> & NRIs
>
> If you would like to incorporate
> content/speakers related to the IGF’s
> intersessional work or the National and
> Regional Initiatives (NRIs) into your
> workshop, please indicate which of the
> following would be of interest. To the extent
> possible, the MAG/IGF Secretariat will provide
> contacts for your outreach to pertinent points
> of contact.
>
> Best Practice Forums
>
> Information
>
> Dynamic Coalitions
>
> Information
>
> National and Regional Initiatives
>
> Information
>
> XX. Connecting with International or Other
> Relevant Organizations
>
> If you are interested in involving in your
> workshop any of the numerous organizations or
> subject matter experts based in Geneva (UN
> Agencies, NGOs, academia, think tanks, etc.),
> please indicate your interest above. Please
> find a selection of such organizations at:
> http://dig.watch/igf2017 For comprehensive
> information on “International Geneva” please
> consult: http://www.genIGF <http://www.genigf/>
>
> On Apr 28, 2017, at 4:42 AM, Farell Folly
> <farellfolly at gmail.com
> <mailto:farellfolly at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> Dear All,
>
> So what do we decide? Regarding the short
> deadline, we should take a decision today
> whether we do the initial proposal or not
> (and quickly vote for another, if not).
>
> Best Regards
> @__f_f__
> about.me/farell <http://about.me/farell>
> ________________________________.
> Mail sent from my mobile phone. Excuse for
> brievety.
>
> Le 26 avr. 2017 2:43 PM, "William Drake"
> <wjdrake at gmail.com
> <mailto:wjdrake at gmail.com>> a écrit :
>
> Hi
>
> Well, I didn't mean to upset the apple
> cart here, especially since at the
> outset I’d suggested we might consider
> security. But I’m looking now at a
> multi-person consensus process that
> has to finish a week from today,
> coupled with a topic on which many of
> us may not be subject matter experts,
> and I’m just wondering if this is
> sensible or we should try something
> that would come a lot easier to us? I
> organized I think seven approved
> workshop proposals for NCUC and NCSG
> between 2013-2015 and they were each
> time consuming. So I’m inclined to say
> that if NCSG is going to get something
> out quickly that meets the MAG’s
> criteria there’s no time for navel
> gazing. Take a topic we know well and
> can populate easily and start doing it.
>
> We’ve done a number of these on civil
> society experiences in ICANN and their
> wider implications so that might be a
> bit tired by now. But maybe a hot
> substantive issue, like ICANN
> jurisdiction, or CS @ ICANN as a model
> for other IG, or development aspects
> of ICANN, etc…?
>
> BD
>
> On Apr 26, 2017, at 15:22, Louise
> Marie Hurel
> <louise.marie.hsd at gmail.com
> <mailto:louise.marie.hsd at gmail.com>>
> wrote:
>
> Dear all,
>
> Agree with Bill when he says that
> it is challenging to pin down
> security @ ICANN. We should keep
> in mind that not all people who
> attend the IGF are familiar with
> discussions at ICANN -- and if it
> is challenging for us (at least
> for me) to understand what are the
> borderlines of cybersecurity
> within ICANN, imagine for people
> outside it. However, I do believe
> that this session could contribute
> to a broader discussion about
> cybersecurity governance (and thus
> the identification of overlapping
> spaces for collaboration and
> interaction with other
> actors/institutions within this
> field).
>
> If the breakout session is
> the desired format, I'd suggest
> that we need to think about how we
> are going to make it more
> inclusive in the sense of
> leveraging between "going deeper
> into DNS security" (for example)
> and "interacting with a wider
> public" -- as Martin suggested:
> "The idea is that even
> non-technical people
> developing policy should acquire
> an understanding of how and what
> kind of security issues they
> should consider when making policy
> decisions."
>
> I know most of our agendas are
> loaded with calls, but perhaps
> scheduling a one might help us in
> tackling some of these points more
> rapidly.
>
> Best,
>
> Louise
>
> 2017-04-26 5:23 GMT-03:00
> AbdulRasheed Tamton
> <rasheedt.c at stc.com.sa
> <mailto:rasheedt.c at stc.com.sa>>:
>
> Dear All,
>
> Happy to be part of the list.
>
> Can anyone put some pointers
> for the subject so that it
> would be more easier for us to
> start with. I have already
> read mail from Martin and
> others but still would like to
> get the above, if anyone can
> really do it.
>
> BR,
>
> Rasheed Tamton.
>
> *From:* Igf-team
> [mailto:igf-team-bounces at lists.ncsg.is
> <mailto:igf-team-bounces at lists.ncsg.is>]
> *On Behalf Of* Farell Folly
> *Sent:* Wednesday, April 26,
> 2017 10:56 AM
> *To:* William Drake
> *Cc:* igf-team at lists.ncsg.is
> <mailto:igf-team at lists.ncsg.is>
> *Subject:* Re: [Igf-team]
> Global IGF 2017 - NCSG
>
> Dear all,
>
> Thanks Martins for reaching.
> @William is right about how to
> choose the topic and what are
> the reasons behind the choice
> of Security and DNS.
>
> I suggest we give today (NLT
> tomorrow) as deadline for
> anyone who would like to make
> any other suggestion.
> Otherwise, me must try and
> increase our chance to win
> application for this one.
>
> Best Regards
> @__f_f__
> about.me/farell
> <http://about.me/farell>
> ________________________________.
> Mail sent from my mobile
> phone. Excuse for brievety.
>
> Le 25 avr. 2017 15:53,
> "William Drake"
> <wjdrake at gmail.com
> <mailto:wjdrake at gmail.com>> a
> écrit :
>
> Hi
>
> Thanks for the boot-up Martin.
>
> I’m in the middle of
> organizing another IGF
> workshop proposal at the
> moment so I thought I’d flag a
> couple things. It looks like
> we have over 30 people in this
> group, which is great. I don’t
> know if everyone is equally
> familiar with how the IGF
> workshop proposal process
> works, or how the
> Multistakeholder Advisory
> Committee (MAG) evaluates
> proposals. But it is an
> increasingly competitive and
> difficult business, they
> usually get well over 200
> proposals for under 100
> workshop slots, so it’s
> important to maximize the fit
> with their multiple and
> increasingly time-consuming
> guidelines. There are about
> five documents at the URL
> Martin shared one could look
> at in this regard. Bottom
> line, the proposal needs to be
> crisp and provocative in
> content; it needs co-sponsors
> from other organizations
> (preferably not civil
> society); the speakers need to
> be very multistakeholder and
> diverse
> (geo/gender/perspective/etc),
> and we have to have full
> contact and other details on
> them; there needs to be a plan
> for remote participation; all
> the roles must be filled, so
> we need names of people we
> know will come to Geneva in
> December; and so on.
>
> All a reasonably tall order
> given that the deadline for
> submission is a week from
> tomorrow. This being the case,
> it will be important to reach
> agreement quickly on things
> like text so that outreach to
> potential speakers,
> co-sponsors etc. can begin in
> earnest.
>
> I see Martin has indicated on
> the Google doc the choice of
> format as 60 minute break out
> session. I’ve organized
> workshops at every IGF except
> last year (including a number
> of them for NCUC and NCSG) and
> have never done one of these,
> I’ve always done 90 minute
> panels or large roundtables.
> Maybe first we should talk
> about the format we want?
> Also, are we set on security?
> I suggested it on the list
> when we were chatting about
> possibilities, but I’m not
> sure how easy it will be for
> us to organize something on
> security @ ICANN in the time
> available, what are the
> overarching questions we want
> to explore, what kinds of
> people could we get, etc. So
> maybe it’d make sense to sort
> such threshold issues up front?
>
> Best
>
> Bill
>
> On Apr 25, 2017, at 16:28,
> Martin Pablo Silva Valent
> <mpsilvavalent at GMAIL.COM
> <mailto:mpsilvavalent at gmail.com>>
> wrote:
>
> I sent this email wrong on
> sunday to the
> igf-team-request@ email.
> Here goes right, sorry for
> that.
>
> Dear all,
>
> Welcome to the email-list
> that Tapani so
> thoughtfully created for
> us to work on the NCSG
> Global IGF 2017 Workshop
> Proposal. A few month ago,
> after a very successful
> workshop in the Global IGF
> 2016, we lunched once
> again the idea to do a
> workshop for the 2017 IGF,
> after a few rounds of
> ideas in discussions we
> submitted the request to
> ICANN and they approved
> our project.At the end of
> this email I copy the
> details that outline the
> idea that we shared with
> ICANN, originally given by
> William Drake (a.k.a Bill)
> in the NCSG list among
> other good ones.
>
> For those who might be new
> to the process, we now
> have to draft and present
> a Workshop proposal to the
> MAG in order to get
> approved and be able to do
> it in the IGF meeting.
> Since the deadline to
> submit is May 3, we
> thought it would be wise
> to have our final draft
> for April 30 (which is end
> of next week). The time is
> very tight, but it is what
> it is.
>
> Here you can visit the
> terms and basic
> information for the
> proposal:
> https://www.intgovforum.org/multilingual/content/igf-2017-call-for-workshop-proposals
>
> I created a googledoc with
> the official template of
> the proposal we have to
> submit, I propose we work
> on it as we move forward:
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/10YJE8rT_yXNgtMDONb8tf4GMYMdmCIdcBIN6XOQSwo0/edit?usp=sharing
>
> I propose that the we try
> to channel the edits
> trough me on this list and
> just do comments on the
> google doc to not
> overwrite things.
>
> What we need to do now:
>
> *First: *Defining the
> substantive focus more
> precisely and linking it
> clearly to ICANN stuff so
> it’s not redundant with
> all the other
> cybersecurity proposals
> the MAG will be reviewing.
>
> *Second*: Identifying
> speakers;
>
> So, based on what we
> already outlined, we need
> to tackle that
> *First* task. I encourage
> you to read the outline
> below, the form in the
> google doc and the
> resources in the IGF web I
> link above. Once we finish
> that we can start making a
> pool of speakers to
> contact. I will be filling
> the draft as we move
> forward and you can
> comment the doc if you see
> something wrong or want to
> propose an answer or writing.
>
> Each day I will try push
> the work so sorry in
> advanced if I spam a
> little this email list,
> but we only have a few
> days to draft this out.
>
> Best regards to all,
>
> Martín Silva
>
> *Outline of the Workshop
> Idea:*
>
>
> *1)Activity:
> Please describe your
> proposed activity in detail
> *
> A workshop in Internet
> Governance Forum on
> cybersecurity and DNS.
>
> The workshop will look at
> cybersecurity specifically
> in relation to DNS,
> including
> management interfaces,
> owner authentication
> processes, RDS/whois and
> related problems like
> domain hijacking, privacy
> endangerment, spam etc,
> not from purely technical
> perspective but also
> in how they should affect
> ICANN policy. The idea is
> that even non-technical
> people developing policy
> should acquire an
> understanding on how and
> what kind of
> security issues they
> should consider when
> making policy decisions.
>
> *2) Strategic
> Alignment. Which area of
> ICANN’s Strategic Plan
> does this request support?*
>
> Support a healthy, stable
> and resilient unique
> identifier ecosystem.
>
> *3) Demographics.
> What audience(s), in which
> geographies, does your
> request target?*
>
> *
> *All ICANN regional groups
> (NCSG has members in more
> than 100 countries).
>
> *4) Deliverables. What
> arethe desired outcomes of
> your proposed activity?
> *
> Raised awareness about
> cybersecurity issues
> related to DNS and their
> policy
> implications; increased
> engagement in security
> work; report feeding into
> ICANN processes as well as
> other cybersecurity
> discussions.
>
> *5) Metrics.
> What measurements will you
> use to determine whether
> your activity achieves
> its desired outcomes?
> *
> Attendance, both onsite
> and online; increased
> participation on related
> working groups in ICANN
> and elsewhere; outcome
> document (report) that's
> useful as input to other
> fora like
> IGF Cybersecurity Best
> Practices forum.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Igf-team mailing list
> Igf-team at lists.ncsg.is
> <mailto:Igf-team at lists.ncsg.is>
> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/igf-team
>
> _______________________________________________
> Igf-team mailing list
> Igf-team at lists.ncsg.is
> <mailto:Igf-team at lists.ncsg.is>
> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/igf-team
>
>
> ***********************************************
> William J. Drake
> International Fellow & Lecturer
> Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ
> University of Zurich, Switzerland
> william.drake at uzh.ch
> <mailto:william.drake at uzh.ch> (direct),
> wjdrake at gmail.com <mailto:wjdrake at gmail.com> (lists),
> www.williamdrake.org <http://www.williamdrake.org>
> ************************************************
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Igf-team mailing list
> Igf-team at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:Igf-team at lists.ncsg.is>
> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/igf-team
>
> _______________________________________________
> Igf-team mailing list
> Igf-team at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:Igf-team at lists.ncsg.is>
> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/igf-team
>
> --
>
> Lucas de Moura
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Igf-team mailing list
> Igf-team at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:Igf-team at lists.ncsg.is>
> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/igf-team
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Igf-team mailing list
> Igf-team at lists.ncsg.is
> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/igf-team
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/igf-team/attachments/20170430/54e81b09/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Igf-team
mailing list