[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