[NCUC-DISCUSS] Summary of GNSO leadership call of 5 Aug, on governance and WS2 updates
Bruna Martins dos Santos
bruna.mrtns at GMAIL.COM
Fri Sep 10 08:48:33 EEST 2021
Well, Raymond, as much as I agree this discussion is presenting itself as a
deadlock...what we want to achieve is balance in the nomcom representation
and a more proportional distribution of seats for the non-commercial groups
- as stated on the two draft emails/letters you read on this thread.
At the end of the day we know that we mustn't look at the seat distribution
as romantically as you suggest - solely as gnso general representation -
because we are and have always outnumbered.
On Fri, Sep 10, 2021 at 10:40 AM Raymond Mamattah <
mamattah.raymond at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I was in the meeting where the NCSG leadership met with the NomCom RIWG.
> I am actually part of the RIWG. It was made clear that members selected to
> the NomCom are not representing their constituencies but acting in the
> broader interest of the community. As it stands, we have one seat for the
> NCUC, which obviously the person is an NCSG member. In this case the NCUC
> rep obviously represents the interest of the Non Commercial entities (NCSG,
> NCUC and NPOC).
>
> I think we should not bother so much about getting more representation in
> NomCom, I don't really know what we want to achieve. Maybe I am lost.
>
> Regards
> Raymond Mamattah
> [image: linkedin]
> <https://www.linkedin.com/in/raymond-selorm-mamattah-02637610> [image:
> facebook] <https://www.facebook.com/selorm.mamattah> [image: skype]
> <https://join.skype.com/invite/bWJCTPbNPkIF> [image: twitter]
> <https://twitter.com/RMamattah>
> Accra, Ghana
>
>
> On Fri, Sep 10, 2021 at 4:37 AM farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi Raphael,
>>
>> Thanks for this. Why do you think the most likely outcome maybe the
>> status quo?
>>
>> And are we sending the letters? I think if they might raise a couple of
>> familiar issues which I address below
>>
>>
>> - They might say they don't want a large NomCom. That is fine. we don't
>> necessarily care if they reduce the number of NomCom representatives. Say
>> if NCSG and registrars and registries have only one, then CSG should only
>> have one too.
>>
>> - Another thing that you might want to consider is that NomCom and
>> whoever wants to stop remedying this imbalance insist on NomCom members
>> being independent from their constituency and working in the community's
>> interest (I think there is some wording in NomCom operating procedure that
>> is invoked and interpreted that way). If that is the case, then they
>> shouldn't worry about changing the composition and having an equal number
>> of appointees. Every body is working for the interest of the community.
>>
>> All in all, we are all working in the community's interest as a whole by
>> bringing our diverse perspective to the table. If this under-representation
>> continues, then the interest of the community is at risk, and frankly has
>> been for way too long.
>>
>>
>>
>> Farzaneh
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Sep 9, 2021 at 5:10 PM Raphael Beauregard-Lacroix <
>> rbeauregardlacroix at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Dear all
>>>
>>> Quick update, as there was what I think was a final call on the matter
>>> today, this time hosted by the RIWG itself - Rec 10 of the RIWG will stay
>>> as previously described (see this thread and previous on the matter)
>>>
>>> That certainly means discussions at the GNSO level down the road, and
>>> probably not very far down the road, as to how to allocate the nomcom seats
>>> for the GNSO. Still, despite not being desired by anyone, the most likely
>>> outcome may be status quo.
>>>
>>> Have a nice day,
>>>
>>> On Fri, Sep 3, 2021 at 1:02 AM Remmy Nweke <remmyn at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Thanks Bruna
>>>> I think the letters are good to g
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, 2 Sep 2021, 20:19 Bruna Martins dos Santos, <
>>>> bruna.mrtns at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> hello all!
>>>>>
>>>>> So, i have added just two short sentences to the letters but I think
>>>>> they are all good to go. On that note, I will add the two into a letter
>>>>> format and keep the document open for review until tomorrow COB. --> link
>>>>> is here:
>>>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1S6_YV-UDyn_6bjvuvZPPUwwXP7zmiNFbXT5GmdphgM4/edit
>>>>>
>>>>> ps. Thanks for the reports about the call. This call was scheduled at
>>>>> date I had previously informed I was not able to attend even despite the
>>>>> fact we had a tie but I'm glad some of us could attend.
>>>>>
>>>>> best,
>>>>> B
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, Sep 2, 2021 at 10:54 AM Raphael Beauregard-Lacroix <
>>>>> rbeauregardlacroix at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi all
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thank you Remmy. As you mention, the current situation may be
>>>>>> attributable to the changes in leadership.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A short summary of today's call with RIWG members and GNSO
>>>>>> leadership:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - The current recommendation by the RIWG is a bylaw change to the
>>>>>> effect that the GNSO would keep its number of seats (7) but how it would
>>>>>> attribute them is up to the GNSO itself.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - IPC reps, speaking for the CSG, want a hardcoded number of nomcom
>>>>>> seats for the CSG and the NCSG in the bylaws. They appear hellbent against
>>>>>> the current RIWG recommendation, as it would cause incommensurable (they
>>>>>> might have actually used the word "infinite" - would need to look at the
>>>>>> chat transcript) harm to the CSG interests in the long term. Assuming from
>>>>>> that wording, I presume they will do everything to oppose the proposed
>>>>>> Bylaws change/recommendation. Unsure of what that means in practice though.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - CPH does not take a side, and does not want to be involved. Unclear
>>>>>> whether they would oppose a bylaws change based on the current proposal.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - IPC/CSG are not in favor of attributing a seat to NPOC and rather
>>>>>> want NCSG to have the seat(s) (I put an "s" there, but I presume they don't
>>>>>> envision NCSG having more than one seat if the number stays at 7...)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - ISPCP fear that the current proposal will result in the status quo,
>>>>>> which they do not want. That technically aligns with our position. But they
>>>>>> support the general CSG consensus (i.e. status quo, no amendment) although
>>>>>> I do not know whether they support this new idea of putting CSG/NCSG seats
>>>>>> in the bylaws.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Again, not having taken part in earlier debates on the matter, I am
>>>>>> still unclear as to why the IPC/CSG are so against the current resolution.
>>>>>> It does open the door to them getting their representation reduced through
>>>>>> the GNSO, as now nomcom seats could technically become "GNSO seats" and
>>>>>> could (god forbid!) be dealt more evenly rather than based on constituency
>>>>>> count. That being said, to my mind, the current resolution/amendment
>>>>>> proposal only kicks the ball into the GNSO court. So live to fight another
>>>>>> day, as they say. I mean, it's not like they completely lack influence at
>>>>>> the GNSO council...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm wary of hardcoding a new setup in the bylaws. The current, maybe
>>>>>> soon previous one, is not good, but I don't think we want a new hardcoded
>>>>>> setup that will still disadvantage us; giving the NCUC seat over to the
>>>>>> NCSG and keeping the 4 CSG seats is basically copy paste of what we have
>>>>>> now. So if I have to choose I'd go with the current RIWG proposal.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Anyhow, please discuss and maybe we'd need to rephrase the letters
>>>>>> slightly in order to reflect the fact that we want a change but not the one
>>>>>> CSG is arguing for now (I mean, if we can even call that a "change")
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Have a nice day,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, Aug 30, 2021 at 5:39 PM farzaneh badii <
>>>>>> farzaneh.badii at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Drafted two letters (ISPCP and Registry) in the Google doc. Please
>>>>>>> have a look and let me know if they are fine and edit as much as you like.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We probably need a better letter to the Board.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Farzaneh
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Tue, Aug 24, 2021 at 12:11 PM Bruna Martins dos Santos <
>>>>>>> bruna.mrtns at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hello, all, happy to help coordinate these efforts.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I have just opened a google docs placeholder for us to start
>>>>>>>> drafting it:
>>>>>>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1S6_YV-UDyn_6bjvuvZPPUwwXP7zmiNFbXT5GmdphgM4/edit
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Do we have an additional volunteers to help draft the letter? Once
>>>>>>>> we have the letter ready I can suggest a communication for us to send to ISPCP
>>>>>>>> and the RySG.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>> B
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Tue, Aug 24, 2021 at 11:14 AM Raphael Beauregard-Lacroix <
>>>>>>>> rbeauregardlacroix at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Thank you for your input Farzaneh.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I am transferring this thread over to the NCSG mailing list to
>>>>>>>>> further discuss and coordinate the drafting.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Do note that in the next 10 days or so there will be a call
>>>>>>>>> between RIWG representatives and SG/Cs leadership. While the two letters on
>>>>>>>>> the table here are not conditioned on whatever may transpire from that
>>>>>>>>> meeting, it may further inform our stance. The EC will report on that
>>>>>>>>> meeting as with the previous ones.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Have a nice day,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Sat, Aug 21, 2021, 23:49 Remmy Nweke <remmyn at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Thanks Farzaneh
>>>>>>>>>> +1
>>>>>>>>>> ___________________
>>>>>>>>>> REMMY NWEKE, *mNUJ, mNGE, mGOCOP*
>>>>>>>>>> Lead Consulting Strategist/Group Executive Editor,
>>>>>>>>>> *ITREALMS Media* group [*Multiple-award winning medium*]
>>>>>>>>>> (ITREALMS <http://www.itrealms.com.ng/>, DigitalSENSE Business
>>>>>>>>>> Magazine <http://www.digitalsenseafrica.com.ng/businessnews>;
>>>>>>>>>> NaijaAgroNet <http://www.naijaagronet.com.ng/>)
>>>>>>>>>> No. 39 Daudu Street, Oshodi-Lagos
>>>>>>>>>> M: 234-8033592762, 8023122558, T: @ITRealms
>>>>>>>>>> <http://www.twitter.com/ITRealms>
>>>>>>>>>> @DigitalSENSEng
>>>>>>>>>> 2021 *Nigeria DigitalSENSE Forum on IG4D*, Thursday June 10
>>>>>>>>>> <https://www.itrealms.com.ng/>
>>>>>>>>>> 2021 *ITREALMS* e-Waste Dialogue, Thursday December 14
>>>>>>>>>> <https://www.itrealms.com.ng/>
>>>>>>>>>> @GOLDEN Tulip Hotels, Int'l Airport Road, Lagos
>>>>>>>>>> <https://www.google.com.ng/travel/hotels/entity/CgoIo7qitJKSz_N2EAE?utm_campaign=sharing&utm_medium=link&utm_source=htls&ved=0CAAQ5JsGahcKEwi4nf7LzeLwAhUAAAAAHQAAAAAQBA&ts=CAESABogCgIaABIaEhQKBwjlDxAFGBoSBwjlDxAFGBsYATICEAAqCQoFOgNVU0QaAA>
>>>>>>>>>> Former Vice President, African Civil Society on Information
>>>>>>>>>> Society (ACSIS)
>>>>>>>>>> ______________________________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>> *Confidentiality Notice:* The information in this document and
>>>>>>>>>> attachments
>>>>>>>>>> are confidential and may also be privileged information. It is
>>>>>>>>>> intended
>>>>>>>>>> only for the use of the named recipient. Remmy Nweke does not
>>>>>>>>>> accept legal
>>>>>>>>>> responsibility for the contents of this e-mail. If you are not
>>>>>>>>>> the intended
>>>>>>>>>> recipient, please notify me immediately, then delete this
>>>>>>>>>> document and do
>>>>>>>>>> not disclose the contents of this document to any other person,
>>>>>>>>>> nor make
>>>>>>>>>> any copies. Violators may face court persecution.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, Aug 21, 2021 at 2:49 PM farzaneh badii <
>>>>>>>>>> farzaneh.badii at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks Raphael.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I looked over the objections from last year. I am not surprised
>>>>>>>>>>> by IPC/BC response, they have always had an obvious interest in being
>>>>>>>>>>> overly represented on NomCom while it is obviously unfair.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I am surprised by ISPCP and the registry stakeholder group.
>>>>>>>>>>> https://community.icann.org/display/OR/Implementation+-+Outreach
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> First of all, I believe that the Board's fear of the empowered
>>>>>>>>>>> community is misplaced. By design the empowered community can be initiated
>>>>>>>>>>> easily but to get it finished they need others support which is not that
>>>>>>>>>>> easy to obtain. I might be wrong. But I would like to hear more from the
>>>>>>>>>>> Board. Secondly, how are we supposed to fix a wrong right by not being
>>>>>>>>>>> blocked all the time by those who actually benefit from this unfairness?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I think we need to reach out to the registry stakeholder group
>>>>>>>>>>> and the ISPCP and ask them why they think it is fine that the
>>>>>>>>>>> noncommercials be under-represented on NomCom. Why do we need another group
>>>>>>>>>>> to study the imbalance (RySG recommends this). It's obvious that there is
>>>>>>>>>>> an imbalance. No need to ask IPC and BC. We know their rationale.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Can we also write a letter to the Board? This issue can also be
>>>>>>>>>>> dealt with at the NCSG level because this is about the imbalance of
>>>>>>>>>>> representation between the commercial stakeholder group and the
>>>>>>>>>>> noncommercial stakeholder group on NomCom.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Lets:
>>>>>>>>>>> - write a letter to the Board
>>>>>>>>>>> - talk to ISPCP and the RySG (or write to them)
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Best
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Farzaneh
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Aug 16, 2021 at 8:38 AM Raphael Beauregard-Lacroix <
>>>>>>>>>>> rbeauregardlacroix at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Farzaneh
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Regarding the RIWG, they (apparently) have not consulted since
>>>>>>>>>>>> the feedback was sent by various groups a year ago. No one knows what was
>>>>>>>>>>>> done with that feedback. Specifically it was feedback from IPC and BC, and
>>>>>>>>>>>> a few others; that feedback was negative, and the Board does not want to
>>>>>>>>>>>> adopt a resolution that would contain the bylaws change wrt to the NomCom,
>>>>>>>>>>>> just to have it become a mess at the Empowered Community step, because
>>>>>>>>>>>> several Cs feel their feedback was disregarded in its entirety.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> That being said, that is my understanding based on the
>>>>>>>>>>>> discussions during the call. I don't know the rest of the story and haven't
>>>>>>>>>>>> followed up with NomCom review and the RIWG, and so cannot really say more
>>>>>>>>>>>> on that. So the issue is not that something has been decided, I think, but
>>>>>>>>>>>> more that the RIWG has been more or less silent for a year, or so.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> As for WS2 it's also hard to elaborate on that more without
>>>>>>>>>>>> having had a look at what Org has in store re their "triage document" or
>>>>>>>>>>>> however they want to call it. They refused to elaborate during the GNSO
>>>>>>>>>>>> leadership call, despite the repeated demands by the ISPCP, Bruna, me, and
>>>>>>>>>>>> a few others. I honestly don't know what recommendations are the
>>>>>>>>>>>> responsibility of the community, as I said. So we'll see when said document
>>>>>>>>>>>> comes out, and then we can come back on both jurisdiction and HRs.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Once we have that document out re WS2, we can come back to
>>>>>>>>>>>> Board or Org on those two that were more important for us. As for the RIWG,
>>>>>>>>>>>> I'd rather understand where they stand and what's going on before taking
>>>>>>>>>>>> action...
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, Aug 14, 2021 at 3:18 PM farzaneh badii <
>>>>>>>>>>>> farzaneh.badii at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Raphael,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> As to NomCom, I do not understand what the Board is arguing
>>>>>>>>>>>>> here. It's not clear that RIWG has reached out to the community and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> consulted? How did they come to that conclusion? The RIWG did various
>>>>>>>>>>>>> consultations with different groups and the imbalance between the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> representation of commercials and noncommercials is very clear. If the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> NomCom review and RIWG can't fix an unfairness in representation that is so
>>>>>>>>>>>>> apparent, why are we even doing such expensive reviews? Is there a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> resolution or Board's minutes about this? Perhaps we can have a meeting
>>>>>>>>>>>>> with Matt Shears, the appointed NCPH board member?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> As to the WS2, I see no mention of Jurisdiction. There is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> quite a lot for Org to do for the Jurisdiction issue. Where are we on that?
>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's true that OFAC is a complex and long process but it's been three years
>>>>>>>>>>>>> since we submitted a recommendation to ICANN to find ways to apply for
>>>>>>>>>>>>> OFAC license. The new gTLDs that have a direct relationship with the domain
>>>>>>>>>>>>> name registrants have confiscated and cancelled people's domain names in
>>>>>>>>>>>>> sanctioned countries. That even applies to the Public Interest Registry
>>>>>>>>>>>>> .NGO... they don't even allow people in sanctioned countries to register a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> .NGO.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Another is the Human Rights which I have not followed. Is that
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the community responsibility too?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I suggest we have a meeting about both issues with the GNSO
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Board members or send them a letter.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Farzaneh
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Aug 13, 2021 at 11:32 AM Raphael Beauregard-Lacroix <
>>>>>>>>>>>>> rbeauregardlacroix at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dear all,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Please find below a summary of the most important points that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> were discussed during the GNSO leadership call that took place last week re
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WS2 implementation, NomCom review, and a few other matters, on 5 Aug.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Several persons from Org intervened on the call.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Have a nice day,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ***
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- The NomCom RIWG has not been reporting for several months,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and specifically it is not quite known at the community level
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what they did with the (overall negative) feedback they got on the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> implementation plan for the NomCom review, about a year ago.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As a reminder, neither NCUC nor NCSG, nor NPOC submitted
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> comments on that plan. The main change being considered is changing the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> allocation of seats within the GNSO, and not changing the total number of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> GNSO seats on the NomCom. Hence, the GNSO would have to figure out by
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> itself who to allocate its seven seats to and on what basis.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The Board will not move with the required Bylaw amendments
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> regarding the NomCom as long as it's not clear whether the RIWG has
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> properly reached out and consulted the community. It
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> obviously does not want to have the Empowered Community shut
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> down the Bylaws amendments.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- There is a "triage document" that will come out of Org
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Soon(TM) regarding WS2 recommendations implementation, for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> those recommendations that are the responsibility of C/SG/SO. Org seems
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> quite adamant that there is a lot for the community to do.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Still, despite several questions from different parts of the GNSO, we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> couldn't get any specifics on this. It took staff more than 15 mins just to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tell us the document in question is not ready yet.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In case you missed it, here is where Org stands with the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> implementation of its "own" WS2 recommendations, from last
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> May https://www.icann.org/en/blogs/details/an-update-on-work
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -stream-2-implementation-4-3-2021-en
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Additionally, we had a discussion, probably more than a year
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ago, regarding WS2 recommendations implementation, where it was clear that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> most of the recommendations were for the Board and Org to implement... We
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will have to wait and see what is in that document.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ncuc-discuss mailing list
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>>> Ncuc-discuss mailing list
>>>>>>>>>>>> Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
>>>>>>>>>>>> https://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>> Ncuc-discuss mailing list
>>>>>>>>>>> Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
>>>>>>>>>>> https://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *Bruna Martins dos Santos *
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Advocacy Coordinator | Data Privacy Brazil Research
>>>>>>>> <https://www.dataprivacybr.org/en/>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Member | Coalizão Direitos na Rede <https://direitosnarede.org.br/>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Chair | Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group at ICANN
>>>>>>>> <https://gnso.icann.org/en/about/stakeholders-constituencies/ncsg>
>>>>>>>> Co-Coordinator | Internet Governance Caucus
>>>>>>>> <https://igcaucus.org/>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Twitter: @boomartins <https://twitter.com/boomartins> // Skype:
>>>>>>>> bruna.martinsantos
>>>>>>>> bruna at dataprivacybr.org and bruna.mrtns at gmail.com
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>>
>>>>> *Bruna Martins dos Santos *
>>>>>
>>>>> Advocacy Coordinator | Data Privacy Brazil Research
>>>>> <https://www.dataprivacybr.org/en/>
>>>>>
>>>>> Member | Coalizão Direitos na Rede <https://direitosnarede.org.br/>
>>>>> Chair | Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group at ICANN
>>>>> <https://gnso.icann.org/en/about/stakeholders-constituencies/ncsg>
>>>>> Co-Coordinator | Internet Governance Caucus <https://igcaucus.org/>
>>>>>
>>>>> Twitter: @boomartins <https://twitter.com/boomartins> // Skype:
>>>>> bruna.martinsantos
>>>>> bruna at dataprivacybr.org and bruna.mrtns at gmail.com
>>>>>
>>>>
--
*Bruna Martins dos Santos *
Advocacy Coordinator | Data Privacy Brazil Research
<https://www.dataprivacybr.org/en/>
Member | Coalizão Direitos na Rede <https://direitosnarede.org.br/>
Chair | Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group at ICANN
<https://gnso.icann.org/en/about/stakeholders-constituencies/ncsg>
Co-Coordinator | Internet Governance Caucus <https://igcaucus.org/>
Twitter: @boomartins <https://twitter.com/boomartins> // Skype:
bruna.martinsantos
bruna at dataprivacybr.org and bruna.mrtns at gmail.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20210910/53aeeb73/attachment.htm>
More information about the Ncsg-discuss
mailing list