[NCSG-PC] Fwd: Re: ICANN58 Data Protection Session Planning

Rafik Dammak rafik.dammak at gmail.com
Thu Feb 23 01:47:20 EET 2017 

Hi,

the data protection session is scheduled for Monday
https://schedule.icann.org/event/9nnl/cross-community-discussion-with-data-protection-commissioners
the commissioners have other sessions, one with GAC (
https://schedule.icann.org/event/9np1/gac-meeting-council-of-europe-data-protection-commissioners)
and I think some private meetings not listed in the schedule.
we had the suggestion to have meeting the commissioners in
Tuesday during NCSG session for CD but I don't think we have any suggested
time or heard from Peter about that. @Stephanie can you please confirm the
availability with him?
we will also have to adjust our NCSG session agenda, @Tapani do you have a
draft agenda for it yet? the session is here
https://schedule.icann.org/event/9nqC/gnso-non-commercial-stakeholder-group-ncsg-meeting

Best,

Rafik

2017-02-23 4:30 GMT+09:00 Stephanie Perrin <
stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>:

> at this point I don't really know Kathy, I think I need an update from
> Peter.  Not sure what he is working on at the moment....
>
> But I will share my schedule once I get it all filled in, that could be
> useful to those who want to follow privacy issues.  Busy busy schedule for
> Copenhagen...
>
> cheers STephanie
>
> On 2017-02-22 13:55, Kathy Kleiman wrote:
>
> Stephanie, what are the slots on Monday (and perhaps Tuesday) that we
> should be attending to cheer loudly for the Data Protection Commissioners,
> you and Peter Kimpian of the Council of Europe?  Can't wait to be at these
> events!
>
> Best and tx, Kathy
> On 2/22/2017 1:30 PM, Stephanie Perrin wrote:
>
> I was just contacted by the Data Protection Officer for Europol (who
> happens to be an old colleague, I saw her in Brussels).  She is interested
> in attending the Copenhagen meeting, and I took the liberty of inviting her
> to come and speak to us....she gave me the manual for the data protection
> officers in Europol, and it would be great to hear what law enforcement is
> *supposed* to be doing to protect data.....
>
> I dont think I have quite talked her into coming yet but there is
> definitely interest...
>
> cheers Steph
>
> On 2017-02-18 01:07, Stephanie Perrin wrote:
>
> unfortunately, commissioners are not going to stay till Wednesday, it is
> all getting crammed into Monday.  best we could do would be something first
> thing Tuesday.....
>
> I think Chuck has got some time in there somehow.....can remember when but
> will find it and send to the list
>
> SP
>
> On 2017-02-17 19:26, Ayden Férdeline wrote:
>
> If I understand correctly, the Commissioners are visiting us on the
> Wednesday? In that case, for maximum attendance, it might be best if our
> session was from 1:45pm to 3:00pm. But I do not know what the rest of their
> day looks like. Thanks again for organising this.
>
> Ayden
>
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Re: ICANN58 Data Protection Session Planning
> Local Time: 15 February 2017 9:38 PM
> UTC Time: 15 February 2017 21:38
> From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca
> To: ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is
>
>
> 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> <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
> ncsg-pc <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is> <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>:
>
> 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> 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> 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> <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
>>>> To:
>>>> KIMPIAN Peter <Peter.KIMPIAN at coe.int> <Peter.KIMPIAN at coe.int>
>>>> CC:
>>>> Victoria Sheckler <vsheckler at riaa.com> <vsheckler at riaa.com>, James M.
>>>> Bladel <jbladel at godaddy.com> <jbladel at godaddy.com>,
>>>> kathy at kathykleiman.com <kathy at kathykleiman.com>
>>>> <kathy at kathykleiman.com>, donna.austin at neustar.biz
>>>> <donna.austin at neustar.biz> <donna.austin at neustar.biz>,
>>>> heather.forrest at acu.edu.au <heather.forrest at acu.edu.au>
>>>> <heather.forrest at acu.edu.au>, Stephanie Perrin
>>>> <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>,
>>>> KWASNY Sophie <Sophie.KWASNY at coe.int> <Sophie.KWASNY at coe.int>, Wilson,
>>>> Christopher <cwilson at 21cf.com> <cwilson at 21cf.com>, Tony Holmes
>>>> <tonyarholmes at btinternet.com> <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? à this 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.
>>>>> à I 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." à not 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. à I 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.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> à Therefore 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
>>>> 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
>>
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NCSG-PC mailing listNCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.ishttps://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NCSG-PC mailing listNCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.ishttps://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NCSG-PC mailing listNCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.ishttps://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NCSG-PC mailing listNCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.ishttps://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/20170223/f1b68209/attachment.htm>

More information about the NCSG-PC mailing list