[NCSG-PC] [Draft] Letter to ICANN re: BC and IPC correspondence

Sun Oct 15 19:05:25 EEST 2017

I haven't see Tapani involved in this discussion as NCSC Chair and who
is signing the letter. I hope he can have a look before the letter is
sent

2017-10-15 17:33 UTC+02:00, Ayden Férdeline <icann at ferdeline.com>:
> Hi Rafik,
>
> Thanks for your comments.
>
> I think we need to be explicit with what we are asking, clear that our words
> are not an empty threat, and definitive that consequences will follow if
> ICANN does not meet its obligations under the GDPR.
>
> I am happy for us to send the attached letter with Martin's revisions,
> though I think it does now sound like an empty threat. The ambiguity sounds
> to me like we do not know what our course of action will be, when that is
> incorrect. In the previous draft we were very clear: if ICANN does not
> comply with European data protection law, we will evail ourselves next May
> of the Data Protection Commissioners and if necessary, see you in Court. But
> we have spent a week trying to get comments on this letter and speaking only
> for myself, my motivation is now fading. We have other comments to write; so
> if there is consensus on this letter as attached, we might as well send it.
> If we do not, let's not.
>
> I have tried multiple times over the past two weeks to have a conversation
> around next steps. I have tried on the policy call, on this list, on Skype
> channels to talk campaigns. We all have our own interests at ICANN and
> follow different topics; I get that. This is something I am following so I
> have more time for it. And it is for that reason that I say, we are not
> going to get allies like AccessNow or EDRi if we ourselves cannot take the
> time to discuss a path forward. And I feel very strongly that if we reach
> out to others, we should not be asking for much more than a signature on a
> letter. It needs to be a part of a campaign that we are leading. We cannot
> expect them to take the lead here. We are in the ICANN working groups, being
> ignored and observing ICANN's non-compliance, and our civil society members
> have their own priorities which I am sure they have already budgeted for for
> FY18. So this is on us. I think a face-to-face meeting in Abu Dhabi -
> separate from our policy committee meeting if possible - is essential if we
> decide to take this campaign forward, and I think we should.
>
> But we might decide that we will not launch a campaign next year, because we
> are not committed to this issue. I kind of get that feeling.
>
> Ayden
>
>> -------- Original Message --------
>> Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] [Draft] Letter to ICANN re: BC and IPC
>> correspondence
>> Local Time: 15 October 2017 3:11 AM
>> UTC Time: 15 October 2017 02:11
>> From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com
>> To: Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>
>> Martin Pablo Silva Valent <mpsilvavalent at gmail.com>, Ayden Férdeline
>> <icann at ferdeline.com>, ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> thanks for those participating in the editing.
>> I understand the concerns about using a threat language. I am wondering
>> how much we should be strategical here.  We should escalate gradually (and
>> assertively) depending on the situation, but putting nuclear option, in
>> the beginning, may not work. There is a sense of emergency here and we
>> have to act quickly.
>>
>> I believe we should have a discussion about the strategy we should follow
>> and if we want to go into the campaign path, getting media attention and
>> so we would need to have a clear plan, get allies and experienced folks to
>> support us.  As I shared in RDS channel, there was some effort during
>> Privacy/Proxy service public comments and we can learn from that.  I
>> brought that experience because it let many outsiders be aware of the
>> situation and send their comments. I understand that is a different
>> context but we can start by leveraging our membership: EDRi,  EFF,
>> Accessnow and many others, I volunteer with others to reach them.
>>
>> I think we can shape a letter expressing strongly our concerns and so we
>> must continue the discussion in Abud Dhabi for next steps ( we will need
>> to allocate time for that on formal and informal meetings) to outline a
>> plan to follow.
>>
>> let's finalize this letter, it is timing will be just 2 weeks prior to Abu
>> Dhabi meeting.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Rafik
>>
>> 2017-10-15 5:21 GMT+09:00 Stephanie Perrin
>> <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>:
>>
>>> Very nice edit.
>>>
>>> Stephanie.
>>>
>>> On 2017-10-14 13:39, Martin Pablo Silva Valent wrote:
>>>
>>>> I won’t mess the document, so I put it here: I basically took out two
>>>> phrases: the one were it says we would apply to DP authorities, and the
>>>> ending were it says we would go to court.
>>>>
>>>> This is strong and vague enough for us to do whatever we feel necessary
>>>> and we outline the hard-risk real risk of ignoring GDPR (a subtle hint
>>>> if you may).
>>>>
>>>> "As active stakeholders in the ICANN multistakeholder community, we want
>>>> to participate in the policy changes which will see ICANN come into
>>>> compliance with data protection law after a 19-year record of sweeping
>>>> it under the rug. However, if we are excluded from the process, and feel
>>>> that once again certain stakeholders with everything to gain and nothing
>>>> to lose from the collection of end-user data are getting the ear of
>>>> senior management, whilst we get the cold shoulder, we are afraid that
>>>> we will have to take all actions at our disposal regarding ICANN’s
>>>> continued, 19-year streak of non-compliance with data protection law. As
>>>> we are sure you are aware, the new GDPR gives individuals the right to
>>>> sue the Data Protection Authorities for failure to protect end-user
>>>> rights, which ultimately will impact in the DNS use and ICANN itself."
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> Martín
>>>>
>>>>> On Oct 14, 2017, at 1:20 PM, Ayden Férdeline <icann at ferdeline.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Martin,
>>>>>
>>>>> Thank you very much for reviewing the draft letter. I appreciate you
>>>>> taking the time. Could I please ask that you edit the Google Doc
>>>>> directly and massage the final paragraph, so that you are happy with
>>>>> it? I think we do need to be forceful and punch back. I disagree that
>>>>> we should only go through the GAC or follow GNSO processes to be heard.
>>>>> We are, by design, being excluded from the conversation on this issue,
>>>>> and a flaw in the multistakeholder model has become apparent (at least
>>>>> to me). I think we should avail ourselves of all legal avenues through
>>>>> which we can seek a resolution to gTLD policies so to protect
>>>>> fundamental rights, such as the right to privacy. To box ourselves in
>>>>> and to forever subject ourselves only to a process flawed by design
>>>>> would, I think, be a mistake. Thanks again.
>>>>>
>>>>> Best wishes, Ayden
>>>>>
>>>>>> -------- Original Message --------
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] [Draft] Letter to ICANN re: BC and IPC
>>>>>> correspondence
>>>>>> Local Time: 14 October 2017 4:38 PM
>>>>>> UTC Time: 14 October 2017 15:38
>>>>>> From: mpsilvavalent at gmail.com
>>>>>> To: Ayden Férdeline <icann at ferdeline.com>
>>>>>> Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>,
>>>>>> ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> To help this letter hit the spot, is already perfect, but for the last
>>>>>> paragraph:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1) Threatening to go with a public official NCSG campaign with State
>>>>>> agencies of Europe to hit ICANN, to force the MS model, is a very bad
>>>>>> idea. As NCSG, we should only go to governments through the GAC and
>>>>>> keep using our GNSO procedures to complain if we are being left out.
>>>>>> Going berserk on ICANN with borrowed state power breaks the whole
>>>>>> model, something that is way beyond what we need to do in this case.
>>>>>> It’s a dangerous precedent. Why Europe? What about other
>>>>>> jurisdictions? other states? We can still coordinate with the GAC, and
>>>>>> as non-commercial activists we can do public campaigns and state
>>>>>> claims in defense of our rights, but it should not be an NCSG action.
>>>>>> We have procedures to escalate the problem inside the model, let’s use
>>>>>> them fearless. Let’s call the ombudsman, keep writing to the board,
>>>>>> fill the open mic, massively go into working group coordinating our
>>>>>> members, etc (we have councilors!). Asking data protection agencies to
>>>>>> put pressure for us, in NCSG name, outside the process we set for
>>>>>> ourselves is not ok, is a pandora box of precedent.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2) Even if we all agree that NCSG should ask a governmental agency to
>>>>>> put it’s nose in the GNSO process, which I am NOT saying we do, the
>>>>>> paragraph hits a big brick wall of rhetoric problems. If you read the
>>>>>> letter, the letter is perfect, is reasonable, is harsh, it makes you
>>>>>> blush to think the issue is at such a poor situation. Is backed by
>>>>>> other stakeholder, opposite to you. Once you read the threat you loose
>>>>>> all the communication bridges you build before in the letter. Anyone
>>>>>> with some knowledge of the GNSO will stop thinking on the ICANN
>>>>>> problem of addressing GDPR, they will read that NCSG is threatening,
>>>>>> to go to EU to force ICANN, and the multistakeholder model.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 3) The letter is perfect, we do need a punch in the last paragraph
>>>>>> that states both our level of concern, alert and the demand to be
>>>>>> heard. But we should threaten to use either specific tools of the
>>>>>> ICANN Process, or a vague thing that allows us to afterward choose the
>>>>>> best tool.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>> Martín
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Oct 13, 2017, at 6:55 PM, Ayden Férdeline <icann at ferdeline.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi Martin, thank you very much for this feedback. I take it on board
>>>>>>> and hear what you are saying. However, I am afraid that I do
>>>>>>> disagree. I think we need to be forceful. From what I understand we
>>>>>>> have been ignored and sidelined for 19 years. I think it is important
>>>>>>> we punch back and let ICANN know that we are serious about being able
>>>>>>> to input into this conversation, or we will avail ourselves of
>>>>>>> alternative mechanisms. To that end, we will need to start thinking
>>>>>>> about campaign tactics too -- that is something I have been thinking
>>>>>>> about for next year; what are the next steps, when do we launch, and
>>>>>>> what do we need? I think the time for diplomacy was a year ago (or
>>>>>>> longer), and now is the time for action.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Warm wishes, Ayden
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> -------- Original Message --------
>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] [Draft] Letter to ICANN re: BC and IPC
>>>>>>>> correspondence
>>>>>>>> Local Time: 13 October 2017 10:49 PM
>>>>>>>> UTC Time: 13 October 2017 21:49
>>>>>>>> From: mpsilvavalent at gmail.com
>>>>>>>> To: Ayden Férdeline <icann at ferdeline.com>
>>>>>>>> Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>,
>>>>>>>> ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I’ve been following the doc, it looks great. I would be much more
>>>>>>>> mellow and diplomatic in the las paragraph, not threaten things,
>>>>>>>> like going public with a campaign with data protection agencies. I
>>>>>>>> think we shouldn’t promote agencies as policeman of ICANN, I
>>>>>>>> understand we are waiving that in the event the multi-stakeholder
>>>>>>>> model fails to include as as stakeholder, yet, I wouldn’t set that
>>>>>>>> as precedent and I do not recommend to make it before the actual
>>>>>>>> exclusion of the process happen, much less by  by written official
>>>>>>>> letter.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I do believe that we have to talk about alternative strategies, but
>>>>>>>> not in a letter like this, is a very big threat with deep
>>>>>>>> implication, I wouldn’t recommend to go with that nor sign it as
>>>>>>>> official NCSG position. Reminder: ONLY ABOUT THE LAST PARAGRAPH, the
>>>>>>>> rest looks amazing and I still think we should make clear the point
>>>>>>>> we must be taken in account. Just take away the threat.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>> Martín
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Oct 13, 2017, at 6:42 PM, Ayden Férdeline <icann at ferdeline.com>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Thanks Stephanie, I tend to agree. I have attached a copy of the
>>>>>>>>> letter which includes the Chair's name.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Ayden
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> -------- Original Message --------
>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] [Draft] Letter to ICANN re: BC and IPC
>>>>>>>>>> correspondence
>>>>>>>>>> Local Time: 13 October 2017 10:33 PM
>>>>>>>>>> UTC Time: 13 October 2017 21:33
>>>>>>>>>> From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca
>>>>>>>>>> To: Ayden Férdeline <icann at ferdeline.com>
>>>>>>>>>> ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It should be signed by the Chair on behalf of, in my view.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> cheers Steph
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 2017-10-13 17:27, Ayden Férdeline wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I have done some final polishing to the letter, and have attached
>>>>>>>>>>> a proposed final draft. I hope we may be able to reach agreement
>>>>>>>>>>> soon on sending this letter. Also - I was wondering, should it
>>>>>>>>>>> carry a name, perhaps of the Chair, or is it okay to be signed
>>>>>>>>>>> 'NCSG'?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Many thanks, Ayden
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> -------- Original Message --------
>>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] [Draft] Letter to ICANN re: BC and IPC
>>>>>>>>>>>> correspondence
>>>>>>>>>>>> Local Time: 13 October 2017 7:59 PM
>>>>>>>>>>>> UTC Time: 13 October 2017 18:59
>>>>>>>>>>>> From: icann at ferdeline.com
>>>>>>>>>>>> To: Stephanie Perrin
>>>>>>>>>>>> [<stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>](mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca),
>>>>>>>>>>>> ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I think it is the perfect tone for this letter. As we saw in
>>>>>>>>>>>> Hong Kong this month, our public silence is being manipulated
>>>>>>>>>>>> and used to make the false claim that we are being consulted
>>>>>>>>>>>> with and are an integral part of ICANN's efforts to comply with
>>>>>>>>>>>> the GDPR, when we are not. Thanks for these edits Stephanie. We
>>>>>>>>>>>> need to reshape the narrative and get it all documented.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Ayden Férdeline
>>>>>>>>>>>> Sent from ProtonMail Mobile
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 7:14 pm, Stephanie Perrin
>>>>>>>>>>>> <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I jumped in today (apologies for being anonymous, always forget
>>>>>>>>>>>>> my google password) and made quite a few changes.  I like the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> idea, but I think we should be a bit more specific.  In terms
>>>>>>>>>>>>> of informing the DPAs....Swineheart is trying to get people to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the IWGDPT meeting in Paris, I think everyone has been briefed
>>>>>>>>>>>>> at the data commissioners meeting in Hong kong (remember a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> whole crew from ICANN went) that there is a draft statement
>>>>>>>>>>>>> coming. So they know we have been briefing them for two years,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> we need to sharpen that a bit.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Let me know if you think it was a bit too strong.  I will
>>>>>>>>>>>>> confess, I am losing my patience with this lot.  They spend
>>>>>>>>>>>>> gobs of money gadding around trying to nullify end user rights.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>  Totally ignore us.  Ought to be ashamed of themselves.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Stephanie
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2017-10-13 07:05, Rafik Dammak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hi,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reminder for everyone to review the letter and share comments.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rafik
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2017-10-11 4:28 GMT+09:00 Ayden Férdeline
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <icann at ferdeline.com>:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Also - I have now revised this letter again taking into
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> account the helpful feedback that was received over the past
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 48 hours; moving forward, please feel free to edit the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> document directly if you have any changes you'd like to see
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> made. Thanks!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ayden
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -------- Original Message --------
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] [Draft] Letter to ICANN re: BC and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IPC correspondence
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Local Time: 10 October 2017 7:44 PM
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> UTC Time: 10 October 2017 18:44
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> From: icann at ferdeline.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To: Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ncsg-pc <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Rafik,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you very much for your comments.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It would be great if we could finalise this letter by Friday
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and perhaps even send it out that day. I very much welcome
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> edits directly to the Google Doc; everyone on this list,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> please help write it and shape its contents!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I would also like to propose that we write a monthly letter
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to ICANN on this topic until May 2018, when enforcement of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the GDPR comes into effect. That way we can document for the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> data protection authorities that we have been informing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ICANN in excess of six months of their need to comply with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this regulation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The feedback from Nick Shorey on the PC call today - that we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> need to help engineer a conversation between the DPAs and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> their GAC representatives - is an interesting one, and one
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which seemed to have support in the chat. How would we go
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about this, however? Do we write to the GAC? Do we express
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this desire to them in Abu Dhabi during our face-to-face
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with them?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best wishes,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ayden
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -------- Original Message --------
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] [Draft] Letter to ICANN re: BC and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IPC correspondence
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Local Time: 10 October 2017 5:33 AM
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> UTC Time: 10 October 2017 04:33
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To: Ayden Férdeline <icann at ferdeline.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ncsg-pc <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Ayden,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for the draft,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it is important we make a point to voice our concerns and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> influence the process. as we discussed before here and on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the last call we got 2 problems 1- our representatives in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> taskforce not being informed 2- the last Data protection
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conference (that is already passed)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for the current letter, indeed we should tweak the language
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there ;) while we keep the substance. reading IPC letter,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it seems they reject the use case matrix and I understood
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from previous comments you think that doesn't include our
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> perspective. I add few comments but I think we can add
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> more, in particular, our concerns in general regarding the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> process and not just responding to BC and IPC requests.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I ask other PC members to review the letter and share their
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thoughts. I put the GDPR as a discussion item for today
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> call. We need a deadline to get this done and prior to Abud
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dhabi meeting if we may want to continue the discussion
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there and depending on how things go with the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cross-community session. I propose that we reach a new
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> version by this Friday.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rafik
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2017-10-08 23:07 GMT+09:00 Ayden Férdeline
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <icann at ferdeline.com>:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have drafted a letter to ICANN in response to the recent
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correspondence received from the BC and the IPC. [You can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> read/edit it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> here.](https://docs.google.com/document/d/13ujYOpJFL0eNvjQCiNmsduFFbiUPQC5Wmbe9wHC2K6Q/edit?usp=sharing)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I know the language is provocative (intentionally so), but
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this is a first draft -- and if you disapprove please
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> provide alternative language.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best, Ayden
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ______________________________ _________________
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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](https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> <Proposed Letter - Chair
>>>>>>>>> Name.pdf>_______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>> 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

-- 
------------------------
**Arsène Tungali* <http://about.me/ArseneTungali>*
Co-Founder & Executive Director, *Rudi international
<http://www.rudiinternational.org>*,
CEO,* Smart Services Sarl <http://www.smart-serv.info>*, *Mabingwa Forum
<http://www.mabingwa-forum.com>*
Tel: +243 993810967
GPG: 523644A0
*Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo*

2015 Mandela Washington Felllow
<http://tungali.blogspot.com/2015/06/selected-for-2015-mandela-washington.html>
(YALI) - ISOC Ambassador (IGF Brazil
<http://www.internetsociety.org/what-we-do/education-and-leadership-programmes/next-generation-leaders/igf-ambassadors-programme/Past-Ambassadors>
& Mexico
<http://www.internetsociety.org/what-we-do/education-and-leadership-programmes/next-generation-leaders/Current-Ambassadors>)
- AFRISIG 2016 <http://afrisig.org/afrisig-2016/class-of-2016/> - Blogger
<http://tungali.blogspot.com> - ICANN Fellow (Los Angeles
<https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2014-07-18-en> & Marrakech
<https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/marrakech55-attendees-2016-03-14-en>
). AFRINIC Fellow (Mauritius
<http://www.afrinic.net/en/library/news/1907-afrinic-25-fellowship-winners>)*
- *IGFSA Member <http://www.igfsa.org/> - Internet Governance - Internet
Freedom.

Check the *2016 State of Internet Freedom in DRC* report (English
<http://cipesa.org/?wpfb_dl=234>) and (French
<http://cipesa.org/?wpfb_dl=242>)