[NCSG-PC] Fwd: Interest in GNSO SSC

Tue Mar 28 14:39:18 EEST 2017

+ 1 Avri

Also, thanks Ayden for putting the google doc together (see below).  All 
- if there are other criteria that should be considered please add them 
today.

I think Avri is right - given the diversity of views among the PC 
members who will be deciding, a call/discussion using the criteria for 
guidance is probably the best (only?) way forward.

I will circulate a doodle for the "deciders" and try and set up a time.

Thanks for your patience and understanding as we move this forward.

Matthew

On 28/03/2017 11:31, avri doria wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Not bad.  I would give it a try.
>
> If nothing else, just the fact of the deciders talking though all of
> these issues could help draw out the choices.
>
> To get this done, you might want to get the deciders on a conference
> call (not recorded as this is discussion of personal details) and see if
> you can get the deciding done. Even without statement you probably know
> enough cumulatively about the candidates.
>
> Just a thought:  I would suggest that people stop discussing the process
> until after this decision is made.
>
> Good luck
>
> avri
>
>
> On 27-Mar-17 18:36, Ayden Férdeline wrote:
>> Hi, all-
>>
>> I have drafted up a short rubric which we may consider using to assess
>> the candidates. This is still a work in progress, and I have set the
>> Google Doc to allow anyone to edit it, to add new criteria or to
>> revise what I have included. Nothing is set in stone at this time; it
>> is just a first draft, so please do feel free to edit it.
>>
>> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/19ha32l6V-7EQ_IvMbdsXUqNC5Qx4hV0magRi-UlkdX0/edit?usp=sharing
>>
>> We may decide this is not a useful tool at all, particularly given the
>> fact that we do not have candidate statements to use in order to
>> assess the candidates.
>>
>> Alas, we need to make a decision soon. As Stephanie mentioned below,
>> on the agenda for the first SSC meeting this Thursday is the RDS
>> Review — and we need people on that call.
>>
>> - Ayden
>>
>>
>>> -------- Original Message --------
>>> Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Interest in GNSO SSC
>>> Local Time: 27 March 2017 11:07 PM
>>> UTC Time: 27 March 2017 22:07
>>> From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca
>>> To: ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is, seeburnk at gmail.com, Renata Aquino Ribeiro
>>> <raquino at GMAIL.COM>
>>>
>>>
>>> I would tend to agree that certain aspects of personality are pretty
>>> important in group work, and this will be a difficult and probably
>>> somewhat contentious series of tasks.  One might think of such
>>> personality traits as patience, diplomacy, trustworthiness, honesty,
>>> integrity, impartiality.   Perhaps Ayden might consider adding them
>>> to his ranking document. The group is meeting on Thursday to start
>>> discussing the recruits for the WHOIS review team, that ought to be a
>>> test of all those qualities....
>>>
>>> cheers Stephanie
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2017-03-27 17:57, avri doria wrote:
>>>>> personalities rather than abilities
>>>>>
>>>> isn't personality often a critical attribute of an emissary?
>>>>
>>>> My hesitation is that such 'objective' ratings are often little more
>>>> that subjectivity in disguise. But if it gets the PC past it current
>>>> impasse, give it a try.
>>>>
>>>> avri
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 27-Mar-17 17:36, Ayden Férdeline wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The successful candidates should be the people who show the best
>>>>> ability against the person specification for the role. I am making
>>>>> such a grading rubric in Google Docs at the moment, and will send to
>>>>> the list shortly for feedback and to allow others to refine it. This
>>>>> way we can objectively grade the candidates without decisions being
>>>>> made on the basis of snap judgements, halo or horn effects, mirroring,
>>>>> personalities rather than abilities, information provided informally,
>>>>> etc. There are only five candidates so it shouldn't take any of us too
>>>>> long to grade them once the rubric is ready, which will be tonight.
>>>>> And the three candidates with the highest scores should be our
>>>>> representatives on the SSC. Does anyone have any hesitations regarding
>>>>> taking this approach?
>>>>>
>>>>> - Ayden
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> -------- Original Message --------
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Interest in GNSO SSC
>>>>>> Local Time: 27 March 2017 10:31 PM
>>>>>> UTC Time: 27 March 2017 21:31
>>>>>> From: mshears at cdt.org
>>>>>> To: ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi all
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I believe we need a bit of a reset and to pool our collective thinking.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Where we are at the moment:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We have to pick three individuals from five candidates for the SSC.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There have been various efforts to move this discussion and process
>>>>>> along to little avail and to some criticism.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There is no consensus yet among the PC members as to the slate of three
>>>>>> for the SSC. 4 PC members have now recused themselves - 3 because they
>>>>>> are candidates and 1 for process concerns.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We had suggested criteria for selecting candidates: diversity,
>>>>>> experience and representativeness including of constituencies
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Despite the above we are not in a position to communicate the names
>>>>>> today and I have informed ICANN staff to that effect.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The first meeting of the SSC is supposed to happen on the Thurs 30th.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I am looking to the PC for suggestions as to a process for how to move
>>>>>> this forward in a constructive and transparent manner.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks in advance.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Matthew
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 27/03/2017 20:52, Tapani Tarvainen wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Dear all,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As it turns out the councillors involved in the decision had had long
>>>>>>> email discussion about it without including me, I will stay out of
>>>>>>> this decision and leave it to them to decide it as they see fit.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I will only say for the record that while I accept that non-public
>>>>>>> discussions are sometimes necessary, I'd want them in any case to be
>>>>>>> publicly known about. Perhaps we need a setup like the NomCom to be
>>>>>>> able to debate and make this kind of decisions without publicity, but
>>>>>>> if so I'd want that and related procedures to be agreed on in advance.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In any case I'm happy Matthew has taken the responsibility of
>>>>>>> this and I trust he gets it done in time.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Tapani
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Mar 27 10:19, Stephanie Perrin
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> (stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca) wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I just meant that the discussion about the candidates should take
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>> place
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> without the candidates there. Further, we have two candidates who
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>> are not
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> on the policy list, so we would in fairness have to add them if we
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>> were
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> going to have an open discussion on the PC list.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I think we should leave this an NCSG discussion and make all
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>> arguments based
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> on what makes the best slate of candidates.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> SP
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 2017-03-27 02:08, Tapani Tarvainen wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Hi Stefania and Stephanie,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I'm not sure what you mean by removing the contestants from the
>>>>>>>>> conversation. Do you want to exclude them from even listening in?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If we have a call around this, should it not be recorded and
>>>>>>>>> transcribed?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That would not ... be exactly transparent.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Otherwise, I agree they should not participate in the discussion
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>> about
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> the selection in general, but giving each an equal chance to make
>>>>>>>>> their case would make sense. If we do arrange a call, giving each,
>>>>>>>>> say, 5 minutes to speak might work.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> A candidate statement would be nice, but time is perhaps too
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>> short for
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> that already.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> As for the qualifications, two points:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> First, ncuc/npoc/ncsg division: I don't see we can do more than
>>>>>>>>> ensure there is at least one from each constituency, with the third
>>>>>>>>> we can do whatever we like.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Second, besides qualifications already mentioned I think it'd make
>>>>>>>>> sense to consider the workload. It might be better to pick a person
>>>>>>>>> over another who'd be otherwise more qualified but who has more work
>>>>>>>>> on her or his plate already.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Tapani
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Mar 26 19:03, Milan, Stefania (Stefania.Milan at EUI.eu) wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Thanks, Steph.
>>>>>>>>>> I think the contestants should be removed from the conversation.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> ________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>> Da: NCSG-PC <ncsg-pc-bounces at lists.ncsg.is> per conto di
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Inviato: domenica 26 marzo 2017 19.58.50
>>>>>>>>>> A: mshears at cdt.org; ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is
>>>>>>>>>> Oggetto: Re: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Interest in GNSO SSC
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> So we have a day left to get this sorted.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 1. Should the contestants be removed from the discussion or not?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 2. Do we have further commentary on what the qualifying
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>> characteristics we are looking for might be?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 3. While we have argued for a seat for NPOC, NCUC and NCSG, that
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>> actually might be hard to achieve. I dont think anyone will argue
>>>>>> about how we sort this, as long as we arent going to try to fight it
>>>>>> out at Council.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> SP
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 2017-03-25 20:00, mshears at cdt.org<mailto:mshears at cdt.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Hi
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The deadline for names is end of day 27 march.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> So far we have diversity, experience and representativeness
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>> including of constituencies as criteria.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> My preference would be for the PC members who are not running to
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>> discuss the candidates based on these criteria and try and reach
>>>>>> agreement. If that is not possible or appropriate we can each suggest
>>>>>> our preferred trio and see if we have any rough consensus. Other
>>>>>> suggestions are welcome.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Matthew
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Sent from my Windows 10 phone
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> From: Stephanie Perrin<mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>
>>>>>>>>>> Sent: 25 March 2017 15:44
>>>>>>>>>> To: ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is<mailto:ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>
>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Interest in GNSO SSC
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> What is the deadline again, and how are we arranging the voting?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> cheers Stephanie
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 2017-03-25 03:24, Tapani Tarvainen wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Hi Ayden,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I agree that diversity is indeed important. I would like to add that
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> for that reason we should also have both of our constituencies
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> represented.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I'm not so sure if this would be a good place for a newcomer though,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I'd like appointees to have at least some experience in this type of
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> work, even if perhaps not so much in ICANN.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Tapani
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 24 12:33, Ayden Férdeline
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>> (icann at ferdeline.com<mailto:icann at ferdeline.com>) wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> My personal preference would be to adopt principles similar to
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>> those of the SSC, which entails trying to achieve a balance of
>>>>>> representativeness, diversity, and sufficient experience. So I would
>>>>>> hope our three representatives have a mixture of experience levels
>>>>>> within the ICANN community (I would welcome there being one slot set
>>>>>> aside for a newcomer), diversity (I would not support all three
>>>>>> candidates being the same gender, if all candidates are sufficiently
>>>>>> qualified), and representativeness (ideally the three representatives
>>>>>> will be from different geographic regions though I appreciate this is
>>>>>> an imperfect metric). Or is this too simplistic a rubric for
>>>>>> assessing the candidates?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> - Ayden
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 4:23 pm, matthew shears
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>> <mshears at cdt.org><mailto:mshears at cdt.org> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Hi
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Given that Renata expressed an interest before the deadline
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>> yesterday and that she has been having Internet challenges I believe
>>>>>> that we should add her candidacy to the mix.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Please respond to the e-mail on process I sent earlier.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Obviously now with 5 candidates it is perhaps less clear that the
>>>>>> "alternates" approach works.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I would appreciate therefore that we agree a set of criteria for
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>> the selection process. Thoughts welcome.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Matthew
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2017 21:40:59 +0200
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> From: Tapani Tarvainen
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>> <ncsg at TAPANI.TARVAINEN.INFO><mailto:ncsg at TAPANI.TARVAINEN.INFO>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Call for volunteers - GNSO Standing Selection Committee
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>> - URGENT
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Dear all,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> See below. We need to appoint three (3) members to the SSC.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> If you are interested and would like to volunteer for the task,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> please let us know no later than Thursday, 23 March, 23:59 UTC.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Please read the council decision linked to below and explain why you
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> think you would be qualified for the task.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Note that there's no travel support, this is all done remotely, and
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> it looks like there will be a fair amount of work involved - make
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> sure you can commit yourself to the time required.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Tapani Tarvainen
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> ----- Forwarded message from Nathalie Peregrine
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>> <nathalie.peregrine at icann.org><mailto:nathalie.peregrine at icann.org> -----
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Dear All,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 15 March, the GNSO Council adopted the charter for the GNSO
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Standing Selection Committee (SSC) – see
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/draft-standing-selection-committee-15mar17-en.pdf[gnso.icann.org]
>>>>>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_drafts_draft-2Dstanding-2Dselection-2Dcommittee-2D15mar17-2Den.pdf&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=PDd_FX3f4MVgkEIi9GHvVoUhbecsvLhgsyXrxgtbL10DTBs0i1jYiBM_uTSDzgqG&m=KmYsfcYHwH-JYXWIJ58L-ZnwETFBe1FrVJ8qghEsRV8&s=GmTt0n-0Bp3olHk5awt9BtmGRrEZnY7TI9fF4Fnvcy4&e=
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_drafts_draft-2Dstanding-2Dselection-2Dcommittee-2D15mar17-2Den.pdf&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=PDd_FX3f4MVgkEIi9GHvVoUhbecsvLhgsyXrxgtbL10DTBs0i1jYiBM_uTSDzgqG&m=KmYsfcYHwH-JYXWIJ58L-ZnwETFBe1FrVJ8qghEsRV8&s=GmTt0n-0Bp3olHk5awt9BtmGRrEZnY7TI9fF4Fnvcy4&e=>.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The SSC is tasked, as requested by the GNSO Council, to 1), where
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> applicable, prepare and issue calls for applications related to the
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> selection or nomination of candidates for ICANN structures such as
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> ICANN review teams as well as structures related to the Empowered
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Community, 2) review and evaluate all relevant
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>> applicants/candidates,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 3) rank candidates and make selection/appointment
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>> recommendations for
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> review and approval by Council and 4) communicate selections to all
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> interested parties.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The membership structure of the SSC is as follows:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The SSC shall consist of a total of 9 members appointed as follows:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> - One member appointed by each Stakeholder Group of the
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Contracted Party House;
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> - One member appointed respectively from each of the Business
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Constituency, the Intellectual Property Constituency, and the
>>>>>> Internet Service Providers and Connectivity Providers Constituency;
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> - Three members appointed by the Non-Commercial Stakeholder
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Group; and,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> - One member from one of the three Nominating-Committee
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>> appointees to the GNSO Council.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The GNSO Council has tasked the SSC to carry out the review and
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> selection of GNSO endorsed candidates for the Registration Directory
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Service Review Team for Council consideration at the latest by
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>> its 20
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> April 2017 meeting. Furthermore, the GNSO Council has tasked the SSC
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> to develop the criteria and the process for the selection of the
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>> GNSO
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Representative to the Empowered Community for GNSO Council
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> consideration by its June 2017 meeting.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Your respective groups are requested to communicate their
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>> member(s) to
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> the SSC to the GNSO Secretariat
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> (gnso-secs at icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org>)<mailto: [g
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>> <mailto: [g
>>>>>> <mailto: [g
>>>>>> nso-secs at icann.org](mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org))><mailto:[gnso-secs at icann.org]%28mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org%29%29>
>>>>>> by 27 March at the
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> latest. A first meeting of the SSC will be scheduled for Thursday 30
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> March at 16.00 UTC.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Marika Konings
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Vice President, Policy Development Support – GNSO, Internet
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> 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 AVG.
>>>>>>> http://www.avg.com
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>> ------------
>>>>>> Matthew Shears
>>>>>> Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
>>>>>> Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
>>>>>> + 44 771 2472987
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> 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
>>>>>
>>>> ---
>>>> 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
>>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>
>
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
> http://www.avg.com

-- 
------------
Matthew Shears
Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
+ 44 771 2472987