[PC-NCSG] [Gnso-ncph-leadership] NCPH v-chair election - just what we all have time for
Marilia Maciel
mariliamaciel
Tue Sep 8 19:41:47 EEST 2015
Hey, ho. Let's move forward for this year knowing there are things to
revisit here.
M
On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 9:30 AM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> 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
>
--
*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
PoliTICs Magazine Advisory Committee - http://www.politics.org.br/
Subscribe "Digital Rights: Latin America & the Caribbean" -
http://www.digitalrightslac.net/en
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150908/71377727/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the NCSG-PC
mailing list