[NCSG-PC] Board seat nomination
Stephanie Perrin
stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca
Fri Mar 10 18:10:39 EET 2017
ditto.
SP
On 2017-03-10 10:24, avri doria wrote:
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20170310/eda3698b/attachment.htm>
More information about the NCSG-PC
mailing list