[PC-NCSG] [Gnso-ncph-leadership] NCPH v-chair election - just what we all have time for
Avri Doria
avri
Tue Sep 8 15:26:47 EEST 2015
as i said before, we always surrender to them, i see no reason not to do
so again this time.
avri
On 08-Sep-15 08:30, Amr Elsadr wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Agree with Bill and Rafik, and very much share Bill?s sentiments regarding the use of the NCPH list.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Amr
>
>> On Sep 8, 2015, at 10:20 AM, William Drake <wjdrake at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi
>>
>>> On Sep 8, 2015, at 9:17 AM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> with GNSO council chair election coming, we have to finalize this.
>>> can I respond to CSG that:
>>> we would agree with their proposal while we would like to know why they don't support vote against in first round.
>>> we will discuss the procedure of election starting next year with the alternating between NCSG and CSG as approach
>>> Adding as conditions: Interviewing candidates should become a standard practice.If the NCPH will be suggesting both a council vice-chair along with a potential chair, they should be considered together.
>> Makes sense to me
>>> we should start a new thread about GNSO council chair process and if how we shall proceed: getting someone from NCPH or we will keep the statu quo?
>> Yes, and I also think it?d be nice if the NCPH started to communicate again on list, conversations have all moved into a private Cc, which doesn?t sit well.
>>
>> Bill
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 2015-08-30 18:14 GMT+09:00 Joy Liddicoat <joy at liddicoatlaw.co.nz>:
>>> Hi - Rafik I am happy with your initial suggestion - not sure if that
>>> verifies Avri's point or not ...
>>> Cheers
>>> Joy
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: PC-NCSG [mailto:pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
>>> Sent: Friday, 28 August 2015 12:41 a.m.
>>> To: pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org
>>> Subject: Re: [PC-NCSG] [Gnso-ncph-leadership] NCPH v-chair election - just
>>> what we all have time for
>>>
>>> We might as well do whatever CSG wants and get it over with. That is
>>> probably what we will do in the end anyway.
>>>
>>> avri
>>>
>>>
>>> On 27-Aug-15 03:49, Rafik Dammak wrote:
>>>> Hi everyone,
>>>>
>>>> can we make some progress here?
>>>>
>>>> Best,
>>>>
>>>> Rafik
>>>>
>>>> 2015-08-19 21:02 GMT+09:00 Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org
>>>> <mailto:aelsadr at egyptig.org>>:
>>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> It appears to me like we have given Rafik no clear instructions on
>>>> how to proceed on this issue. The longer we delay, the greater the
>>>> urgency we will create in approaching a deadline where we need a
>>>> vice-chair from the NCPH. We?re still stuck on the process to
>>>> select one, instead of actually doing the selecting.
>>>>
>>>> Several points have been raised on this growing thread regarding
>>>> the process, and it looks like we have a bit of divergence on
>>>> whether to proceed with the CSG suggestion for a process, or ask
>>>> to modify it.
>>>>
>>>> I?ve been trying to dig up some of the points raised, but if I
>>>> have left any out, please raise them again:
>>>>
>>>> 1. Interviewing candidates should become a standard practice.
>>>>
>>>> 2. If the NCPH will be suggesting both a council vice-chair along
>>>> with a potential chair, they should be considered together.
>>>>
>>>> 3. Begin the voting cycle with a vote against vs. a vote for
>>>> procedure.
>>>>
>>>> The third point is obviously the contentious issue we are trying
>>>> to resolve. We haven?t heard from everybody on this issue, so we
>>>> could wait until we do. An alternative solution may be to respond
>>>> to Steve?s email by explaining the logic behind starting with
>>>> ?vote against?. If I have understood his email correctly, he
>>>> communicated that fact that the CSG didn?t understand the reason
>>>> for voting in this matter. An explanation from us may find them
>>>> agreeable to the concept.
>>>>
>>>> So which one of the two options would the PC like to move forward
>>>> with? Is there a third option that I have overlooked? One way or
>>>> another, we really do need to resolve this ASAP.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks.
>>>>
>>>> Amr
>>>>
>>>> > On Aug 14, 2015, at 6:18 PM, Rafik Dammak
>>>> <rafik.dammak at GMAIL.COM <mailto:rafik.dammak at GMAIL.COM>> wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> > Hi Ed,
>>>> >
>>>> > It is steve metaltiz not steve del bianco :)
>>>> >
>>>> > Rafik
>>>> >
>>>> > On Aug 15, 2015 1:10 AM, "Edward Morris" <egmorris1 at toast.net
>>>> <mailto:egmorris1 at toast.net>> wrote:
>>>> > Hi Rafik,
>>>> >
>>>> > Thanks for clarifying.
>>>> >
>>>> > Doesn't surprise me. The man probably did his own stress test on
>>>> surgical outcomes and how his operation would impact ICANN's
>>>> accountability going forward and impact on the NTIA approval of
>>>> the transition proposal. Stress test number 36B. :)
>>>> >
>>>> > I'm sure you are on top of this, and thanks, but does the fact
>>>> the NCPH
>>>> >
>>>> > Sent from my iPhone
>>>> >
>>>> > > On Aug 14, 2015, at 4:59 PM, Rafik <rafik.dammak at gmail.com
>>>> <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>> > >
>>>> > > Hi Ed,
>>>> > >
>>>> > > He sent email 2 days ago asking about NCSG position.
>>>> > >
>>>> > > Rafik
>>>> > >
>>>> > >
>>>> > >
>>>> > >> Le 15 Aug 2015 ? 00:53, Edward Morris <egmorris1 at toast.net
>>>> <mailto:egmorris1 at toast.net>> a ?crit :
>>>> > >>
>>>> > >> No objection here.
>>>> > >>
>>>> > >> I believe Steve is recovering from surgery at the moment so
>>>> we might want to give him a few days before engaging him with this.
>>>> > >>
>>>> > >> Ed
>>>> > >>
>>>> > >> Sent from my iPhone
>>>> > >>
>>>> > >>> On Aug 14, 2015, at 4:31 PM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org
>>>> <mailto:aelsadr at egyptig.org>> wrote:
>>>> > >>>
>>>> > >>> Hi,
>>>> > >>>
>>>> > >>> I think we are actually saying the same thing. Ultimately,
>>>> we?ll have to work out a method where both SGs agree on a
>>>> candidate (the consensus I was referring to). This is pretty much
>>>> what you referred to as A2 and B2. Thanks for spelling that out so
>>>> clearly BTW. :)
>>>> > >>>
>>>> > >>> The point I was trying to make is that with a little
>>>> dialogue between the two SGs on who is agreeable to both halves of
>>>> the NCPH prior to any official elections taking place, then it
>>>> won?t matter what method we use (A1, B1, A2 or B2). Effectively,
>>>> we?ll have gone through the A2/B2 cycle first anyway. So I see no
>>>> need to delay this year?s election to work out which method we
>>>> use. If others would prefer we communicate the merits of A2/B2 to
>>>> Steve, I won?t object. Lets just get on with it.
>>>> > >>>
>>>> > >>> I hope that clarifies where I?m coming from.
>>>> > >>>
>>>> > >>> Thanks.
>>>> > >>>
>>>> > >>> Amr
>>>> > >>>
>>>> > >>>> On Aug 14, 2015, at 4:11 PM, Avri Doria <avri at ACM.ORG
>>>> <mailto:avri at ACM.ORG>> wrote:
>>>> > >>>>
>>>> > >>>> Hi,
>>>> > >>>>
>>>> > >>>> I find it difficult to understand that the logical
>>>> difference between
>>>> > >>>> the two methods is not apparent
>>>> > >>>>
>>>> > >>>> A1 - is CSG favorite but NCSG most hated
>>>> > >>>> B 1- is NCSG favorite but CSG most hated
>>>> > >>>>
>>>> > >>>> A2 - is NCSG and CSG doesn't mind
>>>> > >>>> B2 - is CSG and NCSG doesn't mind
>>>> > >>>>
>>>> > >>>> In one regualr case the 2nd round is A1 vs B1 and neither
>>>> gets the
>>>> > >>>> supermajority needed.
>>>> > >>>> In the voice out the least favorite case 2nd round is A2 vs
>>>> B2 and
>>>> > >>>> someone might get the supermajority
>>>> > >>>>
>>>> > >>>> And if you need to go the third round
>>>> > >>>>
>>>> > >>>> In one case A1 or B1 against no one - no one wins
>>>> > >>>> in the other case A2 or B2, against no one - some might
>>>> actually get
>>>> > >>>> supermajority.
>>>> > >>>>
>>>> > >>>> We have used the regular method several times and mostly
>>>> ended up
>>>> > >>>> deadlocked.
>>>> > >>>>
>>>> > >>>> good luck
>>>> > >>>>
>>>> > >>>> avri
>>>> > >>>>
>>>> > >>>>
>>>> > >>>>> On 14-Aug-15 15:54, Amr Elsadr wrote:
>>>> > >>>>> Hi,
>>>> > >>>>>
>>>> > >>>>> To be honest, it seems to me that eliminating the
>>>> unacceptable first, or just moving directly to electing the most
>>>> desirable is of little consequence, which is why I am in favour of
>>>> just moving this along. Making these decisions in the NCPH doesn?t
>>>> really work without creating a consensus. So cutting to the chase
>>>> and communicating directly with the CSG on candidacy (council
>>>> chair/VC) issues will probably always work out best, whichever
>>>> method we agree ultimately end up using.
>>>> > >>>>>
>>>> > >>>>> Thanks.
>>>> > >>>>>
>>>> > >>>>> Amr
>>>> > >>>>>
>>>> > >>>>>> On Aug 14, 2015, at 2:41 PM, Edward Morris
>>>> <egmorris1 at toast.net <mailto:egmorris1 at toast.net>> wrote:
>>>> > >>>>>>
>>>> > >>>>>> This is my first time experiencing this process so am
>>>> largely attempting to understand the issues and processes
>>>> involved. That said, I've come to he realization that on issues
>>>> like this involving Council procedures I ultimately wind up where
>>>> Avri generally starts from. I actually like the proposal to
>>>> eliminate the unacceptable and then moving on from there. Although
>>>> I'm not fully engaged in this debate please count me as supporting
>>>> Avri's position to the extent it matters.
>>>> > >>>>>>
>>>> > >>>>>> As to the Ombudsman proposal below: no. His remit
>>>> currently is limited to fairness, not community dispute
>>>> resolution. It may make sense to add to his remit once he is
>>>> chosen and responds to the community but as long as he is chosen
>>>> by the Bosrd I'd prefer to leave him out of NCPH affairs.
>>>> > >>>>>>
>>>> > >>>>>> Ed
>>>> > >>>>>>
>>>> > >>>>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>> > >>>>>>
>>>> > >>>>>>> On Aug 14, 2015, at 1:17 PM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org
>>>> <mailto:avri at acm.org>> wrote:
>>>> > >>>>>>>
>>>> > >>>>>>> i think i am the only dissenting voice.
>>>> > >>>>>>>
>>>> > >>>>>>> avri
>>>> > >>>>>>>
>>>> > >>>>>>>
>>>> > >>>>>>>> On 14-Aug-15 02:48, Rafik Dammak wrote:
>>>> > >>>>>>>> Hi everyone,
>>>> > >>>>>>>>
>>>> > >>>>>>>> can I understand we got a rough consensus here about
>>>> the response to
>>>> > >>>>>>>> send to CSG: agreeing about their proposal for this
>>>> year only,
>>>> > >>>>>>>> discussing about alternation for next years and working
>>>> to let them
>>>> > >>>>>>>> commit to that. also I will ask them to discuss more in
>>>> NCPH list .
>>>> > >>>>>>>>
>>>> > >>>>>>>> for next long term process for VC election, we will conduct
>>>> > >>>>>>>> consultation within NCSG membership, managed by PC.
>>>> > >>>>>>>>
>>>> > >>>>>>>> Best,
>>>> > >>>>>>>>
>>>> > >>>>>>>> Rafik
>>>> > >>>>>>>>
>>>> > >>>>>>>> 2015-08-12 18:17 GMT+09:00 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>>>:
>>>> > >>>>>>>>
>>>> > >>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>> > >>>>>>>>
>>>> > >>>>>>>> On Aug 12, 2015 6:05 PM, "Amr Elsadr"
>>>> <aelsadr at egyptig.org <mailto:aelsadr at egyptig.org>
>>>> > >>>>>>>> <mailto:aelsadr at egyptig.org
>>>> <mailto:aelsadr at egyptig.org>>> wrote:
>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>> > >>>>>>>>>
>>>> > >>>>>>>>> That sounds good to me. Lets get the ball rolling on
>>>> this year?s
>>>> > >>>>>>>> election of a VC, but make clear to Steve and the CSG
>>>> that we
>>>> > >>>>>>>> still need to talk more about how the rotations would
>>>> work. I hope
>>>> > >>>>>>>> we can start on that sooner rather than later.
>>>> > >>>>>>>>
>>>> > >>>>>>>> That is the goal, getting a clear answer to CSG
>>>> > >>>>>>>>> May I also ask a question? Is there a reason why we?re
>>>> not using
>>>> > >>>>>>>> the NCPH leadership list to hold this conversation?
>>>> > >>>>>>>> I asked several time that we conduct discussions there
>>>> but the
>>>> > >>>>>>>> list sounds dead for now (while they get the proposal
>>>> from the
>>>> > >>>>>>>> message Avri sent to that list)
>>>> > >>>>>>>>
>>>> > >>>>>>>>> And one last point?, after we agree to proceed with
>>>> this year?s election, our agreement to a formal
>>>> > >>>>>>>> process should be provisional, and only finalised after
>>>> we hold a
>>>> > >>>>>>>> discussion about it on NCSG-DISCUSS. Our members really
>>>> do need to
>>>> > >>>>>>>> be made aware that we are working these issues out with
>>>> our NCPH
>>>> > >>>>>>>> counterparts.
>>>> > >>>>>>>>
>>>> > >>>>>>>> Yes that is the goal to document better the processes
>>>> and keep
>>>> > >>>>>>>> records. For NCSG list, yes sure but I hope the PC will
>>>> take the
>>>> > >>>>>>>> lead to do so and conduct the consultation. Maybe some
>>>> work on how
>>>> > >>>>>>>> to conduct consultation about positions on more
>>>> systematic manner.
>>>> > >>>>>>>>
>>>> > >>>>>>>> Rafik
>>>> > >>>>>>>>
>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Thanks.
>>>> > >>>>>>>>>
>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Amr
>>>> > >>>>>>>>>
>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> On Aug 12, 2015, at 3:42 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,
>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>
>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> lets focus here on the priority task: agreeing in the
>>>> answer
>>>> > >>>>>>>> to CWG about the proposal. can I understand we can
>>>> accept the
>>>> > >>>>>>>> amendment and acknowledge the concerns raised by Avri. the
>>>> > >>>>>>>> proposal is for this year, after that we will have to
>>>> discuss
>>>> > >>>>>>>> about rotation proposal and how we need to keep their
>>>> commitments,
>>>> > >>>>>>>> maybe by including the ombudsman in the process.
>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> for the chair election, it will be good to break the
>>>> what is
>>>> > >>>>>>>> becoming a tradition to have a chair from CPH, but we
>>>> should agree
>>>> > >>>>>>>> first on what we see as a good chair. we can discuss
>>>> that later.
>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> I should answer Steve soon about our position.
>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>
>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Best,
>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>
>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Rafik
>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>
>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> 2015-08-12 0:51 GMT+09:00 William Drake
>>>> <wjdrake at gmail.com <mailto:wjdrake at gmail.com>
>>>> > >>>>>>>> <mailto:wjdrake at gmail.com <mailto:wjdrake at gmail.com>>>:
>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Hi
>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>
>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> So Tony?s a no, but appreciates the interest. Plans
>>>> to kick
>>>> > >>>>>>>> back more.
>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Bill
>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>
>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>
>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> On Aug 11, 2015, at 5:30 PM, Stephanie Perrin
>>>> > >>>>>>>> <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca
>>>> <mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>
>>>> > >>>>>>>> <mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca
>>>> <mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>>> wrote:
>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Voila yes, except of course that would tie up one of
>>>> our best
>>>> > >>>>>>>> guys right when we are losing Avri....leaving us
>>>> newbies running
>>>> > >>>>>>>> the ranch (yeah yeah I know, I cannot keep calling
>>>> myself a newbie...)
>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> SP
>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Perennially new (or is that Perrinially new??)
>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2015-08-11 4:41, William Drake wrote:
>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Aug 11, 2015, at 10:32 AM, Edward Morris
>>>> > >>>>>>>> <egmorris1 at toast.net <mailto:egmorris1 at toast.net>
>>>> <mailto:egmorris1 at toast.net <mailto:egmorris1 at toast.net>>> wrote:
>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> That said, Amr is someone who would be acceptable
>>>> to more
>>>> > >>>>>>>> than a few CSG and CPH members.
>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> If so then voila, no?
>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>
>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> 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>
>>>> > >>>>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>> > >>>>>>>
>>>> > >>>>>>> ---
>>>> > >>>>>>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast
>>>> antivirus software.
>>>> > >>>>>>> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>>>> > >>>>>>>
>>>> > >>>>>>>
>>>> > >>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> > >>>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>> > >>>>>>> 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>
>>>> > >>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>> > >>>>
>>>> > >>>>
>>>> > >>>> ---
>>>> > >>>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus
>>>> software.
>>>> > >>>> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>>>> > >>>>
>>>> > >>>>
>>>> > >>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> > >>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>> > >>>> 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>
>>>> > >>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>> > >>
>>>> > >>
>>>> > >> _______________________________________________
>>>> > >> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>> > >> 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>
>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>
>>> ---
>>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>>> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>> 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
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>> *********************************************************
>> William J. Drake
>> International Fellow & Lecturer
>> Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ
>> University of Zurich, Switzerland
>> Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency,
>> ICANN, www.ncuc.org
>> william.drake at uzh.ch (direct), wjdrake at gmail.com (lists),
>> www.williamdrake.org
>> Internet Governance: The NETmundial Roadmap http://goo.gl/sRR01q
>> *********************************************************
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> 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
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
More information about the NCSG-PC
mailing list