[NCUC-DISCUSS] Summary of GNSO leadership call of 5 Aug, on governance and WS2 updates

Wisdom Donkor wisdom.dk at GMAIL.COM
Fri Sep 10 16:58:24 EEST 2021 

Very much in agreement with Farzaneh.

President & CEO
Africa Open Data and Internet Research Foundation (AODIRF) | Africa
Geospatial Data and Internet Conference (AGDIC)
P.O. Box CT 2439, Cantonments, Accra | www.aodirf.org  / www.afrigeocon.org
Tel: +233 20 812 8851
Skype: wisdom_dk | Facebook: kwasi wisdom |  Twitter: @wisdom_dk
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ICANN GNSO Council Member | ICANN transfer policy review working group
Member  | Council Committee for Overseeing and Implementing Continuous
Improvement (CCOICI) | UN IGF MAG Member | IGF Support Fund Association
Executive Committee Member, World Bank Independent Consultant | AU AFIGF
Member |  Ghana OGP Advisory Committee member | GSS SDGs Advisory Committee
Member
____________________________________________________________________________________________
Specialization:
E-government Network Infrastructure and E-application, Internet
Governance,  Open Data policies platforms & Community Development, Cyber
Security, Geospatial Technologies, Open Source Technologies, Domain Name
Systems, Human Resource Planning and Development, Software Engineering,
Event Planning & Management,


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
>>>>
>>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20210910/ef835799/attachment.htm>

More information about the Ncsg-discuss mailing list