[NCSG-PC] Fwd: Re: ICANN58 Data Protection Session Planning
Stephanie Perrin
stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca
Wed Feb 15 23:38:36 EET 2017
you are right, it is on Saturday
On 2017-02-15 12:33, Ayden Férdeline wrote:
> Hi Stephanie,
>
> I don't see an RDS meeting scheduled for the Wednesday? Perhaps it is
> on the schedule under a different name, or perhaps I have just missed
> it? (Here is a link to the tentative schedule
> <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20170214/01a86592/attachment.pdf>.)
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Ayden
>
>
>> -------- Original Message --------
>> Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Re: ICANN58 Data Protection Session Planning
>> Local Time: 15 February 2017 11:55 AM
>> UTC Time: 15 February 2017 11:55
>> From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca
>> To: Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
>> ncsg-pc <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>
>>
>>
>> Ok so Maryam got back to me. THey forgot it. (how Convenient). So
>> do we have a preferred timeslot? I will ask Peter....
>>
>> Steph
>>
>>
>> On 2017-02-15 00:28, Rafik Dammak wrote:
>>> Hi Stephanie,
>>>
>>> I think what Farzaneh wanted to highlight is that NCSG made a
>>> meeting request for NCSG-DPA session but you are saying that DPA
>>> will go to RDS session instead?
>>>
>>> Best,
>>>
>>> Rafik
>>>
>>>
>>> 2017-02-15 14:12 GMT+09:00 Stephanie Perrin
>>> <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca
>>> <mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>>:
>>>
>>> Wednesday is still our day alone to use as we see fit. Chuck is
>>> trying to get Mr Cannatucci to attend our RDS meeting on
>>> Wednesday., I will forward that thread to you as well. All the
>>> other sessions are monday
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2017-02-14 23:59, farzaneh badii wrote:
>>>> Hi Stephanie,
>>>>
>>>> We both asked Maryam to follow up on NCSG session with the UN
>>>> special rapp. I think would be helpful that Tapani also follows
>>>> up since it's an NCSG request and we still don't see it on the
>>>> schedule. Did I interpret it wrong that you said Chuck was
>>>> planning to turn that into a GNSO meeting. Is the
>>>> wednesday session only NCSG meeting wtih the UN rapp?
>>>>
>>>> Farzaneh
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 11:23 PM, Stephanie Perrin
>>>> <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca
>>>> <mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> What happened is this:
>>>>
>>>> * GAC was asked to sponsor, never got it done
>>>> * GNSO was asked to sponsor, proposed instead to replace
>>>> a lapsed HIT with this panel
>>>> * Invitations went out for the opening day of the
>>>> conference (they had to, these are busy guys)
>>>> * IPC weighed in demanding balanced HIT style panels
>>>> (Victoria sheckler their person on this)
>>>> * Side meetings have apparently been arranged
>>>> * only guy available for our meeting on Wednesday is UN
>>>> Special Rapporteur for privacy (grateful for this, this
>>>> is a big deal and I am trying to get his latest book
>>>> read prior to the event
>>>>
>>>> Last version I saw of the schedule we did not have a
>>>> session. You were checking on that. Chuck Gomes was
>>>> asking for time for the PDP on RDS but Monday is only day,
>>>> he is trying for 8 am breakfast meeting.
>>>>
>>>> cheers Steph
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 2017-02-14 23:09, farzaneh badii wrote:
>>>>> Hi Stephanie,
>>>>>
>>>>> Can you clarify something for me? Is this the Cross-
>>>>> Community Discussion with Data Protection Commissioners?
>>>>>
>>>>> If so, didn't we also submit a session request ( NCSG
>>>>> request)? Did that turn into the above session? Where did
>>>>> this session come from and where is NCSG session?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Farzaneh
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 10:43 PM, Stephanie Perrin
>>>>> <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca
>>>>> <mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I am biting my tongue on this. As some of you heard,
>>>>> I raised this with Goran. I am tempted to just slide
>>>>> it along to him. With of course a mention of how the
>>>>> GAC and ICANN staff sat on this from Hyderabad until
>>>>> mid January.
>>>>>
>>>>> Suggestions welcome. Pissed off, am I.
>>>>>
>>>>> Steph
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> -------- Forwarded Message --------
>>>>> Subject:
>>>>> Re: ICANN58 Data Protection Session Planning
>>>>> Date:
>>>>> Tue, 14 Feb 2017 21:52:54 -0500
>>>>> From:
>>>>> Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
>>>>> <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
>>>>> To:
>>>>> KIMPIAN Peter <Peter.KIMPIAN at coe.int>
>>>>> <mailto:Peter.KIMPIAN at coe.int>
>>>>> CC:
>>>>> Victoria Sheckler <vsheckler at riaa.com>
>>>>> <mailto:vsheckler at riaa.com>, James M. Bladel
>>>>> <jbladel at godaddy.com> <mailto:jbladel at godaddy.com>,
>>>>> kathy at kathykleiman.com <mailto:kathy at kathykleiman.com>
>>>>> <kathy at kathykleiman.com>
>>>>> <mailto:kathy at kathykleiman.com>,
>>>>> donna.austin at neustar.biz
>>>>> <mailto:donna.austin at neustar.biz>
>>>>> <donna.austin at neustar.biz>
>>>>> <mailto:donna.austin at neustar.biz>,
>>>>> heather.forrest at acu.edu.au
>>>>> <mailto:heather.forrest at acu.edu.au>
>>>>> <heather.forrest at acu.edu.au>
>>>>> <mailto:heather.forrest at acu.edu.au>, Stephanie Perrin
>>>>> <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>
>>>>> <mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>, KWASNY
>>>>> Sophie <Sophie.KWASNY at coe.int>
>>>>> <mailto:Sophie.KWASNY at coe.int>, Wilson, Christopher
>>>>> <cwilson at 21cf.com> <mailto:cwilson at 21cf.com>, Tony
>>>>> Holmes <tonyarholmes at btinternet.com>
>>>>> <mailto:tonyarholmes at btinternet.com>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> All,
>>>>>
>>>>> /First, apologies for the length of this message and a
>>>>> tone that is more strident than I intend it to be.
>>>>> Another pass through this email could smooth the rough
>>>>> edges, but it is 2:45 am in Reykjavik and I have a
>>>>> 7:15 breakfast meeting, so my capacity is exhausted
>>>>> (and so am I). Please read this with a friendly,
>>>>> collegial tone in mind and indulge me where I have
>>>>> failed to have the tone of the text match my desire to
>>>>> be a good working partner (and to "disagree without
>>>>> being disagreeable") even where our perspectives may
>>>>> differ. (As partial explanation, my sport of choice
>>>>> in my youth was rugby ("a ruffian's game played by
>>>>> gentlemen"), while fencing probably would have been
>>>>> more apropos....)/
>>>>>
>>>>> I am quite concerned with where we are in this
>>>>> discussion. There are either some substantial
>>>>> misunderstandings about what this session, as a "High
>>>>> Interest Topic", is supposed to be -- or there is an
>>>>> apparent intent to exclude perspectives that will keep
>>>>> this from being a celebration of data protection
>>>>> principles. I hope it's the former, but even that is
>>>>> unfortunate.
>>>>>
>>>>> Perhaps the root of the problem is combining the
>>>>> original idea for a CoE-organized presentation with
>>>>> the High Interest Topic (HIT) concept -- or perhaps
>>>>> that just highlighted the inherent problem with the
>>>>> session. HIT doesn't just refer to a level of interest
>>>>> -- it's supposed to be a community-generated proposal
>>>>> that is then planned and presented with
>>>>> multistakeholder participation (and _not_ merely by
>>>>> the proposing organization). One of the problems we
>>>>> had with the last round of HITs was a proposal for a
>>>>> HIT session to be planned and presented by a single
>>>>> part of the community, largely consisting of a
>>>>> presentation by one of its members and only minor
>>>>> roles for any sector not sympathetic to the views of
>>>>> this member and community group. This was inconsistent
>>>>> with the idea that the proposing organization does not
>>>>> control the content of a HIT session. Fortunately, the
>>>>> original planners agreed to to expand to a more
>>>>> diverse planning team, with the result being a more
>>>>> diverse panel and a very lively and well-received
>>>>> session. When community leaders got on the phone to
>>>>> consider this round of HITs, we wanted to avoid a
>>>>> replay of this situation (although it ended well enough).
>>>>>
>>>>> When this data protection session was brought to the
>>>>> community leaders group as a late suggestion for one
>>>>> of the HIT slots, I was concerned we might be heading
>>>>> for a replay, so the IPC specified that one of our
>>>>> members (Vicky) should be added to the planning group
>>>>> (knowing that at least one other constituency shared
>>>>> very similar concerns). Unlike the last time, where we
>>>>> were able to get a hand on the tiller and help turn
>>>>> the ship, I've found our attempts to be largely
>>>>> rebuffed. This has been increasingly frustrating.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'd like to respond to some of the specific statements
>>>>> on this thread since I last had an opportunity to respond:
>>>>>
>>>>> Vicky wrote:
>>>>> I don’t see here (but I am also sleep deprived) which
>>>>> panelist will represent public safety / transparency /
>>>>> enforcement concerns.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Peter responded:
>>>>> Uuhhh, if you are in US it is quite early for you…in
>>>>> my sense usually the governments are responsible and
>>>>> accountable for the issues you mentioned, therefore it
>>>>> seemed to me logical that those issues will be taken
>>>>> care by a representative of the GAC. Besides that, the
>>>>> PSWG is a sub-group of the GAC which is deliberately
>>>>> discussing those issues you mentioned…
>>>>>
>>>>> Greg: This misses the point of Vicky's question and
>>>>> perhaps misses a fundamental point about ICANN -- that
>>>>> it is a multistakeholder organization and /not/ a
>>>>> multilateral organization. Governments are not the
>>>>> only ones concerned with investigation and enforcement
>>>>> -- there are also significant parts of the private
>>>>> sector deeply engaged in investigation and enforcement
>>>>> (and not to put too fine a point on it, but IPC (my
>>>>> group and Vicky's group) represents one of those parts
>>>>> of the private sector). As such, at least one voice
>>>>> from these parts of the private sector should be
>>>>> present on the panel. Even within governments, there
>>>>> are parts that deal with public safety and
>>>>> enforcement. The idea that a representative of the GAC
>>>>> will provide this perspective seems mistaken. As fine
>>>>> a chair as the GAC chair is, I don't believe this is
>>>>> his perspective, and the suggestion this would be
>>>>> within his brief seemed based more on protocol than
>>>>> practicality. As revealed in this thread, Ms.
>>>>> Bauer-Bulst is the co-chair of the PSWG, so would be
>>>>> more on point for this perspective (though apparently
>>>>> she is not sufficiently august to appear on the panel,
>>>>> even if she is a Deputy Head of Unit, and not merely a
>>>>> Team Leader as was stated earlier in this exchange).
>>>>>
>>>>> Peter replied to James Bladel in red below:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks, Peter. Looks like I did miss this at some
>>>>> point, so please accept my apologies for the
>>>>> confusion.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Generally, I"m ok with this, but a few thoughts:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> * I'm not sure what "sponsored" by the GNSO means
>>>>> in this context. Maybe we could say something like
>>>>> "convened" or "supported" jointly by the GNSO &
>>>>> GAC?àthis expression was used by ICANN staff but I
>>>>> can only agree that those you suggested are much
>>>>> better.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Greg: From my point of view, this support is
>>>>> predicated on the panel representing multiple
>>>>> perspectives.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> * I think we need to keep the number panelists to
>>>>> an absolute minimum.àI agree. 3+3 should be the
>>>>> maximum (!). If we strive to represent all seven
>>>>> GNSO SG/Cs, plus GAC, plus COE/DPAs, then this
>>>>> session runs the risk of becoming "Death by
>>>>> PowerPoint" and dosn't leave much time for Q&A.
>>>>> To that end, I will let Graeme know that we are
>>>>> looking for a RrSG panelist, but would encourage
>>>>> them to reach out to Jim Galvin and see if he is
>>>>> comfortable representing industry generally. Or if
>>>>> we need another CPH person that can wear both
>>>>> "hats."ànot necessarily as Jim could represent it
>>>>> quite well, I am sure. (Being said that we would
>>>>> have preferred more focus on the industry itself
>>>>> and to the different players as they are the first
>>>>> level data controllers. All NCPH and GAC related
>>>>> groups are secondary only) But if the internal
>>>>> dynamic of GNSO is as such, be it, but in this
>>>>> case we suggest Becky Burr to be on the panel (and
>>>>> not being moderator).
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Greg: ICANN and the GNSO are not merely about "the
>>>>> industry." If you wanted an industry facing program or
>>>>> a dialogue only with "the industry", the appropriate
>>>>> place for that would be the GDD (Global Domains
>>>>> Division) Summit. As the President of an "NCPH
>>>>> related group" I can assure you that our concerns
>>>>> about data protection and privacy are not "secondary"
>>>>> -- at least not to us and our stakeholder community.
>>>>> This further shows the problem of "perspectives" as
>>>>> this panel is being planned.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> * Similarly, I think the NCPH should strive for ~2
>>>>> panelists. Again, I apologize if the discussions
>>>>> were already headed in this direction, as I have
>>>>> lost track of the names proposed in this thread.àI
>>>>> really think that if CPH has one panellist NCPH
>>>>> should also has to have 1 only because of the
>>>>> arguments expressed above.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Greg: Peter, you may not know it (or perhaps you may)
>>>>> but the NCPH is an umbrella over two parts of the GNSO
>>>>> -- the Commercial Stakeholder Group and the
>>>>> Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group. There is no valid
>>>>> way that a single panelist could provide the sharply
>>>>> different perspectives of these two stakeholder
>>>>> groups. Even having a single panelist representative
>>>>> the different perspectives of IP stakeholders, ISPs
>>>>> and Connectivity Providers, and the business user
>>>>> community is a stretch (which hopefully would be
>>>>> mitigated by Q&A). I would say that if only panelist
>>>>> came from the NCPH, they should come from the CSG, as
>>>>> we would offer a more distinguishable perspective, but
>>>>> frankly that would be unfair to the Non-Commercial
>>>>> side of the house (which itself includes a range of
>>>>> viewpoints), and I don't want to be unfair to the NCSG
>>>>> and its constituencies either.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> àTherefore our suggestion for the panel: Becky
>>>>> Burr, Thomas Schneider, Jim Galvin
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Greg: This neatly includes the contracted parties
>>>>> (Registries and Registrars) and excluded the
>>>>> commercial private sector represented in the NCPH.
>>>>> This is not acceptable. (Which is why James, as Chair
>>>>> of the GNSO, wisely suggested 2 panelists from the NCPH.)
>>>>>
>>>>> This description was provided by Peter:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> A community-wide event will be organised on 13
>>>>> March 2017 under the form of a High Interest Topic
>>>>> “sponsored” by the Generic Names Supporting
>>>>> Organization (GNSO) Council (and possibly by the
>>>>> Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) as well)
>>>>> which will enable the participation of interested
>>>>> ICANN communities.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Greg: We are an interested ICANN community and we have
>>>>> been seeking to participate and/or to have
>>>>> participation from the
>>>>> enforcement/cybercrime/infringement side of the
>>>>> roster. So far with no success.
>>>>>
>>>>> The session could be jointly opened by the CEO of
>>>>> ICANN Board and the Director of Information
>>>>> Society and Action against Crime of the Council of
>>>>> Europe. During the session the United Nations’
>>>>> Special Rapporteur on the right to privacy, the
>>>>> co-Chair of the Article 29 Working Group and the
>>>>> European Data Protection Supervisor together with
>>>>> high level representatives of registries’ group,
>>>>> the registrars’ group and the GAC will address in
>>>>> 10 minutes each the above mentioned topics. During
>>>>> the session the involvement of the audience will
>>>>> be guaranteed by an open mike slot.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I think during the last days, weeks we have
>>>>> reached an agreement on Ms Becky Burr moderating
>>>>> the panel and having James Galvin as
>>>>> representative for registries’ group (both seemed
>>>>> to agree on that). If we follow this logic we
>>>>> would need one representative from the GAC and one
>>>>> from registrars’ group. (We previously
>>>>>
>>>>> P
>>>>> suggested that the chair of these communities
>>>>> could be invited to speak under these two slots).
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Greg: Not to sound like a broken record, but this
>>>>> emphasis on including the contracted parties to the
>>>>> exclusion of the non-contracted parties really runs
>>>>> counter to multistakeholder sensibilities.
>>>>>
>>>>> If the emphasis is on "high level representatives" and
>>>>> "chairs" I would be willing to join the panel as the
>>>>> chair of my community, though we may have better
>>>>> candidates on substance (including Vicky, who is our
>>>>> vice chair).
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> In response to my email asking what her goals for the
>>>>> panel were (and which stated much of what I've
>>>>> restated above), Stephanie Perrin wrote: Peter and the
>>>>> COE are organizing this. I will let them explain the
>>>>> goals. In my personal view....data protection
>>>>> commissioners are not present at ICANN. The dialogue
>>>>> has been anything but robust, although they have been
>>>>> attempting to engage for many many years.
>>>>>
>>>>> Vicky responded:
>>>>>
>>>>> It is clear we need additional perspectives to
>>>>> make this a robust panel. I think james is a good
>>>>> addition and we also need someone with Cathrin's
>>>>> perspective,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Greg: We still need that perspective.
>>>>>
>>>>> Peter responded with COE's goals:
>>>>>
>>>>> The panellists will be invited to exchange views on
>>>>> the privacy and data protection implications of
>>>>> processing of WHOIS data, third party access to
>>>>> personal data and the issue of accountability for the
>>>>> processing of personal data. The expected outcome of
>>>>> the event is a better mutual understanding of the
>>>>> underlying questions related to the protection of
>>>>> privacy and personal data and the strengthening of an
>>>>> open and inclusive dialogue on these issues, to be
>>>>> carried on anytime deemed necessary.
>>>>>
>>>>> Greg: We are among those "third parties" and we are
>>>>> seeking to be included in an open and inclusive
>>>>> dialogue, and to include the perspective of government
>>>>> as among those "third parties" as well. I'm not sure
>>>>> why this has become quite so difficult.
>>>>>
>>>>> Prior to that Peter wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I really don’t want to hurt anybody personally, I find
>>>>> this exchange of mails rather odd [discussion of the
>>>>> importance of EDPS, correction of Ms. Bauer-Bulst's
>>>>> characterization of the EDPS as a "body that advises,"
>>>>> and the relative ranks of various potential panelists
>>>>> removed for space]
>>>>>
>>>>> Greg: I'm not sure why you find this exchange of
>>>>> emails "rather odd", but perhaps it traces back to the
>>>>> mismatch between a community-planned HIT and a panel
>>>>> planned by the CoE. These emails are our attempts at
>>>>> community planning -- again an essentially
>>>>> multistakeholder effort.
>>>>>
>>>>> In response to Stephanie's question to me "Who would
>>>>> you propose?" (responding to my view that we needed a
>>>>> panel that represented multiple perspectives), Peter
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I think we all are on the same page...therefore I
>>>>> suggest to include Becky Burr to this panel. She was
>>>>> recommended by other constituencies as well so if you
>>>>> agree we can move along.
>>>>>
>>>>> Greg: I respect Becky immensely and already said she
>>>>> was a great choice on many counts. Yet, the response
>>>>> above misses my point -- that we need perspectives
>>>>> beyond data protection officials and "the industry."
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Any more would be piling on, but I wanted to note just
>>>>> a couple more things. One was Peter's suggestion that
>>>>> /The current state of preparation would imply the
>>>>> following meetings/-/a session with the GAC
>>>>> plenary,/-/a working lunch with the Board,/-/community
>>>>> wide afternoon session possibly in the format of an
>>>>> “High Interest Topic”./-/alternatively or subsequently
>>>>> a joint meeting with GNSO Council and ccNSO Council
>>>>> /-/bilateral meetings with NSCG, NCUC and ALAC/
>>>>> //
>>>>> Greg: I would suggest that a bilateral meeting with
>>>>> the CSG (and not merely with the more /simpatico/
>>>>> community groups) should be considered, to say the
>>>>> least. We would be honored to have such a meeting
>>>>> (and we don't bite).
>>>>>
>>>>> Peter wrote, in response to Vicky:
>>>>> Separately, please note I anticipate having some
>>>>> additional suggestions for consideration for this
>>>>> panel by the end of next week.àPlease do so, but you
>>>>> have to understand that it is rather strange that 1
>>>>> month away of the event we don’t know who the speakers
>>>>> would be. We have also made suggestions which we
>>>>> believe enjoy the support of many in GNSO (and beyond)
>>>>> fellows and follows the idea of multi-stakeholderism
>>>>> and cover the main issues Victoria suggested us to
>>>>> take into account including third party access to
>>>>> data. I would recommend to consider those and come
>>>>> back to us as quickly as you can…
>>>>>
>>>>> Greg: Given that this session was only suggested as a
>>>>> High Interest Topic on January 23, it's not so strange
>>>>> that we have not finalized the speakers list. We
>>>>> began discussing the other HIT sessions quite a bit
>>>>> earlier. That said, the sooner we can bring the
>>>>> necessary people with the necessary perspectives and
>>>>> the necessary protocol-sensitive rank (apologies for
>>>>> our insensitivity to protocol concerns; I guess
>>>>> Americans don't do well with rank, and one of the
>>>>> refreshing aspects of the ICANN milieu is that rank is
>>>>> generally absent from our considerations).
>>>>>
>>>>> I will once again emphasize that GNSO is itself a
>>>>> multistakeholder organization so having "the support
>>>>> of many in GNSO" does not mean that your suggestions
>>>>> have the support of our part of the GNSO (hence, our
>>>>> attempts since late last month). Leaving out the
>>>>> commercial sector does not quite follow the idea of
>>>>> multistakeholderism....
>>>>>
>>>>> I would love nothing more for us to resolve this to
>>>>> our collective and individual satisfaction and move
>>>>> on. I look forward to doing so.
>>>>>
>>>>> Best Regards,
>>>>>
>>>>> Greg Shatan
>>>>> President
>>>>> Intellectual Property Constituency
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list
>>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is>
>>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>>>>> <https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> NCSG-PC mailing list
>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is>
>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>>> <https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc>
>>>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NCSG-PC mailing list
> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20170215/d6200859/attachment.htm>
More information about the NCSG-PC
mailing list