[EC-NCSG] Voting Rules and NoTA Signicance

Fri Aug 26 23:30:08 EEST 2016

Hi Robin,

Great idea.  Please send the final version and if the EC could sign off in
agreement I will send it to the membership list as recommended, if everyone
is in agreement.

Joan

On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 4:05 PM, Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org> wrote:

> Thanks, Joan.  I?d suggest we send it to the entire membership list, as
> all NCSG members are on that list and the original appeal went to the
> members? list as well, it would be good practice to inform the entire
> membership of the outcome of the decision.
>
> Thanks again,
> Robin
>
>
>
> On Aug 26, 2016, at 12:13 PM, Joan Kerr <joankerr at fbsc.org> wrote:
>
> Hi Robin,
>
> Yes that works.  Ok. question: where does the letter go?
>
> Thanks for the work Robin, much appreciated.
> Joan
>
> On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 2:50 PM, Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org> wrote:
>
>> Thanks, Joan.  Ok, how about the following (change in purple)?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Robin
>>
>> _________________
>>
>> Dear Appellants,
>>
>> This email is in response to the appeal filed by the group of 21 members
>> of the Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group (NCSG) on 23 August 2016 regarding
>> the decision of the NCSG Executive Committee (EC) to continue with the
>> ongoing annual election using the existing ballots.
>>
>> The NCSG EC held an emergency meeting of the full committee on 24 August
>> to discuss the appeal and consider possible options in response.  In that
>> meeting, we decided to propose a compromise solution to the appellants in
>> lieu of suspending the ongoing election as requested.
>>
>> Specifically, the EC proposes that we continue with the ongoing annual
>> election as originally planned, using the existing ballots already sent to
>> members, but with the understanding that every candidate on the ballot
>> faces possible rejection, which means that with respect to the election for
>> GNSO Council, those candidates who receive less votes than ?None of the
>> Above? (NOTA) on the ballot shall not be elected to the GNSO Council in
>> this year?s election.  Any candidate who ties with NOTA in number of
>> votes is elected.
>>
>> We understand that this compromise is not perfect, however we believe it
>> is a solution which will allow us to go forward with the existing election
>> as planned and still satisfy concerns about representation and confusion on
>> the ballot.
>>
>> The NCSG Charter indicates that vacancies to the GNSO Council are
>> appointed by the NCSG EC, so in the unlikely event that any GNSO seats are
>> left unfilled after an election, we have EC procedures to fill that seat.
>>
>> We regret the confusion caused and will endeavor to fix any remaining
>> concerns before the ballot is sent in next year's annual election.
>>
>> Please indicate at your earliest convenience if this compromise proposal
>> is acceptable and that your appeal is satisfactorily resolved.  Thank you.
>>
>> Signed,
>> Executive Committee of the Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group
>>
>> _________________
>>
>> On Aug 26, 2016, at 11:34 AM, Joan Kerr <joankerr at fbsc.org> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Robin,
>>
>> Ok, if you feel that it's important that it is spelt out, I agree.  I get
>> what you say regarding the mathematicalIy logical, but I really do think we
>> should clearly say that if the votes are equal with the nota votes, it
>> means that the candidate wins.  It clearly says it and that's I thinks it's
>> important to say rather than leave it to someone interpretation.
>>
>> Thanks
>> Joan
>>
>> On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 2:23 PM, Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Joan,
>>>
>>> As members are looking for clarity in what we are doing, I think it is
>>> important that we include the phrase which explains the intent of the
>>> meaning.  So I would not agree to remove the phrase which clarifies the
>>> heart of what we are trying to achieve with this interpretation: clarifying
>>> that every candidate faces possible rejection is critical in this appeal.
>>>
>>> On the other point, the language proposed is mathematically logical in
>>> that the number of any candidate votes that are equal to NOTA is therefore
>>> NOT less less than NOTA, so there really isn?t any other possible
>>> interpretation of that phrase other than "a candidate who ties with NOTA is
>>> elected.?  So I believe we agree on the point, only the need to restate it
>>> given the new formulation which clarified our agreement on that point.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Robin
>>>
>>> On Aug 26, 2016, at 10:33 AM, Joan Kerr <joankerr at fbsc.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Robin,
>>>
>>> I am not sure if this was in the last email.  So I am sending it again.
>>> Like I said I don't think that the sentence in green needs to be included.
>>> Also we should be clear that less means not elected and same as nota means
>>> elected.  Just so it's clear for everyone.
>>> See below
>>> Joan
>>>
>>> Specifically, the EC proposes that we continue with the ongoing annual
>>> election as originally planned, using the existing ballots already sent to
>>> members, but with the understanding that every candidate on the ballot
>>> faces possible rejection, which means that with respect to the election
>>> for GNSO Council, only those candidates who receive less votes than
>>> ?None of the Above? (NOTA) on the ballot shall not be deemed elected to
>>> the GNSO Council in this year?s election.
>>>
>>> On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 1:12 PM, Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Thanks, Joan.  I agree with the point you make and that we should
>>>> clarify it below.  But how is this (in purple) below for simpler language
>>>> in doing so?
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Robin
>>>>
>>>> __________________
>>>>
>>>> Dear Appellants,
>>>>
>>>> This email is in response to the appeal filed by the group of 21
>>>> members of the Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group (NCSG) on 23 August 2016
>>>> regarding the decision of the NCSG Executive Committee (EC) to continue
>>>> with the ongoing annual election using the existing ballots.
>>>>
>>>> The NCSG EC held an emergency meeting of the full committee on 24
>>>> August to discuss the appeal and consider possible options in response.  In
>>>> that meeting, we decided to propose a compromise solution to the appellants
>>>> in lieu of suspending the ongoing election as requested.
>>>>
>>>> Specifically, the EC proposes that we continue with the ongoing annual
>>>> election as originally planned, using the existing ballots already sent to
>>>> members, but with the understanding that every candidate on the ballot
>>>> faces possible rejection, which means that with respect to the election for
>>>> GNSO Council, only those candidates who receive less votes than ?None
>>>> of the Above? (NOTA) on the ballot shall not be deemed elected to the
>>>> GNSO Council in this year?s election.
>>>>
>>>> We understand that this compromise is not perfect, however we believe
>>>> it is a solution which will allow us to go forward with the existing
>>>> election as planned and still satisfy concerns about representation and
>>>> confusion on the ballot.
>>>>
>>>> The NCSG Charter indicates that vacancies to the GNSO Council are
>>>> appointed by the NCSG EC, so in the unlikely event that any GNSO seats are
>>>> left unfilled after an election, we have EC procedures to fill that seat.
>>>>
>>>> We regret the confusion caused and will endeavor to fix any remaining
>>>> concerns before the ballot is sent in next year's annual election.
>>>>
>>>> Please indicate at your earliest convenience if this compromise
>>>> proposal is acceptable and that your appeal is satisfactorily resolved.
>>>> Thank you.
>>>>
>>>> Signed,
>>>> Executive Committee of the Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group
>>>>
>>>> _________________
>>>>
>>>> On Aug 26, 2016, at 9:56 AM, Joan Kerr <joankerr at fbsc.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi Robin, All
>>>>
>>>> Thank you for writing the response.  Well done.  I agree that I will
>>>> send the letter on behalf of the committee.  I wanted to add the actual
>>>> sentence we agreed to in the call highlighted in green.  It doesn't change
>>>> the context or tone, however it was what we agreed to do.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks again
>>>> Joan
>>>>
>>>> Dear Appellants,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> This email is in response to the appeal filed by the group of 21
>>>> members of the Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group (NCSG) on 23 August 2016
>>>> regarding the decision of the NCSG Executive Committee (EC) to continue
>>>> with the ongoing annual election using the existing ballots.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The NCSG EC held an emergency meeting of the full committee on 24
>>>> August to discuss the appeal and consider possible options in response.  In
>>>> that meeting, we decided to propose a compromise solution to the
>>>> appellants in lieu of suspending the ongoing election as requested.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Specifically, the EC proposes that we continue with the ongoing annual
>>>> election as originally planned, using the existing ballots already sent to
>>>> members, but with the understanding that every candidate *with less
>>>> votes than nota lose, **and the* *s**ame number as nota is enough to
>>>> get in* on the ballot faces possible rejection, which means that with
>>>> respect to the election for GNSO Council, only those candidates who receive
>>>> more votes than ?None of the Above? (NOTA) on the ballot shall be deemed
>>>> elected to the GNSO Council in this year?s election.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> We understand that this compromise is not perfect, however we believe
>>>> it is a solution which will allow us to go forward with the existing
>>>> election as planned and still satisfy concerns about representation and
>>>> confusion on the ballot.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The NCSG Charter indicates that vacancies to the GNSO Council are
>>>> appointed by the NCSG EC, so in the unlikely event that any GNSO seats are
>>>> left unfilled after an election, we have EC procedures to fill that seat.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> We regret the confusion caused and will endeavor to fix any remaining
>>>> concerns before the ballot is sent in next year's annual election.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Please indicate at your earliest convenience if this compromise
>>>> proposal is acceptable and that your appeal is satisfactorily resolved.
>>>> Thank you.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 11:56 AM, Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Great, folks.  I?d suggest that Joan send the letter on behalf of the
>>>>> Committee since she chaired the discussion on the appeal and Tapani is
>>>>> unavailable.
>>>>>
>>>>> In addition to sending the response to the appellants, we should
>>>>> subsequently send a clarifying email to the members from the EC as well, so
>>>>> that there is no further confusion as to what the votes mean.
>>>>>
>>>>> It is important that we have the ballots agreed on before they are
>>>>> sent next year so as to prevent such confusion and misunderstandings.
>>>>> Regardless of whether that was done in the past, our members have asked for
>>>>> oversight of the election process and our charter requires it of us.  We
>>>>> are trying to improve after all.  :-)
>>>>>
>>>>> I made one small (purple) edit to the response below to clarify that
>>>>> the appeal has been satisfactorily resolved.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Robin
>>>>>
>>>>> _________________
>>>>>
>>>>> Dear Appellants,
>>>>>
>>>>> This email is in response to the appeal filed by the group of 21
>>>>> members of the Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group (NCSG) on 23 August 2016
>>>>> regarding the decision of the NCSG Executive Committee (EC) to continue
>>>>> with the ongoing annual election using the existing ballots.
>>>>>
>>>>> The NCSG EC held an emergency meeting of the full committee on 24
>>>>> August to discuss the appeal and consider possible options in response.  In
>>>>> that meeting, we decided to propose a compromise solution to the appellants
>>>>> in lieu of suspending the ongoing election as requested.
>>>>>
>>>>> Specifically, the EC proposes that we continue with the ongoing annual
>>>>> election as originally planned, using the existing ballots already sent to
>>>>> members, but with the understanding that every candidate on the ballot
>>>>> faces possible rejection, which means that with respect to the election for
>>>>> GNSO Council, only those candidates who receive more votes than ?None of
>>>>> the Above? (NOTA) on the ballot shall be deemed elected to the GNSO Council
>>>>> in this year?s election.
>>>>>
>>>>> We understand that this compromise is not perfect, however we believe
>>>>> it is a solution which will allow us to go forward with the existing
>>>>> election as planned and still satisfy concerns about representation and
>>>>> confusion on the ballot.
>>>>>
>>>>> The NCSG Charter indicates that vacancies to the GNSO Council are
>>>>> appointed by the NCSG EC, so in the unlikely event that any GNSO seats are
>>>>> left unfilled after an election, we have EC procedures to fill that seat.
>>>>>
>>>>> We regret the confusion caused and will endeavor to fix any remaining
>>>>> concerns before the ballot is sent in next year's annual election.
>>>>>
>>>>> Please indicate at your earliest convenience if this compromise
>>>>> proposal is acceptable and that your appeal is satisfactorily resolved.
>>>>> Thank you.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed,
>>>>> Executive Committee of the Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group
>>>>>
>>>>> _________________
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Aug 25, 2016, at 4:27 PM, Joan Kerr <joankerr at FBSC.ORG
>>>>> <joankerr at fbsc.org>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Robin,
>>>>>
>>>>> It looks good to me.  Once the content is agreed on, who actually
>>>>> sends the letter on behalf of the EC.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thank you for writing this.
>>>>>
>>>>> Joan
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 5:00 PM, Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Colleagues,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As requested, I?ve drafted a proposed response from the EC to the
>>>>>> appellants regarding their appeal and our compromise proposal for this
>>>>>> year.  Please have a look below and feel free to suggest changes to the
>>>>>> response.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>> Robin
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _________________
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This email is in response to the appeal filed by the group of 21
>>>>>> members of the Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group (NCSG) on 23 August 2016
>>>>>> regarding the decision of the NCSG Executive Committee (EC) to continue
>>>>>> with the ongoing annual election using the existing ballots.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The NCSG EC held an emergency meeting of the full committee on 24
>>>>>> August to discuss the appeal and consider possible options in response.  In
>>>>>> that meeting, we decided to propose a compromise solution to the appellants
>>>>>> in lieu of suspending the ongoing election as requested.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Specifically, the EC proposes that we continue with the ongoing
>>>>>> annual election as originally planned, using the existing ballots already
>>>>>> sent to members, but with the understanding that every candidate on the
>>>>>> ballot faces possible rejection, which means that with respect to the
>>>>>> election for GNSO Council, only those candidates who receive more votes
>>>>>> than ?None of the Above? (NOTA) on the ballot shall be deemed elected to
>>>>>> the GNSO Council in this year?s election.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We understand that this compromise is not perfect, however we believe
>>>>>> it is a solution which will allow us to go forward with the existing
>>>>>> election as planned and still satisfy concerns about representation and
>>>>>> confusion on the ballot.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The NCSG Charter indicates that vacancies to the GNSO Council are
>>>>>> appointed by the NCSG EC, so in the unlikely event that any GNSO seats are
>>>>>> left unfilled after an election, we have EC procedures to fill that seat.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We regret the confusion caused and will endeavor to fix any remaining
>>>>>> concerns before the ballot is sent in next year's annual election.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Please indicate at your earliest convenience if this compromise
>>>>>> proposal is acceptable to you and that your appeal is accordingly
>>>>>> withdrawn.  Thank you.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Signed,
>>>>>> Executive Committee of the Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _________________
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Aug 25, 2016, at 9:19 AM, Joan Kerr <joankerr at fbsc.org> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks Robin.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Joan
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 12:14 PM, Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi Poncelet,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Apologies, I hadn?t understood that you were suggesting I write the
>>>>>>> letter; but I would be happy to do that today and send it to this list for
>>>>>>> approval, so we can move quickly on putting this matter behind us.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thank you,
>>>>>>> Robin
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Aug 25, 2016, at 8:48 AM, Poncelet Ileleji <pileleji at ymca.gm>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hello Robin,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I just read your very articulated and outlined email in detail, and
>>>>>>> this was why I suggested you write on behalf an official communication to
>>>>>>> the appellants based on what you just said.  I belief we can all concur on
>>>>>>> this soonest, with a short and simple letter then communicate to the
>>>>>>> appellants.  So I suggest again please Robin, can you draft the letter to
>>>>>>> the appellants, I hope other colleagues agree with me on this.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Kind Regards
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Poncelet
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 25 August 2016 at 15:42, Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hello Colleagues,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yes, under the charter, it is the committee?s job to respond to the
>>>>>>>> appeal.  Since the EC did not reverse the decision to continue with the
>>>>>>>> ongoing election, and instead decided to propose a compromise solution that
>>>>>>>> would allow the election to go forward, but with NOTA counting, we are
>>>>>>>> supposed to communicate that decision to the appellants in writing, and ask
>>>>>>>> if they will accept our compromise, thus withdrawing their appeal.
>>>>>>>> Although I haven?t received confirmation from all 21 appellants yet, I do
>>>>>>>> expect this proposed compromise will be accepted by the appellants and the
>>>>>>>> appeal to be immediately withdrawn.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The charter specifically requires that we document these appeal
>>>>>>>> discussions thoroughly.  ?All formal discussions related to the appeal will
>>>>>>>> be done in a transparent manner and be both recorded and have transcripts
>>>>>>>> made.  All documentation related to the appeal, including transcript of
>>>>>>>> formal discussions, will be collected on a public website associated with
>>>>>>>> the NCSG and will be retained for a minimum of 4 years.? (Section 2.4.2.1)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> As I do expect the EC?s compromise will be accepted by the
>>>>>>>> appellants and the appeal withdrawn, the EC should not have to go into the
>>>>>>>> extended negotiations to work out a mutually agreeable solution, followed
>>>>>>>> by the membership vote as outlined in the charter.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> We should send our official compromise proposal to the appellants
>>>>>>>> as soon as possible so the ongoing election is no longer in question of
>>>>>>>> being suspended.  Obviously this official committee response to the
>>>>>>>> appellants must be text that is approved of by the EC as a whole in advance
>>>>>>>> of of it being sent on the EC?s behalf.  I would strongly object to the
>>>>>>>> chair taking it upon himself to undertake this committee task without
>>>>>>>> permitting oversight by the committee as is required in the charter and has
>>>>>>>> been requested by the members.  This critical work is charged to the
>>>>>>>> committee as a whole and needs to be done by the entire committee.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So a simple and short communication to the appellants officially
>>>>>>>> communicating our proposed compromise should be all we need at this step of
>>>>>>>> the process.  Would any member of the committee like to volunteer to draft
>>>>>>>> the EC?s proposed response to the appellants?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>> Robin
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Aug 25, 2016, at 4:50 AM, Poncelet Ileleji <pileleji at ymca.gm>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hello Colleagues,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Based on our call yesterday in which we resolved the issue at hand,
>>>>>>>> I just read Avri's last email now and she said she is awaiting a response
>>>>>>>> to the appeal made.  I suppose that appeal stands null and void now as we
>>>>>>>> resolved it accordingly.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So please as Tapani said he is traveling and might not answer
>>>>>>>> emails etc in a timely manner, can you Robin with your good background on
>>>>>>>> this respond to Avri regarding the appeal as I do not think it stands again
>>>>>>>> as its resolved, but we need to respond as EC.  I hope all concur with my
>>>>>>>> comment on this.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thank you
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Poncelet
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> Poncelet O. Ileleji MBCS
>>>>>>>> Coordinator
>>>>>>>> The Gambia YMCAs Computer Training Centre & Digital Studio
>>>>>>>> MDI Road Kanifing South
>>>>>>>> P. O. Box 421 Banjul
>>>>>>>> The Gambia, West Africa
>>>>>>>> Tel: (220) 4370240
>>>>>>>> Fax:(220) 4390793
>>>>>>>> Cell:(220) 9912508
>>>>>>>> Skype: pons_utd
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *www.ymca.gm <http://www.ymca.gm/>http://jokkolabs.net/en/
>>>>>>>> <http://jokkolabs.net/en/>www.waigf.org
>>>>>>>> <http://www.waigf.org/>www,insistglobal.com
>>>>>>>> <http://www.itag.gm/>www.npoc.org
>>>>>>>> <http://www.npoc.org/>http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753
>>>>>>>> <http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753>*www.diplointernetgovernance.or
>>>>>>>> g
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> EC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>>>>> EC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/ec-ncsg
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Poncelet O. Ileleji MBCS
>>>>>>> Coordinator
>>>>>>> The Gambia YMCAs Computer Training Centre & Digital Studio
>>>>>>> MDI Road Kanifing South
>>>>>>> P. O. Box 421 Banjul
>>>>>>> The Gambia, West Africa
>>>>>>> Tel: (220) 4370240
>>>>>>> Fax:(220) 4390793
>>>>>>> Cell:(220) 9912508
>>>>>>> Skype: pons_utd
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *www.ymca.gm <http://www.ymca.gm/>http://jokkolabs.net/en/
>>>>>>> <http://jokkolabs.net/en/>www.waigf.org
>>>>>>> <http://www.waigf.org/>www,insistglobal.com
>>>>>>> <http://www.itag.gm/>www.npoc.org
>>>>>>> <http://www.npoc.org/>http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753
>>>>>>> <http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753>*www.diplointernetgovernance.org
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> EC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>>>> EC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/ec-ncsg
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> EC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>>> EC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/ec-ncsg
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/ec-ncsg/attachments/20160826/30c1b7fb/attachment-0001.html>