[NCSG-PC] Board seat nomination
Rafik Dammak
rafik.dammak at gmail.com
Thu Mar 9 04:43:04 EET 2017
Hi Avri,
thanks for the comments
2017-03-08 2:24 GMT+09:00 avri doria <avri at apc.org>:
>
> Another question, what formula re we using. Has NCPH come to
> agreement? Have we agreed to as many nominiees as come forward?
>
>
I don't think there was any indication about CSG position on that. I assume
we will go with many nominees.
> If so should we be nominating on the NCPH list as opposed to by SG?
>
>
I think we should agree in PC first then nominate on NCPH list (and back to
Greg point we are piggybacking the intersessional list )
Who is the point person for NCSG in this dog's beakfast?
>
> I guess you mean the interface with CSG here ? I guess I volunteered for
that :)
Best,
Rafik
>
> On 07-Mar-17 11:03, Ayden Férdeline wrote:
> > Do we have any ideas around who the CSG will be nominating? I have
> > heard one name mumbled, but if anyone has heard something more
> > concrete, I would be curious to hear what you have learned... Thanks.
> >
> > - Ayden
> >
> >> -------- Original Message --------
> >> Subject: [NCSG-PC] Board seat nomination
> >> Local Time: 7 March 2017 10:52 AM
> >> UTC Time: 7 March 2017 10:52
> >> From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com
> >> To: ncsg-pc <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>
> >>
> >> Hi everyone,
> >>
> >> As we agreed before, we have to get candidates nominated for the
> >> board seat election by this Friday.
> >>
> >> We don't have a procedure written yet but we need to act here:
> >> nominating and documenting the process.
> >>
> >> I am thinking we should encourage people to nominate but not
> >> self-nomination. And because time constraint to make the nomination
> >> by PC members and keeping NCSG members informed about the process.
> >> Any volunteer to help me to document the process.
> >> It is not optimal but I sensed from the discussion that we got to be
> >> proactive.
> >>
> >>
> >> Best,
> >>
> >> Rafik
> >>
> >> On Mar 1, 2017 9:58 PM, "Rafik Dammak" <rafik.dammak at gmail.com
> >> <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi Ed,
> >>
> >> Thanks for the message, yes this something we have to agree and
> >> act quickly on it.
> >> I think that was/should be nomination by others and within PC,
> >> but looking to hear from others too. We got till 10th March to
> >> get nominees.
> >>
> >> Best,
> >>
> >> Rafik
> >>
> >> 2017-03-01 21:54 GMT+09:00 Edward Morris <egmorris1 at toast.net
> >> <mailto:egmorris1 at toast.net>>:
> >>
> >> Thanks Rafik.
> >>
> >> One question; Are nominations within our group to be self
> >> nominations, nominations by others, both, and opened to the
> >> general membership or just members of the PC?
> >>
> >> I'm sorry to ask what may be basic questions but I haven't
> >> been involved in the Board selection process before and would
> >> just like to fully understand the process.
> >>
> >> Kind Regards,
> >>
> >> Ed
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ------------------------------------------------------------
> ------------
> >>
> >> *From*: "Rafik Dammak" <rafik.dammak at gmail.com
> >> <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>>
> >> *Sent*: Wednesday, March 1, 2017 12:49 PM
> >> *To*: "avri at acm.org <mailto:avri at acm.org>" <avri at acm.org
> >> <mailto:avri at acm.org>>
> >> *Cc*: "ncsg-pc" <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is
> >> <mailto:ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>>
> >> *Subject*: Re: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [Ncph-intersessional2017] Board
> >> Seat Selection Process
> >>
> >> Hi everyone,
> >>
> >> since there was no objection, I will send our response to CSG
> >> and also our suggestion for nomination period to run from 1st
> >> March to 10th March .
> >>
> >> Best,
> >>
> >> Rafik
> >>
> >> 2017-02-27 23:05 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak
> >> <rafik.dammak at gmail.com <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>>:
> >>
> >> Hi Avri,
> >>
> >> thanks for the suggestion,
> >>
> >> so we have now:
> >> - we cannot accept CSG proposal.
> >> - we can start the nomination process, for NCSG and CSG
> >> in parallel starting (Wednesday?)
> >>
> >> Our counter-proposal is:
> >>
> >> * NCA is not to removed from any part of the process
> >> * there must be a vote along the previous lines - 8 to
> >> succeed.
> >> * as many nominees as come forward in a week.
> >> * 1st round if one gets 8 then done, if not second
> >> round between top two
> >> * a joint interview of the top 2 before second round
> >> with the whole house.
> >> * 2nd round if one get 8 then done, if not do 3rd round
> >> of leader
> >> against NOTA
> >> * 3rd round if person does not get 8, leave the seat
> >> open until we get
> >> our act together.
> >> * then CSG PCs, NCSG PC, NCPH council members and NCA
> >> talk until we
> >> get our act together.
> >>
> >> we need to agree quickly on procedure for NCSG and
> >> document that.
> >> can we get consensus this by Tuesday 12:00pm UTC and
> >> respond ot CSG?
> >>
> >> Best,
> >>
> >> Rafik
> >> 2017-02-24
> >> 21:42 GMT+09:00 avri doria <avri at acm.org
> >> <mailto:avri at acm.org>>:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> some minor typo corrections
> >>
> >> Our counter-proposal is:
> >>
> >> * NCA is not to removed from any part of the process
> >> * there must be a vote along the previous lines - 8
> >> to succeed.
> >> * as many nominees as come forward in a week.
> >> * 1st round if one gets 8 then done, if not second
> >> round between top two
> >>
> >> * 2nd round if one get 8 then done, if not do 3rd
> >> round of leader
> >> against NOTA
> >> * 3rd round if person does not get 8, leave the
> >> seat open until we get
> >> our act together.
> >> * then CSG PCs, NCSG PC, NCPH council members and
> >> NCA talk until we
> >> get our act together.
> >>
> >> On 24-Feb-17 00:31, Rafik Dammak wrote:
> >> > Hi,
> >> >
> >> > Thanks Avri, Matt, Ed for comments and suggestions
> >> >
> >> > I guess we say:
> >> > - we cannot accept CSG proposal.
> >> > - However, we can start the nomination process, for
> >> NCSG and CSG in
> >> > parallel starting next week Monday
> >> > - Our counter-proposal is:
> >> >
> >> > * NCA is not to removed from any part of the process
> >> > * there must be a vote along the previous lines -
> >> 8 to succeed.
> >> > * as many nominees as come forward in a week.
> >> > * 1st round if one get 8 done, if not second
> >> round between top two
> >> > * 2nd round if one get 8 done, if not do 3rd
> >> round of leader against
> >> > NOTA
> >> > * 3rd round if person does not get 8, leave the
> >> seat open until we
> >> > get our act together.
> >> > * then CSG PC, NCSG PC, NCPH council members and
> >> NCA talk until we
> >> > get our act together.
> >> >
> >> > if we have a consensus by Sunday, we should share
> >> our response with CSG.
> >> >
> >> > Best,
> >> >
> >> > Rafik
> >> >
> >> > 2017-02-24 9:29 GMT+09:00 avri doria <avri at apc.org
> >> <mailto:avri at apc.org> <mailto:avri at apc.org
> >> <mailto:avri at apc.org>>>:
> >> >
> >> > Hi,
> >> >
> >> > I think we could respond that we do not accept
> >> their proposal
> >> >
> >> > - NCA is not to removed from any part of the
> >> process
> >> >
> >> > - we insist that there be a vote along the
> >> previous lines - 8 to
> >> > succeed.
> >> >
> >> > - as many nominees as come forward in a week.
> >> >
> >> > - 1st round if one get 8 done, if not second
> >> round between top two
> >> >
> >> > - 2nd round if one get 8 done, if not do 3rd
> >> round of leader
> >> > against NOTA
> >> >
> >> > - 3rd round if person does not get 8, leave
> >> seat open until we get our
> >> > act together.
> >> >
> >> > - then CSG PC, NCSG PC, NCPH council members
> >> and NCA talk until
> >> > we get
> >> > our act together.
> >> >
> >> > avri
> >> >
> >> > On 23-Feb-17 05:49, matthew shears wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > Perhaps as a first step go back to CSG and
> >> say we are considering/or
> >> > > not their doc and will be proposing something
> >> or an alternative
> >> > > version - and put some deadline on it for us
> >> - maybe end of next
> >> > week?
> >> > >
> >> > > And, try to get agreement on a nomination
> >> period - say next
> >> > week? or
> >> > > two weeks from Monday? Probably would be
> >> useful to have the
> >> > CSG and
> >> > > NCSG nomination periods run in parallel.
> >> Agree with CSG whether
> >> > > should be nomination and/or self nomination.
> >> > >
> >> > > In the interim start work on the process?
> >> > >
> >> > > Matthew
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > On 23/02/2017 08:07, Rafik Dammak wrote:
> >> > >> Hi all,
> >> > >>
> >> > >> we really need to develop our response or
> >> proposal to CSG
> >> > quickly. at
> >> > >> least covering the topic of nomination.
> >> > >>
> >> > >> Best,
> >> > >>
> >> > >> Rafik
> >> > >>
> >> > >> 2017-02-22 11:27 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>>
> >> > >> <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com
> >> <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
> >> <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com
> >> <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>>>>:
> >> > >>
> >> > >> Hi Matt,
> >> > >>
> >> > >> thanks for the response, looking for
> >> other comments on this
> >> > topic.
> >> > >> I think we can start with nomination
> >> whole we work on the
> >> > process
> >> > >> and adjust the whole timeline.
> >> > >> how we shall proceed for nominations, we
> >> have 2 candidates for
> >> > >> now. shall we initiate a process to find
> >> other candidates? we
> >> > >> don't have so much time for a long
> >> nomination period.
> >> > >>
> >> > >> I understand that we are having the
> >> deadline as a mean to press
> >> > >> us but we should stand and be clear
> >> about the aspects which are
> >> > >> non-negotiable with regard to the process.
> >> > >>
> >> > >> Best,
> >> > >>
> >> > >> Rafik
> >> > >>
> >> > >> 2017-02-21 19:13 GMT+09:00 matthew
> >> shears <mshears at cdt.org <mailto:mshears at cdt.org>
> >> > <mailto:mshears at cdt.org <mailto:mshears at cdt.org>>
> >> > >> <mailto:mshears at cdt.org
> >> <mailto:mshears at cdt.org> <mailto:mshears at cdt.org
> >> <mailto:mshears at cdt.org>>>>:
> >> > >>
> >> > >> Thanks Rafik
> >> > >>
> >> > >> Not sure much was agreed except that
> >> we need to deal
> >> > with it
> >> > >> and we are running out of time.
> >> > >>
> >> > >> First we had the timeline from Greg
> >> before the meeting,
> >> > which
> >> > >> was not really discussed further.
> >> Then we had some general
> >> > >> discussion about the need to do
> >> something on the Board
> >> > >> selection process. People voiced
> >> their views on different
> >> > >> aspects of the process and there was
> >> concern over the
> >> > >> timeline, but we did not really
> >> decide anything (others
> >> > >> please jump in as I may have missed
> >> some important
> >> > >> aspects). Markus announced he
> >> wanted to continue in the
> >> > >> role; I announced I was going to
> >> run. Then the CSG
> >> > proposal
> >> > >> for a process was circulated on
> >> Thurs AM. There seemed
> >> > to be
> >> > >> general agreement that the CSG
> >> proposal was not ideal.
> >> > >>
> >> > >> I think the key immediate thing is
> >> us agreeing a
> >> > process and
> >> > >> timeline for nominations and getting
> >> that announced, so at
> >> > >> least the initial stages of the
> >> process are underway.
> >> > >>
> >> > >> Matthew
> >> > >>
> >> > >>
> >> > >> On 20/02/2017 10:56, Rafik Dammak
> wrote:
> >> > >>> Hi everyone,
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>> We got this note from Greg to
> >> resume the discussion on
> >> > board
> >> > >>> seat election.
> >> > >>> First thing, is it possible to get
> >> a summary of what
> >> > or not
> >> > >>> agreed on iceland on that regard
> >> from those who attended
> >> > >>> intersessional?
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>> We also need to outline what are
> >> our non-negotiable points
> >> > >>> such as having vote, NCA
> >> participation and so on.
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>> I think tgat the CSG proposal from
> >> last week is far
> >> > from our
> >> > >>> expectations.
> >> > >>> There is also proposal to have a
> >> call. We can have it
> >> > by end
> >> > >>> of this week but we do need to be
> >> ready.
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>> Best,
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>> Rafik
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>> ---------- Forwarded message
> ----------
> >> > >>> From: "Greg Shatan"
> >> <gregshatanipc at gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.
> com>
> >> > <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com
> >> <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>>
> >> > >>> <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com
> >> <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
> >> <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com
> >> <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>>>>
> >> > >>> Date: Feb 20, 2017 2:13 PM
> >> > >>> Subject: [Ncph-intersessional2017]
> >> Board Seat
> >> > Selection Process
> >> > >>> To:
> >> <ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org
> >> <mailto:ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org>
> >> > <mailto:ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org
> >> <mailto:ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org>>
> >> > >>>
> >> <mailto:ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org
> >> <mailto:ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org>
> >> > <mailto:ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org
> >> <mailto:ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org>>>>
> >> > >>> Cc:
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>> All,
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>> We probably need a different
> >> mailing list to finish
> >> > >>> working on the Board Seat
> >> selection process, and a
> >> > small
> >> > >>> group to do it, but I'll start
> >> here, since I think
> >> > this
> >> > >>> is the only active mailing list
> >> with both sides of the
> >> > >>> NCPH on it.
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>> We basically have no time to
> >> work this out, and we've
> >> > >>> already started the process
> >> without knowing what it is
> >> > >>> exactly, since we have now
> >> received nominations.
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>> In addition to the adaptation
> >> of the CPH procedures
> >> > >>> previously circulated, I'm also
> >> attaching the
> >> > following
> >> > >>> for consideration:
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>> 1. Some bullet-points from an
> >> exchange between
> >> > CSG and
> >> > >>> NCSG representatives outlining
> >> a potential draft
> >> > process.
> >> > >>> 2. The latest version of the
> >> ICANN Staff Memo with a
> >> > >>> revised draft timeline and some
> >> relevant excerpts from
> >> > >>> Bylaws and GNSO Procedures.
> >> > >>> 3. A further excerpt from the
> >> Bylaws, with Section
> >> > >>> 11.3(f), which covers the
> >> selection process for Seats
> >> > >>> 13-14 (to the extent that is
> >> covered in the
> >> > Bylaws), and
> >> > >>> Section 11.3(h), which is
> >> referred to in Section
> >> > 11.3(f).
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>> A few thoughts and comments:
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>> A. We only have 10 1/2 weeks
> >> to both develop and go
> >> > >>> through a process that is
> >> contemplated to take 21
> >> > weeks
> >> > >>> (just to go through). Talk
> >> about building the
> >> > airplane
> >> > >>> in the air.
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>> B. At the Intersessional, we
> >> discussed possible
> >> > >>> adjustments to the timeline,
> >> but did not come to any
> >> > >>> decisions. It's not clear to
> >> me whether Staff is
> >> > >>> preparing a further revised
> >> draft. I'll ask.
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>> C. If any of our groups have
> >> not already done so, we
> >> > >>> should put out a call for any
> >> other nominations ASAP
> >> > >>> (though it would be nice to
> >> know the end of the
> >> > >>> nomination period).
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>> D. Without making any
> >> judgments, the CPH process and
> >> > >>> the NCPH bullet-points are
> >> significantly different
> >> > when
> >> > >>> it comes to voting.
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>> E. We should figure out how to
> >> get this process
> >> > agreed
> >> > >>> as quickly as possible. Given
> >> the unusual
> >> > >>> circumstances, we don't need to
> >> use this process as
> >> > >>> precedent for any future
> >> process. We just need to get
> >> > >>> through this selection. One
> >> approach is for NCSG to
> >> > >>> respond to the draft sent at
> >> the end of the
> >> > >>> Intersessional. However, given
> >> the gap between
> >> > that and
> >> > >>> the bullet-points, it might
> >> just be better to
> >> > arrange a
> >> > >>> call/Adobe Connect session ASAP
> >> to move the ball
> >> > forward.
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>> Thanks for reading,
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>> Greg
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>> P.S. It's not all that
> >> important how we got here, but
> >> > >>> nonetheless, it should be noted
> >> that the GNSO
> >> > Procedures
> >> > >>> were never updated from 2012,
> >> when the Bylaws deadline
> >> > >>> for naming the Director was
> >> changed from one month to
> >> > >>> two months (briefly) and then
> >> six months prior to
> >> > being
> >> > >>> seated. (The GNSO Procedures
> >> will need to be
> >> > updated in
> >> > >>> any event, since the Bylaws
> >> references are now
> >> > >>> obsolete.)) The draft
> >> bullet-points repeated this
> >> > error.
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>> B. Since we are doing this
> >> with very little time
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>> *Greg Shatan
> >> > >>> *C: 917-816-6428
> >> > >>> S: gsshatan
> >> > >>> Phone-to-Skype: 646-845-9428
> >> > >>> gregshatanipc at gmail.com
> >> <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
> >> > <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com
> >> <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>>
> >> <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com
> >> <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
> >> > <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com
> >> <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>>>
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>> ---------- Forwarded message
> >> ----------
> >> > >>> From: *Greg Shatan*
> >> <gregshatanipc at gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.
> com>
> >> > <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com
> >> <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>>
> >> > >>> <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com
> >> <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
> >> > <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com
> >> <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>>>>
> >> > >>> Date: Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 5:28 AM
> >> > >>> Subject: Discussion Draft of
> >> Interim Board
> >> > Selection Process
> >> > >>> To:
> >> ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org
> >> <mailto:ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org>
> >> > <mailto:ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org
> >> <mailto:ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org>>
> >> > >>>
> >> <mailto:ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org
> >> <mailto:ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org>
> >> > <mailto:ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org
> >> <mailto:ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org>>>
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>> NCSG/NCUC/NPOC Intersessional
> >> Participants,
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>> The CSG prepared a "discussion
> >> draft" of a proposed
> >> > >>> interim Board Selection Process
> >> based closely on the
> >> > >>> Final Process adopted by the
> >> Contracted Parties House.
> >> > >>> Clean and marked drafts are
> >> attached, showing changes
> >> > >>> from the CPH document.
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>> A Google Docs version can be
> >> found here, where any
> >> > >>> suggested changes can be added
> >> in "suggest" mode (but
> >> > >>> everyone has "edit"
> >> > >>> rights):
> >> >
> >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lx8jCTEWGAuPyPpnL_
> RaHGum4dQXf2a1MTyYXx8O9dc/edit?usp=sharing
> >> <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lx8jCTEWGAuPyPpnL_
> RaHGum4dQXf2a1MTyYXx8O9dc/edit?usp=sharing>
> >> >
> >> <https://docs.google.com/
> document/d/1lx8jCTEWGAuPyPpnL_RaHGum4dQXf2a1MTyYXx8O9dc/edit?usp=sharing
> >> <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lx8jCTEWGAuPyPpnL_
> RaHGum4dQXf2a1MTyYXx8O9dc/edit?usp=sharing>>
> >> > >>>
> >> >
> >> <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lx8jCTEWGAuPyPpnL_
> RaHGum4dQXf2a1MTyYXx8O9dc/edit?usp=sharing
> >> <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lx8jCTEWGAuPyPpnL_
> RaHGum4dQXf2a1MTyYXx8O9dc/edit?usp=sharing>
> >> >
> >> <https://docs.google.com/
> document/d/1lx8jCTEWGAuPyPpnL_RaHGum4dQXf2a1MTyYXx8O9dc/edit?usp=sharing
> >> <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lx8jCTEWGAuPyPpnL_
> RaHGum4dQXf2a1MTyYXx8O9dc/edit?usp=sharing>>>
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>> We would hope to use this for
> >> the current 2017 Board
> >> > >>> Seat process and then revisit
> >> afterward before
> >> > making it
> >> > >>> a permanent rather than
> >> "interim" process.
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>> This has not been reviewed by
> >> the membership of
> >> > the IPC,
> >> > >>> BC and ISPCP, but we wanted to
> >> start the discussion on
> >> > >>> this basis, given the short
> >> amount of time we have for
> >> > >>> this year.
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>> We look forward to your thoughts.
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>> Thanks!
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>> Greg (on behalf of BC/IPC/ISPCP
> >> Intersessional Teams)
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>> *Greg Shatan
> >> > >>> *C: 917-816-6428
> >> <tel:%28917%29%20816-6428>
> >> > >>> S: gsshatan
> >> > >>> Phone-to-Skype: 646-845-9428
> >> > <tel:%28646%29%20845-9428>
> >> > >>> gregshatanipc at gmail.com
> >> <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
> >> > <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com
> >> <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>>
> >> <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com
> >> <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
> >> > <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com
> >> <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>>>
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> > >>> Ncph-intersessional2017 mailing
> >> list
> >> > >>>
> >> Ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org
> >> <mailto:Ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org>
> >> > <mailto:Ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org
> >> <mailto:Ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org>>
> >> > >>>
> >> <mailto:Ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org
> >> <mailto:Ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org>
> >> > <mailto:Ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org
> >> <mailto:Ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org>>>
> >> > >>>
> >> >
> >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ncph-
> intersessional2017
> >> <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ncph-
> intersessional2017>
> >> >
> >> <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ncph-
> intersessional2017
> >> <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ncph-
> intersessional2017>>
> >> > >>>
> >> <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ncph-
> intersessional2017
> >> <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ncph-
> intersessional2017>
> >> >
> >> <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ncph-
> intersessional2017
> >> <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ncph-
> intersessional2017>>>
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> > >>> NCSG-PC mailing list
> >> > >>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
> >> <mailto:NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is>
> >> <mailto:NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
> >> <mailto:NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is>>
> >> > <mailto:NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
> >> <mailto:NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is>
> >> <mailto: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>
> >> > <https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
> >> <https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc>>
> >> > >>>
> >> <https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
> >> <https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc>
> >> > <https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
> >> <https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc>>>
> >> > >>
> >> > >> --
> >> > >> ------------
> >> > >> Matthew Shears
> >> > >> Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
> >> > >> Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
> >> > >> + 44 771 2472987
> >> <tel:%2B%2044%20771%202472987>
> >> <tel:%2B%2044%20771%202472987>
> >> > <tel:+44%207712%20472987>
> >> > >>
> >> > >> ______________________________
> _________________
> >> > >> NCSG-PC mailing list
> >> > >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
> >> <mailto:NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is>
> >> <mailto: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>
> >> > <https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
> >> <https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc>>
> >> > > --
> >> > > ------------
> >> > > Matthew Shears
> >> > > Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
> >> > > Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
> >> > > + 44 771 2472987
> >> <tel:%2B%2044%20771%202472987>
> >> <tel:%2B%2044%20771%202472987>
> >> > >
> >> > > _______________________________________________
> >> > > NCSG-PC mailing list
> >> > > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
> >> <mailto:NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is>
> >> <mailto: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>
> >> > <https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
> >> <https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc>>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > ---
> >> > This email has been checked for viruses by
> >> Avast antivirus software.
> >> > https://www.avast.com/antivirus
> >> <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
> >> <https://www.avast.com/antivirus
> >> <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>>
> >> >
> >> > _______________________________________________
> >> > NCSG-PC mailing list
> >> > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
> >> <mailto:NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is>
> >> <mailto: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>
> >> > <https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
> >> <https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc>>
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >> ---
> >> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast
> >> antivirus software.
> >> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
> >> <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > NCSG-PC mailing list
> > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
> > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>
>
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20170309/7e8606a0/attachment.htm>
More information about the NCSG-PC
mailing list