[NCSG-FC] FW: FC meeting at ICANN63 Barcelona

Thu Jul 19 20:37:07 EEST 2018

Hi all,

Thanks Remmy for your input, I will do necessary amendments and revert
back. I would also appreciate comments from other members so that I can see
how to integrate everyone's input or comment. Anyways I meant "harmonizing
the NCSG FC OP to synergies with the NCSG Charter" will adjust the language
accordingly, looking forward to your responses, thanks.

Renata/Joan/Farzaneh any comments or suggestions, this needs to be
submitted tomorrow???

Thato Mfikwe.

On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 12:14 AM, Remmy Nweke <remmyn at gmail.com> wrote:

> Thanks Thato for coming up with this.
>
> On the Facilitating Faculty/people needed: FC members and not member -
> considering that the members represent two constituencies (NPOC and NCUC)
>
> On agenda Part 1:
> No. 2. kindly correct 'and Finance Committee" spelling.
>
> 3. I expect more time on the Q & A, may be 10mins
>
> 4. I did not understand what is to be merged as we cannot merge the
> Charter and OP, but harmonise areas of difference/interests as may be have
> been highlighted/suggested from ongoing comments. In addition, possibly
> seek volunteers to help out in that and then reduce the time from 15mins to
> 10mins and add the difference in timing to Q & A as I expect more
> interactions.
>
> on Part 2:
> Can we change  No. 8  to "Leveraging ICANN Finance for NCSG work - By
> Staff - 7 minutes
>
> and 9 to "Remarks by GNSO Rep" - 5 minutes
>
> 10. I will suggest merger of Q & A in No. 7 with this - 8 mins.
>
> *NB:* Can we accommodate in the benefits, need to also participate in the
> ICANN AGM open session, knowing fully well the importance of business of
> AGM including presentation of an annual report containing information for
> stakeholders about the organisation's performance and strategy, so as to
> afford FC to follow strategically/familiarise the process and strategically
> plug-in. FC members will equally participate in the ExCom of their
> respective Cs to close ranks with their EC.
>
> This is a good plan Mr. Chairman and I hope my input is helpful.
>
> Regards
>
> ____
> REMMY NWEKE, mNGE,
> Lead Strategist/Group Executive Editor,
> DigitalSENSE Africa Media [*Multiple-award winning medium*]
> (DigitalSENSE Business News
> <http://www.digitalsenseafrica.com.ng/businessnews>; ITREALMS
> <http://www.itrealms.com.ng>, NaijaAgroNet
> <http://www.naijaagronet.com.ng>)
> Block F1, Shop 133 Moyosore Aboderin Plaza, Bolade Junction, Oshodi-Lagos
> M: 234-8033592762, 8023122558, 8051000475, T: @ITRealms
> <http://www.twitter.com/ITRealms>
> Author: A Decade of ICT Reportage in Nigeria
> <https://www.facebook.com/adecadeofictreportageinnigeria%E2%80%8E>
>
> *South-South Nigeria DigitalSENSE Forum on IG4D & Nigeria IPv6 Roundtable
> <http://www.digitalsenseafrica.com.ng>*
> (Uyo, Akwa-Ibom State). JOIN us!!
>
> *Vice President, African Civil Society on the Information Society (ACSIS
> <http://www.acsis-scasi.org/en/>)
>
> *NPOC FC Rep @ICANN Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group (NCSG)*
> <https://gnso.icann.org/en/about/stakeholders-constituencies/ncsg>
> _________________________________________________________________
> *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 Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 9:19 PM Thato Mfikwe <thatomfikwe at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> As you might be aware the FC is currently thinking of coordinating
>> sessions during ICANN 63, preferably onsite but should travel support be
>> not available, then this will be done online with members who will be
>> attending onsite. Below is the proposed details of planned meetings, you
>> experience will be very helpful in ensuring we have a solid and
>> comprehensive meeting request for the NCSG FC. According to email responses
>> above, it seems like the FC has the go ahead to prepare and proceed with
>> this submission, if anyone thinks otherwise, they are free to comment:
>>
>> *MEETING 1*
>> NCSG Finance Committee (90 min)
>>
>> *Objective*: To introduce NCSG FC to the NCSG community and discuss the
>> Finance Committee Operational Procedures (OP) and the NCSG Charter in order
>> to find synergy between the two documents.
>> *People needed*: ICANN Finance, GNSO Finance rep, FC member or members,
>> NCSG EC and members
>>
>> *Agenda*: Face to face meeting with NCSG members (90 minutes)
>>
>> *Part 1*: Establishment of the NCSG FC - 45 minutes
>> 1. introduction, background of the FC and committee responsibilities as
>> listed in the NCSG Charter - 10 min
>> 2. Overview of the NCSG Charter and Fiance Committee OP (oversight,
>> participation, accountability and auditing function issues) - 15 min
>> 3. Q and A - 5 min
>> 4. Discussions on how to merge the 2 documents/contention areas - 15 min
>>
>> *Part 2*: NCSG Finances and fundraising for NCSG - 45 min
>> 5. Discussion on NCSG priorities, opportunities and needs - 10 min
>> 6. Background on ICANN budgets, 2018 - 2019 ABRs and fundraising options
>> (ICANN finance, contributions and outreach to external funders) - 10 min
>> 7. Inputs and comments - 5 min
>> 8. Input from ICANN finance staff - 5 min
>> 9. Input from GNSO finance rep - 5 min
>> 10. Q and A - 5 min
>> 11. Closing remarks - 5 min
>>
>> *MEETING 2 (Optional depending on availability of a slot):*
>> NCSG FC outreach during constituency day or NCSG outreach sessions (FC to
>> sit on a panel or present online)
>>
>> *Objective:  *To call on volunteers to help the FC in execution of its
>> responsibilities (information sharing and creating awareness)
>>
>> *People needed:* New comers and NCSG members
>>
>> *Presentation areas*
>> 1. Introduction to the FC and current activities - 5 min
>> 2. FC plans and how to participate - 3 min
>> 3. Q and A - 5 min
>>
>> *Other benefits for attending onsite outside the 2 meetings(FYI):*
>> - Following up on other discussions, meetings and deliberations relating
>> to ICANN funds and budgets
>> - Creating enabling networks and contacts with potential funders and
>> ICANN staff
>>
>> Please kindly assist in making this making request solid and also provide
>> your comments so that we can submit to Maryam on Friday, thanks.
>>
>> Thato Mfikwe.
>>
>> On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 8:22 AM, Thato Mfikwe <thatomfikwe at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> Apologies for that, I actually thought that I copied the FC mailing
>>> list, but anyway just to provide clarity on emerging concerns:
>>>
>>> - FC participation in ICANN meetings can be onsite or online, whichever
>>> will be possible, we will work through that
>>>
>>> - If the charter permits the FC to hold meetings without the approval of
>>> the FC, then fine there is no need to discuss this further
>>>
>>> - I am aware what Maryam is asking from the FC regarding the planned
>>> meeting that is why I needed input from FC members
>>>
>>> - Outreach is not for donors only but can be used to create awareness
>>> and explain/introduce the work of the FC to new comers and not discuss
>>> issues but we can highlight current and planned activities. The FC needs to
>>> be visible in NCSG activities, not only PC activities or initiatives. Or
>>> maybe I was supposed to refer to it as inreach?
>>>
>>> - Nothing in my last email talks about fundraising but I mentioned that
>>> the FC needs to keep upto date with discussions around budgets, monies kept
>>> by ICANN, for instance, currently there is nobody reporting on new gtld on
>>> Auction Proceeds or participating or reporting on the respective CCWG
>>>
>>> - Meeting with ICANN finance online or anywhere will be very helpful and
>>> ICANN budgets are not clear on SO and AC allocations, so a meeting with
>>> ICANN staff is paramount
>>>
>>> - Again, we are in no competition, if anyone wants to undertake a task,
>>> they are free to propose this without any reservation and the FC will
>>> collectively make a final decision
>>>
>>> - If we do not reach consensus, the Charter provides guide on how to
>>> make decisions, going public is an individual attempt to defy provisions in
>>> the Charter, if everytime we do not all agree on something and we decide to
>>> go public as a result, what image will this give to the NCSG membership
>>> "That the FC is in disagreement with itself?", is that what we want for the
>>> FC?
>>>
>>> - I think we need to discuss your ground rules, I do not understand what
>>> you mean about so much resistance because I commented on your decision to
>>> share the OP working document which was a basis for creating the actual
>>> draft OP. The difference is huge and you know very well that the OP was
>>> under development by Remmy and sharing a document that is not complete is
>>> sending wrong signals about the FC, looking as if we are disorganised. No
>>> matter how you can explain yourself, it is wrong, anyone who wants to
>>> follow the FC mailing list is free to do so.
>>>
>>> We need to accept while still early that not every idea we have will be
>>> supported by the next person or two, failure to accept this truth will
>>> result in disgrantled members of the FC but as leaders we should not oppose
>>> different views, especially by the majority or maybe some leadership styles
>>> are outdated or not relevant within ICANN communities?
>>>
>>> My proposal:
>>> Farzaneh, can you become the penholder for the draft OPafter receiving
>>> public comments before our submission to the EC?
>>>
>>> Why: Logistics involved with sharing 2 documents can be cumbersome
>>> because working with the clean document was an agreement by the FC, this
>>> draft was supposed to be sent on Friday but was released on Sunday for
>>> comment after Remmy made edits, after youyrrecommendation which I also
>>> supported. According to my opinion, the working document of the FC will
>>> make the comment process very complex and bear in mind that the FC will
>>> attempt to resolve all comments on the final Draft OP I shared before
>>> submission to the EC for approval, thanks.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 2:46 AM, farzaneh badii <
>>> farzaneh.badii at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I meant that I cannot attend the meeting in person.
>>>>
>>>> I don't know what Thato means by " *Looking forward to your thoughts,
>>>> Maryam wants to submit a request on our behalf by Friday and of course it
>>>> will be subject to the entire NCSG EC approval." * Maryam is asking
>>>> whether you want to 1. have a Finance Committee Session, during AGM 2. If
>>>> so, what is the agenda. Why should this be submitted to NCSG EC for
>>>> approval? Does the charter say NCSG EC has to approve FC meetings' agenda?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> As to the agenda, is this the agenda of Finance Committee F2F meeting
>>>> or is this the plan of FC activities in ICANN 63? Because Maryam really
>>>> needs the agenda of the Finance Committee face to face meeting in order to
>>>> book it, 90 minute or 60 minutes? what are you gonna discuss, who are you
>>>> gonna invite, etc
>>>>
>>>> As other points, why does FC have to present in NCSG outreach
>>>> meetings?  NCSG outreach is about telling newcomers/fellows/attendees what
>>>> we do policy-wise and what our mission is and encourage them to join. what
>>>> the FC does is least of their worries, we can just tell them Finance
>>>> Committee is in charge of finances at NCSG! They are not really donors to
>>>> be able to get money from them.
>>>>
>>>> If you mean presenting the work during NCSG open session which will
>>>> happen in AGMs, ok. but perhaps a shorter period (10-15 mins) in NCSG open
>>>> meeting for presentation would suffice since FC wants to ask for a slot to
>>>> meet f2f. (as I said I don't think FC needs to meet face to face if the FC
>>>> members are not going to be already there, in the past some FC members were
>>>> councilors and had funding to go and/or chairs of the constituencies so
>>>> they could attend in person. no one got funding to go to ICANN meetings for
>>>> FC activities ever.)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I totally disagree with what Thato is saying below:
>>>>
>>>> '- Attending an ICANN meeting (any meeting to be clear), will help the
>>>>> FC keep up with discussions around ICANN Budgets, Reserve funds and other
>>>>> funds kept by ICANN, these will ease the communication with ICANN finance
>>>>> and other potential external funders for fundraising purposes and ensuring
>>>>> C's and the SG receive fair and equivalent."
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If you need meetings with ICANN staff they will be more than happy to
>>>> arrange it with you online through adobe, they have done it before with the
>>>> previous FC.  If FC wants to look at what ICANN allocates regarding funds
>>>> it can check their annual budget and other documents.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Attending policy and outreach meeting to discuss finance matters won't
>>>> be possible, they are short meetings about policy and outreach.
>>>>
>>>> Fundraising at ICANN meetings? FC does not have a fund raising plan. It
>>>> is one of its first responsibilities to come up with one. And in any
>>>> fundraising plan that is out there for NCSG, I will tell you that ICANN
>>>> meetings are not the hotspot to raise funds. There are many issues
>>>> associated with fundraising activities that have to be discussed before we
>>>> say we will do fundraising at ICANN meetings.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> As to the below:
>>>>
>>>> It is  not helpful for members to take FC issues to the public mailing
>>>>> list although anyone can see mail threads of the FC, can we please avoid
>>>>> opposing each other because we all have different views and as leaders we
>>>>> need to *avoid falling on to the trap of insubordination* because it
>>>>> will always pose problems to the proper functioning of the FC, it seems
>>>>> like this also needs to be repeated, as it seems like the FC is in
>>>>> competition with itself.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thato, I want consensus to happen. I want us to come to a conclusion.
>>>> But I don't think operating procedure draft was done in a manner that could
>>>> achieve that. First of all, Remmy's second draft as a penholder had kept
>>>> most of  "the original language" he had put in there, despite having had
>>>> been flagged by me, commented on and argued about.He did not resolve all
>>>> the comments. Penholder has to respond and resolve all the comments but if
>>>> not possible, then the penholder has to keep the comments of the flagged
>>>> parts and not just resolve and keep the original language. The flagged
>>>> parts and the comments should have been shared with the members for two
>>>> reasons: I do not have to repeat myself and then forget some part 2. for
>>>> people to see that we had disagreements and had conversations about them
>>>> and see what their opinion is. There is nothing to hide about that.
>>>>
>>>> I had to go through the document and again say why I did not agree with
>>>> some parts. And am I mistaken that you decided to share the document
>>>> without asking us on a Sunday deciding yourself to give them 3 weeks to
>>>> review while we really didn't have agreement on that either?
>>>>
>>>> So we need to do the process right. These are lessons to be learned: 1.
>>>> The second draft should not resolve or delete comments that have not had
>>>> been agreed on.
>>>>
>>>> I see no problem with sharing drafts of the penholder with the members
>>>> from the very beginning even. The finance committee does not have many
>>>> members. We need others points of views and knowledge.
>>>>
>>>> Traps of insubordination? Are you saying I disobeyed FC  orders?  If
>>>> you did not mean that, then I don't know what you mean. If you mean I
>>>> should not have done something FC told me not to do, I am sorry but we work
>>>> with consensus. When there is no consensus I try to find consensus, if I
>>>> cannot find consensus then I surely record my objection publicly.
>>>> Especially with a 3 people committee. You can do the same.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thato said
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> The charter has provisions on how decision can be made within the FC
>>>>> if members cannot reach consensus but we do not want to go to that route
>>>>> because we want an environment conducive to collaboration and harmony, but
>>>>> if needs it be, we will have to visit the charter to obtain direction and
>>>>> guide incase of contention of ideas or perspectives, no one person or
>>>>> individual FC member has authority to dictate or intentionally circumvent
>>>>> activities or decisions of the FC but it is the entire FC itself that
>>>>> collectively makes decisions. Furthermore, as the Chair of the FC, I do not
>>>>> take sides but I support that which I think is best for the FC irrespective
>>>>> of who proposes an idea.
>>>>> Farzaneh, with all due respect, I think it was wrong to share the
>>>>> document the way you did, knowing very well that the FC did not agree or
>>>>> discuss the release of the working draft, irrespective of your reasons, we
>>>>> need to work together. Our focus is to build a functional FC for NCSG as
>>>>> opposed to preempting the FC goals and plans, lets give it a fair
>>>>> opportunity to participate in NCSG activities , thanks.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I explained my reasons why I shared it. There are so many things that
>>>> are wrong with this process drafting the procedure. I have not in one
>>>> single committee at NCSG seen so much resistance to share documents that
>>>> are in draft with the members. I frankly don't think FC can make a decision
>>>> on not sharing documents and not being open.
>>>>
>>>> We need to make some ground rules for how to come up with documents,
>>>> this FC does not really follow the usual practice.
>>>>
>>>> 1. Penholder drafts, FC comments, modifies
>>>> 2. Penholder resolves comments, accept modifications and when does not
>>>> accept the modification, does not resolve them in the second draft, lets
>>>> the conversation to be there for members. penholder can bring the issues to
>>>> the FC lists to discuss and see if it can be resolved
>>>> 3. Penholder does not keep the original language that has been objected
>>>> to without any remarks.
>>>> 4. Members should be able to send communications to the FC mailing list
>>>> any time they want, the moderator cannot stop that unless for justified
>>>> reasons and the document should be shared with them from the beginning.
>>>> 5. Members should be given ample time at least 3 to 4 weeks to comment
>>>> on the operating procedures
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Farzaneh
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 6:17 PM Remmy Nweke <remmyn at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi Farzaneh
>>>>> Please can you explain what you mean by "Because I  cannot."
>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 8:00 PM farzaneh badii <
>>>>> farzaneh.badii at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> can everyone already go to this meeting (do you have funding?)?
>>>>>> Because I  cannot.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Farzaneh
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 2:58 PM Remmy Nweke <remmyn at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks Mr Chairman,
>>>>>>> Outline well noted and is ok by me. It will offer FC opportunity to
>>>>>>> deal with community perspectives as they arise and create more better
>>>>>>> understanding of FC going forward.
>>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>>> Remmy
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Tue, 17 Jul 2018 7:34 pm Thato Mfikwe, <thatomfikwe at gmail.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I just wanted to check with everyone if the following would suffice
>>>>>>>> for ICANN 63 please note I am not ignoring Farzaneh's comment:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> - Participation in NCSG outreach activities or inreach efforts: the
>>>>>>>> role of FC would be to present and introduce the FC and outlines some of
>>>>>>>> the current and planned FC activities. This will require that the FC sits
>>>>>>>> on a panel of a relevant workshop or meeting (Information sharing and
>>>>>>>> creating awareness)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> - Development of an agenda centered around resolving the FC OP and
>>>>>>>> its synergies with the NCSG Charter, the role if FC is to lead this meeting
>>>>>>>> with the NCSG membership in attendance as this will also enable members to
>>>>>>>> understand the role of the FC and how to support.This meeting could also
>>>>>>>> look at other things but the OP and the Charter remain critical to
>>>>>>>> effective operation of the FC when 2019 commences. *This was
>>>>>>>> recorded in minutes of our last meeting.*
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> - Attending an ICANN meeting (any meeting to be clear), will help
>>>>>>>> the FC keep up with discussions around ICANN Budgets, Reserve funds and
>>>>>>>> other funds kept by ICANN, these will ease the communication with ICANN
>>>>>>>> finance and other potential external funders for fundraising purposes and
>>>>>>>> ensuring C's and the SG receive fair and equivalent.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *Looking forward to your thoughts, Maryam wants to submit a request
>>>>>>>> on our behalf by Friday and of course it will be subject to the entire NCSG
>>>>>>>> EC approval. *
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It is  not helpful for members to take FC issues to the public
>>>>>>>> mailing list although anyone can see mail threads of the FC, can we please
>>>>>>>> avoid opposing each other because we all have different views and as
>>>>>>>> leaders we need to *avoid falling on to the trap of
>>>>>>>> insubordination* because it will always pose problems to the
>>>>>>>> proper functioning of the FC, it seems like this also needs to be repeated,
>>>>>>>> as it seems like the FC is in competition with itself.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The charter has provisions on how decision can be made within the
>>>>>>>> FC if members cannot reach consensus but we do not want to go to that route
>>>>>>>> because we want an environment conducive to collaboration and harmony, but
>>>>>>>> if needs it be, we will have to visit the charter to obtain direction and
>>>>>>>> guide incase of contention of ideas or perspectives, no one person or
>>>>>>>> individual FC member has authority to dictate or intentionally circumvent
>>>>>>>> activities or decisions of the FC but it is the entire FC itself that
>>>>>>>> collectively makes decisions. Furthermore, as the Chair of the FC, I do not
>>>>>>>> take sides but I support that which I think is best for the FC irrespective
>>>>>>>> of who proposes an idea.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Farzaneh, with all due respect, I think it was wrong to share the
>>>>>>>> document the way you did, knowing very well that the FC did not agree or
>>>>>>>> discuss the release of the working draft, irrespective of your reasons, we
>>>>>>>> need to work together. Our focus is to build a functional FC for NCSG as
>>>>>>>> opposed to preempting the FC goals and plans, lets give it a fair
>>>>>>>> opportunity to participate in NCSG activities , thanks.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thato Mfikwe.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 4:25 PM, farzaneh badii <
>>>>>>>> farzaneh.badii at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Thato
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If FC members wont be going to the meeting already, there is no
>>>>>>>>> reason to have an f2f finance meeting. Only if you can already go
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 9:55 AM Thato Mfikwe <
>>>>>>>>> thatomfikwe at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Hi Maryam,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Let me first discuss this with the FC and get back to you, what
>>>>>>>>>> is the timeframe for this submission? I had a stand alone meeting in mind
>>>>>>>>>> but let me check with members how viable this would be, thanks.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Thato Mfikwe.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 3:21 PM, Maryam Bakoshi <
>>>>>>>>>> maryam.bakoshi at icann.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Dear Thato, all,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Based on the discussions on the mailing list, please could you
>>>>>>>>>>> confirm that you want a stand alone FC face to face meeting scheduled in
>>>>>>>>>>> the ICANN63 Barcelona meeting. If so, how long would you want the meeting
>>>>>>>>>>> for, so I can plan to add it to the NCSG meeting requests.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> —
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Many thanks,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> *Maryam Bakoshi* | SO/AC Collaboration Services Sr. Coordinator
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> *ICANN* | Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> *S*: Maryam.bakoshi.icann | *T*: +44 7846 471777
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>> Farzaneh
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>> Remmy Nweke, Esq lead strategist/group executive editor, DigitalSENSE
>>>>> Africa Media Ltd, publishers of: [DigitalSENSE Business News | ITRealms |
>>>>> NaijaAgroNet] Block F1, Shop 133 Moyosore Aboderin Plaza Bolade Junction,
>>>>> Oshodi, Lagos-Nigeria 234-8023122558, 8051000475, 08033592762, 08172004283
>>>>> Remmyn at gmail.com
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-fc/attachments/20180719/724b01ae/attachment-0001.html>