[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