[PC-NCSG] [NCSG-Discuss] Draft NCSG response to “Enhancing ICANN’s Accountability”-process.
Avri Doria
avri
Fri Jun 6 12:28:25 EEST 2014
hi,
Just for the record, I support this statement.
avri
On 06-Jun-14 11:07, Maria Farrell wrote:
> And just to confirm that the final version of the statement - which we
> will submit today - is the current draft on Google drive, which I also
> copy below for the record.
>
> All the best, Maria
>
> Comments of the Noncommercial Stakeholders Group (NCSG) on ?Enhancing
> ICANN?s Accountability?
>
>
> This comment, initially drafted by ARTICLE 19, is supported by and
> submitted on behalf of the Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group (NCSG). NCSG
> is the voice of civil society and nonprofit organizations in ICANN?s
> domain name policy making organ, the Generic Names Supporting
> Organization. It is composed of two constituencies, the Noncommercial
> Users Constituency (http://ncuc.org) <about:blank>and the Not-for-Profit
> Operational Concerns Constituency (http://www.npoc.org) <about:blank>,
> as well as a number of unaffiliated individuals. The NCUC and NPOC, both
> constituencies under the ?NCSG umbrella?, consists of civil society
> members from 81 different countries, including organizations and
> individuals.
>
>
> The NCSG welcomes the opportunity to discuss the ways in which ICANN?s
> accountability to the broader community should be enhanced. In this
> submission, we respond more specifically to the questions asked by ICANN
> as part of the present consultation process. Our responses are guided,
> among other things, by our longstanding expertise in Internet governance
> and human rights work.
>
>
> *
>
> What issues does the community identify as being core to
> strengthening ICANN?s overall accountability in the absence of its
> historical contractual relationship to the U.S. Government?
>
>
> ICANN is in many ways a unique organisation due to its
> ?multi-stakeholder? make-up. For this reason, traditional accountability
> mechanisms for international organisations, private companies or public
> bodies are ill-suited or, at any rate, extremely difficult to implement.
> The AOC bottom-up mechanisms are an essential part of accountability at
> ICANN, but they are far from sufficient to provide strong
> accountability. Indeed, the lack of strong accountability mechanisms is
> a well-known shortfall within ICANN.
>
>
> Although efforts have been made to improve the organisation?s
> transparency and accountability over the years, this does not go far
> enough. In our view, ICANN must be made subject to external &
> independent oversight mechanisms in order to ensure meaningful
> accountability of its decisions. We suggest that this could be achieved
> by the creation of a new external, multistakeholder and independent body
> that would review the Board?s decisions & actions and respond to appeals
> subject to rules on standing and applicable grounds for review to be
> defined in the upcoming process. One important feature of such body
> would be that at a minimum no ICANN Board member or staff should be able
> to sit on it, in order to safeguard its independence. Whether that body
> should also include elected members of any of its Advisory Committees or
> Supporting Organizations should be the subject of further discussion.
>
>
> *
>
> What should be the guiding principles to ensure that the notion of
> accountability is understood and accepted globally? What are the
> consequences if the ICANN Board is not being accountable to the
> community? Is there anything that should be added to the Working
> Group?s mandate?
>
>
> Accountability is not simply a notion. It is a fundamental principle of
> governance that ensures that those who make decisions or take action are
> answerable for them. Transparency should be at the heart of any
> accountability process. At the same time, for accountability to be
> meaningful, anyone affected by those decisions or actions must be able
> to challenge them, i.e. have a remedy, subject to rules on standing and
> applicable grounds for review to be defined during the upcoming process.
> Equally, such remedy must be accompanied by proportionate sanctions or
> damages where appropriate. Accountability also requires clear rules,
> transparent decision-making processes, the right to a remedy and appeals
> processes which are independent from the initial decision-maker.
>
>
> Lack of accountability breeds mistrust and inefficiency. If ICANN fails
> to demonstrate its commitment to meaningful accountability, it may
> ultimately lessen the weight of the Board?s decisions vis-a-vis ICANN?s
> constituents, customers and other stakeholders when it makes
> controversial decisions. By contrast, the very existence of stronger
> accountability mechanisms is more likely to lead to better
> decision-making and therefore greater credibility and legitimacy of the
> organisation as a whole.
>
>
>
> *
>
> Do the Affirmation of Commitments and the values expressed therein
> need to evolve to support global acceptance of ICANN?s
> accountability and so, how? How does the Affirmation of Commitments
> need to evolve to support global acceptance of ICANN's
> accountability, and who should take part in this AoC?
>
>
> We believe that several values expressed in the Affirmation of
> Commitments (AOC) should be maintained and supported. In particular, we
> support the commitments to: (a) preserve the security, stability and
> resiliency of the DNS; (b) promote competition, consumer trust, and
> consumer choice in the DNS marketplace; and (c) facilitate international
> participation in DNS technical coordination.
>
>
> At the same time, we believe that the AOC should be amended to ensure
> that ICANN?s decisions are fully consistent with human rights standards.
> In this regard, ICANN should guarantee that decisions related to the
> global technical coordination of the DNS are made in a transparent and
> accountable manner and crucially, ?for the protection and advancement of
> human rights and Internet freedoms? rather than ?in the public
> interest?, which is a standard that lacks sufficient specificity in this
> context.
>
>
> Other aspects of the By-Laws could be amended to reflect the need for
> the organisation to evolve and provide stronger accountability
> mechanisms to the wider community. For instance, the By-Laws should be
> amended to prohibit ICANN from engaging in regulation of content or
> conduct in violation of the rights to freedom of expression or privacy.
> The AOC would need to review adherence to this prohibition.
>
>
> Finally, we reiterate that whilst the AOC constitutes an important check
> on ICANN?s decisions and actions, it is insufficient to provide the kind
> of external accountability that the organisation sorely needs.
>
>
> *
>
> What are the means by which the Community is assured that ICANN is
> meeting its accountability commitments?
>
>
> To begin with, it is vital that the consultation process on ICANN?s
> accountability is conducted in a transparent & inclusive manner in order
> to give credibility to ICANN?s commitments. Secondly, the process
> whereby reform proposals are accepted must be both clear and ensure
> meaningful participation of all stakeholders concerned. Thirdly, as
> noted above, in order to achieve true accountability, ICANN must accept
> some form of external & independent check on its actions, including the
> Board. Consultative processes on accountability should extend beyond
> the ICANN community and into the broader Internet governance ecosystem.
>
>
> In addition, existing accountability & transparency processes must be
> strengthened on several levels. We identify below a number of ways in
> which this could be achieved:
>
>
> Transparency of Board decision-making processes
>
> Accountability & Transparency Review Team 1 & 2 have both made a series
> of recommendations, some of which have not been implemented yet, including:
>
>
> *
>
> The Board?s decision should be both publicised and duly reasoned.
> Where decisions are not unanimous, the minority opinions should be
> documented and attributed.
>
> *
>
> The Board should review redaction standards for Board documents,
> Document Information Disclosure Policy (DIDP) and any other ICANN
> documents to create a single published redaction policy. Equally, a
> process should be put in place to regularly evaluate redacted
> material to determine if redactions are still required and if not,
> ensure that redactions are removed.
>
> *
>
> The Board should ensure the use of Transparency Metrics and Reporting.
>
>
> We believe that these and other recommendations of the ATRT 1 & 2 teams
> are vitally important and should be duly implemented. If the Board
> rejects or fails to implement particular recommendations, it should be
> required to give reasons for its decision or inaction.
>
>
> Strengthening the role and powers of the Ombudsman
>
> At present, the ombudsman?s jurisdiction is confined to complaints
> about unfair treatment by ICANN, decisions, actions or inactions of
> ICANN's supporting organisations as well as decisions, actions, or
> inactions by the Board of Directors that may be inconsistent with the
> Articles of Incorporation or the Bylaws. The Ombudsman has investigative
> powers but can only use alternative dispute resolution mechanisms to
> resolve complaints. It cannot reverse a decision of the Board, for
> instance, but may make a recommendation to the Board where appropriate.
> The Ombudsman's jurisdiction and powers are therefore extremely limited.
> In particular, the Ombudsman does not have the power to make, change or
> set aside a policy, administrative or Board decision, act, or omission.
>
>
> In order to strengthen the powers of the Ombudsman, consideration should
> be given to granting it powers to set Board?s decisions or policies
> aside. At the same time, if an external oversight body with more
> significant powers is put in place (e.g. with powers to set Board?s
> decisions aside), the question arises whether the Ombudsman would still
> serve a useful purpose. In any event, to the extent that Ombudspersons
> are a useful alternative dispute resolution mechanisms before matters
> escalate further, one possibility might be able to give the Ombudsman
> powers to refer a matter to the external independent body.
>
>
> The ombudsman should also have clear authority to investigate any
> complaint brought by an employee that is related to ICANN
> accountability. As with all Ombudsman investigations these
> investigations must maintain the confidentiality of the employee source.
>
> Strengthening the role and powers of the Independent Review of Process Panel
>
> As stated in ICANN?s consultation document, the Reconsideration Process
> is a mechanism to challenge staff action taken against ICANN policies,
> or Board actions taken without consideration of material information or
> based upon false or inaccurate information. In addition, the Independent
> Review Process allows for claims that the ICANN Board acted in a manner
> inconsistent with its Bylaws or Articles of Incorporation to be
> considered by an independent panel of neutrals.
>
>
> However, these mechanisms are in our view unsatisfactory, in particular:
>
>
> *
>
> Reconsideration by the Board Reviewing Committee is not independent
> of the board.
>
>
> *
>
> The outcome of the Reviewing Process carried out by the IRPP is
> purely declaratory. Moreover, its rules of procedure follow
> arbitration rules which are well-known for their lack of
> transparency. It is also unclear whether the IRPP gives reasons for
> its declarations.
>
>
> *
>
> The cost of the IRPP is prohibitive for most causes.
>
>
> *
>
> The current process is only effective in the event that malfeasance
> can be established and thus the standard for winning an IRP is too
> high of a burden to provide meaningful accountability.
>
>
> Accordingly, we recommend that, at a minimum, the IRPP?s decisions
> should be both binding and contain reasons, which should be made public
> as a matter of principle. In addition, the full review process should
> accounts for errors as well as ethical lapses.
>
>
> More generally, we believe that mechanisms should be established in the
> by-laws for dissolution of the Board in exceptional circumstances,
> consistent with the President Strategy Committee?s Draft Implementation
> Plan for Improving Institutional Confidence 2009.
>
>
>
> *
>
> Are there other mechanisms that would better ensure that ICANN lives
> up to its commitments?
>
>
> If ICANN?s status as a private organisation is to be retained,
> consideration should be given to broadening the scope of the issues that
> can be taken up before the local courts, in particular issues relating
> to the right to freedom of expression, and the rights to privacy and
> personal security. Another possibility would be to include a unilateral
> option clause that would enable a choice between the local courts or
> arbitration proceedings.
>
>
> *
>
> What additional comments would you like to share that could be of
> use to the ICANN Accountability Working Group?
>
>
> We note that the creation or improvement of strong accountability
> mechanisms are inextricably linked to the IANA transition process. In
> fact, as we stated in our response to the IANA transition consultation:
> ?Absent the ability to openly discuss separation of policy and
> implementation, completing the IANA transition proposal must be
> contingent on first completing an acceptable proposal addressing ICANN
> accountability.? Therefore, we very much hope that, at a minimum, the
> present contribution will be taken into account as part of the IANA
> transition consultation.
>
>
> Thank you for the opportunity to comment. The NCSG looks forward to
> further contributing to the development of strong accountability
> mechanisms both within and outside of ICANN.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 6 June 2014 12:05, Maria Farrell <maria.farrell at gmail.com
> <mailto:maria.farrell at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> Hi Gabrielle and Niels,
>
> Thank you for drafting this excellent statement. It is a really
> great piece of work.
>
> And thanks to everyone who contributed comments and input along the
> way.
>
> All the best, Maria
>
>
> On 6 June 2014 11:14, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com
> <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> Hi Gabrielle,
>
> thank you very much for the work done and responding to the comments
>
> Rafik
>
>
> 2014-06-06 5:08 GMT+09:00 Gabrielle Guillemin
> <gabrielle at article19.org <mailto:gabrielle at article19.org>>:
>
> Hi all,
>
> This should be the final document:
>
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xz9-BCYY8sMWgACs1OWxDypfQH_DXlzaqlCw-OqlAiY/edit?usp=sharing
>
> Please note that in most instances, we didn't make any
> further changes as there were no concrete language
> suggestions or the comments concerned the questions themselves.
>
> Changes have been made at: Q1, para. 2, last sentence and
> Q2, para.2, 2nd sentence.
>
> Please let me know if you would like the rationale for these
> or if there is anything else we can do.
>
> All the best,
>
> Gabrielle
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Maria Farrell [maria.farrell at gmail.com
> <mailto:maria.farrell at gmail.com>]
> Sent: 03 June 2014 10:38
> To: Rafik Dammak
> Cc: NCSG-Policy; Niels ten Oever; Gabrielle Guillemin
> Subject: Re: [PC-NCSG] [NCSG-Discuss] Draft NCSG response to
> ?Enhancing ICANN?s Accountability?-process.
>
> Sorry, guys - I forgot Niels and Gabrielle weren't on the
> NCSG PC list. Thanks, Rafik!
>
> Rafik, with the timeline I proposed, I let the 5th be
> potentially a day to resolve any conflicting comments Niels
> and Gabrielle receive. So if they get things that are hard
> to reconcile, they may need that 24 hours to write them up.
> But if not, we should be able to submit on 5 June.
>
> cheers, m
>
>
> On 3 June 2014 10:34, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com
> <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com><mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>>>
> wrote:
>
> Hi Maria,
>
> Thanks!adding niels and gabrielle in cc.
> With your proposed timeline I can submit by 5th june?
>
> Rafik
>
> On Jun 3, 2014 6:16 PM, "Maria Farrell"
> <maria.farrell at gmail.com
> <mailto:maria.farrell at gmail.com><mailto:maria.farrell at gmail.com
> <mailto:maria.farrell at gmail.com>>> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Following the 1-week extension by ICANN to submission of
> comments, we now need to finalise and submit ours.
>
> Any final revisions need to be submitted by midnight GMT
> tomorrow, Weds, 4 June. The final version will be submitted
> to ICANN 24 hours after that.
>
> So 1) if you have final revisions, make them to this doc
> (and note your rationale), or send direct to Niels and
> Gabrielle.
>
> 2) Niels/Gabrielle, please send me the final version by
> midnight GMT, Thurs 5 June.
>
> All the best, Maria
>
>
> On 27 May 2014 13:05, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com
> <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com><mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>>>
> wrote:
> Hi Maria,
>
> Niels and Gabrielle are going to work in the comments today
> to resolve the comments. I guess we can have clean version
> by tomorrow?
> I can confirm with them
>
> Rafik
>
>
> 2014-05-27 20:56 GMT+09:00 Maria Farrell
> <maria.farrell at gmail.com
> <mailto:maria.farrell at gmail.com><mailto:maria.farrell at gmail.com
> <mailto:maria.farrell at gmail.com>>>:
>
> Hi all,
>
> Are Niels and Gabrielle happy with the current draft of the
> document at
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xz9-BCYY8sMWgACs1OWxDypfQH_DXlzaqlCw-OqlAiY/edit
> ?
>
> As Rafik has pointed out, we have another couple of days to
> finalise. So I'd just like to check if the interested people
> are still working on the draft / or satisfied with it?
>
> All the best, Maria
>
>
>
> On 26 May 2014 06:34, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com
> <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com><mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>>>
> wrote:
>
> Hi Marilia,
>
> thanks for the review and commenting. the deadline to submit
> was Tuesday 23:59 UTC but checking the announcement, we get
> 3 additional days because the technical issuers with
> migration to new website
> (https://www.icann.org/public-comments/enhancing-accountability-2014-05-06-en).
>
> Policy Committee should endorse asap. I think that Maria
> will handle the last call as PC chair. then having the green
> light I will submit before the deadline.
>
> there will be reply period after this and I think we can
> expand with another comment about missing parts or
> clarifying others, in addition to commenting the
> contributions of other groups.
>
> Niels and Gabrielle are working on resolving remaining
> questions in the document.
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Rafik
>
>
> 2014-05-26 8:03 GMT+09:00 Marilia Maciel
> <mariliamaciel at gmail.com
> <mailto:mariliamaciel at gmail.com><mailto:mariliamaciel at gmail.com
> <mailto:mariliamaciel at gmail.com>>>:
>
> Thanks, Rafik. Made a few comments, mostly on top of others.
> Good contribution. Thanks to folks of Article 19 and others
> who worked on it.
> Best,
> Mar?lia
>
>
> On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 2:42 AM, Rafik Dammak
> <rafik.dammak at gmail.com
> <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com><mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>>>
> wrote:
> Hi Avri,
>
> Niels and Gabrielle will answers comments soon. and yes we
> should lockdown on language soon. hope that next comments
> would propose some wording.
> I think we will be more efficient than ITU.. hopefully :)
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Rafik
>
> 2014-05-23 1:55 GMT+09:00 Avri Doria <avri at acm.org
> <mailto:avri at acm.org><mailto:avri at acm.org
> <mailto:avri at acm.org>>>:
>
> hi,
>
> had already indicated it in comments. have now added words
> to Rafik's
> added words.
>
> added some other weasel words too in response to some of
> Milton's concerns.
>
> when do we get a lock down on the language and a removal of
> brackets.
>
> [we have become so ITU.]
>
> avri
>
>
> On 22-May-14 10:47, Maria Farrell wrote:
> > Hi guys,
> >
> > No final call has yet been made. Avri, would you mind
> marking up the
> > text with your suggestions and re-circulating?
> >
> > Many thanks, Maria
> >
> >
> > On 22 May 2014 13:22, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com
> <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com><mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>>
> > <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com
> <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com><mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>>>>
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Rudi,
> >
> > no, Niels shared the document two days ago and we are
> getting
> > comments now.
> >
> > Rafik
> >
> >
> > 2014-05-22 17:08 GMT+09:00 Rudi Vansnick
> <rudi.vansnick at isoc.be
> <mailto:rudi.vansnick at isoc.be><mailto:rudi.vansnick at isoc.be
> <mailto:rudi.vansnick at isoc.be>>
> > <mailto:rudi.vansnick at isoc.be
> <mailto:rudi.vansnick at isoc.be><mailto:rudi.vansnick at isoc.be
> <mailto:rudi.vansnick at isoc.be>>>>:
> >
> > If I?m not wrong we agreed on the content of the
> proposed
> > document (googledoc) a week ago.
> >
> > Maria, can you proceed ?
> >
> > Kind regards,
> >
> > Rudi Vansnick
> > NPOC chair Policy Committee
> > NPOC treasurer
> > rudi.vansnick at npoc.org
> <mailto:rudi.vansnick at npoc.org><mailto:rudi.vansnick at npoc.org <mailto:rudi.vansnick at npoc.org>>
> <mailto:rudi.vansnick at npoc.org
> <mailto:rudi.vansnick at npoc.org><mailto:rudi.vansnick at npoc.org <mailto:rudi.vansnick at npoc.org>>>
> > Tel : +32 (0)9 329 39 16
> <tel:%2B32%20%280%299%20329%2039%2016><tel:%2B32%20%280%299%20329%2039%2016>
> <tel:%2B32%20%280%299%20329%2039%2016>
> > Mobile : +32 (0)475 28 16 32
> <tel:%2B32%20%280%29475%2028%2016%2032><tel:%2B32%20%280%29475%2028%2016%2032>
> <tel:%2B32%20%280%29475%2028%2016%2032>
> > www.npoc.org
> <http://www.npoc.org><http://www.npoc.org> <http://www.npoc.org>
> >
> > Op 20-mei-2014, om 13:06 heeft Rafik Dammak
> > <rafik.dammak at gmail.com
> <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com><mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>>
> <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com
> <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com><mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>>>>
> het
> > volgende geschreven:
> >
> >> Hi everyone,
> >>
> >> We have this draft commenting ICANN
> accountability. The
> >> comment deadline is 27th may.
> >> I count on PC to act quickly.
> >>
> >> Best Regards,
> >>
> >> Rafik
> >>
> >> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> >> From: "Niels ten Oever"
> <lists at digitaldissidents.org
> <mailto:lists at digitaldissidents.org><mailto:lists at digitaldissidents.org
> <mailto:lists at digitaldissidents.org>>
> >> <mailto:lists at digitaldissidents.org
> <mailto:lists at digitaldissidents.org><mailto:lists at digitaldissidents.org
> <mailto:lists at digitaldissidents.org>>>>
> >> Date: May 20, 2014 7:58 PM
> >> Subject: [NCSG-Discuss] Draft NCSG response to
> ?Enhancing
> >> ICANN?s Accountability?-process.
> >> To: <NCSG-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu
> <mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu><mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu
> <mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu>>
> >> <mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu
> <mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu><mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu
> <mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu>>>>
> >> Cc:
> >>
> >> Dear all,
> >>
> >> Gabrielle and I, with the great comments from
> Brenden and
> >> Avri, have
> >> drafted a potential NCSG response to the
> ?Enhancing ICANN?s
> >> Accountability?-process. You can find it and
> comment here:
> >>
> >>
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xz9-BCYY8sMWgACs1OWxDypfQH_DXlzaqlCw-OqlAiY/edit?usp=sharing
> >>
> >> The deadline is Tuesday next week, so it would be
> great if you
> >> could
> >> share your comments before Monday the 26th.
> >>
> >> Best,
> >>
> >> Niels
> >>
> >>
> >> Niels ten Oever
> >> Acting Head of Digital
> >>
> >> Article 19
> >> www.article19.org
> <http://www.article19.org><http://www.article19.org>
> <http://www.article19.org/>
> >>
> >> PGP fingerprint = 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4 678B
> 08B5 A0F2 636D
> >> 68E9
> >>
> >>
> <signature.asc>_______________________________________________
> >> PC-NCSG mailing list
> >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org><mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>>
> <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org><mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>>>
> >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > PC-NCSG mailing list
> > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org><mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>>
> <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org><mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>>>
> > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > PC-NCSG mailing list
> > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org><mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>>
> > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org><mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>>
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org><mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>>
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
>
>
> --
> Mar?lia Maciel
> Pesquisadora Gestora - Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade -
> FGV Direito Rio
> Researcher and Coordinator - Center for Technology & Society
> - FGV Law School
> http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts
>
> DiploFoundation associate - www.diplomacy.edu
> <http://www.diplomacy.edu><http://www.diplomacy.edu>
> PoliTICs Magazine Advisory Committee -
> http://www.politics.org.br/
> Subscribe "Digital Rights: Latin America & the Caribbean" -
> http://www.digitalrightslac.net/en
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org><mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>>
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
More information about the NCSG-PC
mailing list