[NCSG-PC] Board seat nomination
avri doria
avri at apc.org
Fri Mar 10 17:24:35 EET 2017
Hi,
No problem with delay.
But i thought we had decided on multiple candidates not winnowing down
to one.
avri
> Hi Rafik, all,
>
> I've spoken with CSG Chairs and they want to move the nomination
> deadline at least until they've had their face-to-face meetings,
> and I think we could use some extra time, too.
>
> So there's no reason to rush. I tentatively suggested Tuesday
> night, which would give us time to debate it in our Constituency
> day session.
>
> We should also discuss whether we should submit multiple
> candidates or decide amongst ourselves first on one
> candidate to nominate.
>
> Tapani
>
> On Mar 10 16:43, Rafik Dammak (rafik.dammak at gmail.com) wrote:
>
>> Hi All,
>>
>> the deadline was suggested for nomination is today. we have till now 2
>> names: Markus Kummer and Mathew Shears.
>> if we are ok with this, I will send the names to CSG today. I think most of
>> you are already in Copenhagen, so please share your thought by 16:00 local
>> Time.
>> we didn't respond yet to Greg questions, and I guess the best way is to
>> suggest a meeting with and discussing the process based on the proposal we
>> have.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Rafik
>>
>>
>> 2017-03-07 19:52 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>:
>>
>>> 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> 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>:
>>>
>>>> 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>
>>>> *Sent*: Wednesday, March 1, 2017 12:49 PM
>>>> *To*: "avri at acm.org" <avri at acm.org>
>>>> *Cc*: "ncsg-pc" <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>:
>>>>> 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>:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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>>:
>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>>> :
>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>> >> 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>>>:
>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>> >> 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>>>
>>>>>>> >>> 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>>>
>>>>>>> >>> 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>>
>>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>>> >>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>>>>>> >>> From: *Greg Shatan* <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>>
>>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>>> >>> 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_RaHGu
>>>>>> m4dQXf2a1MTyYXx8O9dc/edit?usp=sharing
>>>>>>> <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lx8jCTEWGAuPyPpnL_RaHG
>>>>>> um4dQXf2a1MTyYXx8O9dc/edit?usp=sharing>
>>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>>> <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lx8jCTEWGAuPyPpnL_RaHGu
>>>>>> m4dQXf2a1MTyYXx8O9dc/edit?usp=sharing
>>>>>>> <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lx8jCTEWGAuPyPpnL_RaHG
>>>>>> um4dQXf2a1MTyYXx8O9dc/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>>
>>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>>> >>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> >>> 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>>
>>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>>> 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>>
>>>>>>> >>> 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:+44%207712%20472987>
>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>> >> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> >> 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>
>>>>>>> > --
>>>>>>> > ------------
>>>>>>> > Matthew Shears
>>>>>>> > Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
>>>>>>> > Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
>>>>>>> > + 44 771 2472987 <tel:%2B%2044%20771%202472987>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
More information about the NCSG-PC
mailing list