[NCSG-PC] Fw: [council] Reminder: For Review: Initial draft of Proposed GNSO Council Response to CCT-RT Recommendations Passed Through to GNSO

Ayden Férdeline icann at ferdeline.com
Mon Sep 16 11:20:30 EEST 2019 

Unfortunately, we have now missed the deadline to provide edits on this document.

-- Ayden

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
On Sunday, 15 September 2019 23:09, Martin Pablo Silva Valent <mpsilvavalent at gmail.com> wrote:

> I fear my reading might not be as insightful as the members involved in the EPDP for the matter on the privacy base line, I would like to hear ideas from more experts to help form one of my own if possible. For the other it is clear that are matters addressed by RPMs and SubPro.
>
> Best, Martín
>
>> On 15 Sep 2019, at 12:02, Ayden Férdeline <icann at ferdeline.com> wrote:
>>
>> Just bumping this thread - would appreciate hearing from more members of the Policy Committee. Thanks.
>>
>> -- Ayden
>>
>> ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
>> On Wednesday, 11 September 2019 18:04, Ayden Férdeline <icann at ferdeline.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Do we support the initiation then of a new PDP to address this issue?
>>>
>>> -- Ayden
>>>
>>> ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
>>> On Wednesday, 11 September 2019 03:12, Stephanie Perrin <stephanie at digitaldiscretion.ca> wrote:
>>>
>>>> No.
>>>> Steph
>>>>
>>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>>
>>>> On Sep 10, 2019, at 09:54, Ayden Férdeline <icann at ferdeline.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> RE: This recommendation:
>>>>>
>>>>> The GNSO should initiate a new Policy Development Process (PDP) to create a consistent privacy baseline across all registries
>>>>>
>>>>> Do we support this response?
>>>>>
>>>>> The GNSO Council does not intend to initiate a new PDP as recommended (see rationale). The Council will seek feedback from the EPDP Team as to whether this Recommendation #10 has been or is being addressed in whole or in part by the EPDP.
>>>>>
>>>>> Offered rationale:
>>>>>
>>>>> This recommendation seems to have been overtaken by events such the GDPR and the EPDP.
>>>>>
>>>>> The Council is of the view that a PDP “to create a consistent privacy baseline across all registries” is not within the “picket fence” or ICANN’s mission.
>>>>>
>>>>> All gTLD registry operators are subject to applicable laws and regulations as well as ICANN’s consensus policies.
>>>>>
>>>>> gTLD registry operators around the globe process a wide and differing range of data (including WHOIS data). While their processing of WHOIS data is subject to ICANN contracts and consensus policies, it is up to each registry operator to set their own privacy policy that governs their processing of such data and ensures compliance with applicable laws and regulations.
>>>>>
>>>>> Best wishes,
>>>>>
>>>>> Ayden
>>>>>
>>>>> ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
>>>>> On Tuesday, 10 September 2019 16:19, Nathalie Peregrine <nathalie.peregrine at icann.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Dear councilors,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A reminder that the closing date for input on the initial draft of the proposed GNSO Council response to CCT-RT Recommendations is this coming Friday, 13 September 2019.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Kind regards,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nathalie
>>>>>>
>>>>>> From: council <council-bounces at gnso.icann.org> on behalf of PAMELALITTLE <pam.little at alibaba-inc.com>
>>>>>> Reply-To: PAMELALITTLE <pam.little at alibaba-inc.com>
>>>>>> Date: Friday, August 30, 2019 at 5:45 AM
>>>>>> To: "council at gnso.icann.org" <council at gnso.icann.org>, Flip Petillion <fpetillion at petillion.law>
>>>>>> Cc: "carlosraulg at gmail.com" <carlosraulg at gmail.com>
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [council] For Review: Initial draft of Proposed GNSO Council Response to CCT-RT Recommendations Passed Through to GNSO
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi Flip - Thank you for taking the time to review the draft.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Dear Councilors,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This item was on 22 August Council meeting agenda but was deferred to our next monthly meeting on 19 September.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There are 5 recommendations under consideration and the small team's proposed response is as follows:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> #10 (initiating a PDP to create a privacy baseline across all registries) - No action at this time
>>>>>>
>>>>>> #16 (abuse and Domain Abuse Activity Reporting (DAAR)) - Redirect to ICANN org
>>>>>>
>>>>>> #27 & #28 - Refer to the RPM WG
>>>>>>
>>>>>> #29 be - Refer to Sub-pro WG
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It would be greatly appreciated if you could take a moment to review the draft (attached again) and, if appropriate, seek input from your respective group by 13 September 2019. It would hopefully make our discussion during the Council meeting more efficient.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Kind regards,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Pam
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sender:Flip Petillion <fpetillion at petillion.law>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sent At:2019 Aug. 20 (Tue.) 16:47
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Recipient:PAMELALITTLE <pam.little at alibaba-inc.com>; council at gnso.icann.org <council at gnso.icann.org>; council <council-bounces at gnso.icann.org>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Cc:"Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez G." <carlosraulg at gmail.com>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Subject:Re: [council] For Review: Initial draft of Proposed GNSO Council Response to CCT-RT Recommendations Passed Through to GNSO
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thank you Pam
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I have no comments.
>>>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Flip
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Flip  Petillion
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> fpetillion at petillion.law
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> +32484652653
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [www.petillion.law](http://www.petillion.law/)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [<image001.png>[petillion.law]](https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.petillion.law_&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=PDd_FX3f4MVgkEIi9GHvVoUhbecsvLhgsyXrxgtbL10DTBs0i1jYiBM_uTSDzgqG&m=LN_Zwu0QdQrB0sHeIQckj3e2dEUZj28P_FRzge-5cns&s=zHzLY9RS9U0fN-nqSv6KEzaXJtF2lHiOk0Ok7kstWbM&e=)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>   Attorneys – Advocaten - Avocats
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> From: council <council-bounces at gnso.icann.org> on behalf of Pam Little <pam.little at alibaba-inc.com>
>>>>>>> Reply to: Pam Little <pam.little at alibaba-inc.com>
>>>>>>> Date: Tuesday, 20 August 2019 at 02:42
>>>>>>> To: "council at gnso.icann.org" <council at gnso.icann.org>, council <council-bounces at gnso.icann.org>
>>>>>>> Cc: "Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez G." <carlosraulg at gmail.com>
>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [council] For Review: Initial draft of Proposed GNSO Council Response to CCT-RT Recommendations Passed Through to GNSO
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Dear Councilors,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The small team would like to suggest some changes to the draft that was sent to the Council list late July:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> #16 on DAAR and DNS abuse - In light of the on-going conversations within the ICANN community, including a Plenary session on DNS Abuse to be held at ICANN66, we've made some suggested edits to the proposed Council response and new language to reflect this.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> #28 on cost-benefit analysis of TMCH - Staff recently clarified that the RPM WG did not carry out a cost-benefit analysis. While this was one of the specific Charter questions, Analysis Group's Final Report indicates that their data did not provide quantifiable information to include such analysis in its review.  In light of this, we are suggesting a change to the proposed Council response:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>     From: The GNSO Council will seek feedback/comment from the RPM WG whether its Phase 1 work has carried out a cost-benefit analysis consistent with the scope described in this Recommendation #28.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>     To: The GNSO Council will refer this recommendation to the RPM WG.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A redline version is attached for your review. Please let us know if you have any questions or comments. We look forward to discussing this further at the upcoming Council meeting later this week.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Kind regards,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Pam
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sender:PAMELALITTLE <pam.little at alibaba-inc.com>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sent At:2019 Jul. 23 (Tue.) 16:31
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Recipient:council at gnso.icann.org <council at gnso.icann.org>; council <council-bounces at gnso.icann.org>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Cc:"Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez G." <carlosraulg at gmail.com>; Carlos Raul Gutierrez <carlosraul at gutierrez.se>; Michele Neylon - Blacknight <michele at blacknight.com>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Subject:For Review: Initial draft of Proposed GNSO Council Response to CCT-RT Recommendations Passed Through to GNSO
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Dear Councilors,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You may recall that the Council discussed this topic during the wrap-up session in Marrakesh and the action item was for a small team (Carlos, Michele and myself) to take a look at the 5 Recommendations that were passed through to GNSO (see the message below from Larisa Gurnick forwarded by Mary to Council).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In addition, a number of Recommendations were passed through to gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Working Group and/or Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPM) PDP Working Group.  In order to have a better picture of where all the Recommendations passed to the GNSO and its PDPs stand, Keith is planning to write to the leadership of the Working Groups seeking their feedback.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In the meantime, I attach an initial draft with the small  team's proposed GNSO Council response to those 5 Recommendations passed through directly to the GNSO for your review and consideration. It is likely to be included in our August Council meeting agenda so please take some time to consider the proposed responses before the meeting. All feedback/comments/suggested edits are welcome!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Kind regards,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Pam
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sender:Mary Wong <mary.wong at icann.org>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sent At:2019 Jun. 10 (Mon.) 16:43
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Recipient:council at gnso.icann.org <council at gnso.icann.org>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Subject:[council] Message regarding CCT-RT recommendations
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Dear Councilors,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I am forwarding the message below on behalf of Larisa Gurnick, Vice-President in ICANN’s Multi-stakeholder Strategy & Strategic Initiatives (MSSI) department. You may recall that the Competition, Consumer Protection & Consumer Trust Review Team’s (CCT-RT) final recommendations included several that were directed at the GNSO Council. This notification should provide you with additional information and context for the ICANN Board’s action in respect of those recommendations.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Dear Members of the GNSO Council,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The purpose of this note is to highlight the Board resolution passed on 1 March 2019 - see [https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2019-03-01-en [icann.org]](https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_resources_board-2Dmaterial_resolutions-2D2019-2D03-2D01-2Den&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=PDd_FX3f4MVgkEIi9GHvVoUhbecsvLhgsyXrxgtbL10DTBs0i1jYiBM_uTSDzgqG&m=LN_Zwu0QdQrB0sHeIQckj3e2dEUZj28P_FRzge-5cns&s=d653AEmkPoU5I6YTgKVksELfQQX3Pv9KlOR-qZCykbo&e=) - that calls for a set of Competition, Consumer Trust, and Consumer Choice Review Team (CCT-RT) Final Recommendations to be passed through to community groups. As articulated in the Board resolution, “recognizing that the Board has the obligation and responsibility to balance the work of ICANN in order to preserve the ability for ICANN org to serve its Mission and the public interest, the Board decided on three categories of action”:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> - Accepting recommendations, subject to costing and implementation considerations;
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> - Placing recommendations (in whole or in part) in "Pending" status, directing ICANN org to perform specific actions to enable the Board to take further actions;
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> - Passing recommendations (in whole or in part) to community groups the CCT-RT identified for their consideration. The Board noted fourteen such recommendations (9, 10, 12, 16, 19, 20, 25, 27, 28, 29, 32, 33, 34, 35).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We invite you to refer to pages 1-4 of the scorecard [https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/resolutions-final-cct-recs-scorecard-01mar19-en.pdf [icann.org]](https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_en_system_files_files_resolutions-2Dfinal-2Dcct-2Drecs-2Dscorecard-2D01mar19-2Den.pdf&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=PDd_FX3f4MVgkEIi9GHvVoUhbecsvLhgsyXrxgtbL10DTBs0i1jYiBM_uTSDzgqG&m=LN_Zwu0QdQrB0sHeIQckj3e2dEUZj28P_FRzge-5cns&s=WHL6AQ0pPSwroWvDA9W4TTMRwnPc7hzcwmmrtiU346o&e=) which compile pass-through recommendations, including the groups they are addressed to.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Accordingly, ICANN  org wishes to notify you of the recommendations the ICANN Board resolved to pass through to you, in whole or in part, for your consideration:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> - Recommendation 10.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> - Recommendation 16 (in part) Note: this recommendation was also passed through to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG, Registries Stakeholder Group, Registrar Stakeholder Group, Generic Names Supporting Organization, Second Security, Stability & Resiliency of DNS Review Team as suggested by the CCT-RT. In the scorecard, the Board noted that “it is not accepting the policy directives that may be inherent here but rather, passes on such elements of the recommendation to the relevant community groups to consider”.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> - Recommendation 27.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> - Recommendation 28.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> - Recommendation 29. Note: this recommendation was also passed through to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG, as suggested by the CCT-RT. To inform work relating to recommendations 29 and 30, the ICANN Board suggested that the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG could take on, “should they choose to do so, defining the term ‘Global South’ or agreeing on another term to describe underserved or underrepresented regions or stakeholders in coordination with ICANN org”.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We would like to highlight the following language of the Board resolution: “in passing these recommendations through, the Board is neither accepting, nor rejecting the recommendations. […] Passing recommendations through to community groups is not a directive that the groups identified should formally address any of the issues within those recommendations. It is within the purview of each group to identify whether work will be taken on and the topics that the group will address”.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As indicated in the resolution, the Board encourages community groups to be “mindful of any interdependencies with ongoing work and discussions”. Additionally,the Board suggests “to the referenced community groups that the CCT-RT's proposed priority levels be taken into account as the groups decide whether, how and when to address the CCT-RT recommendations that are being passed through […]”.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Additionally, we would like to flag the Board suggestion that for transparency purposes, “it would be helpful to have records or reporting made available to the ICANN community on how the community group considered the items coming out of the CCT-RT. The Board encourages any level of reporting that the groups are able to provide as the ICANN org and Board track action on the CCT-RT's recommendations”. Please consider providing updates on your progress in addressing (as appropriate) these recommendations, to be included with ICANN org’s reporting.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Background
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The Competition, Consumer Trust, and Consumer Choice Review Team (CCT-RT) released its Final Report on 8 September 2018 – see [https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/cct-final-08sep18-en.pdf [icann.org]](https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_en_system_files_files_cct-2Dfinal-2D08sep18-2Den.pdf&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=PDd_FX3f4MVgkEIi9GHvVoUhbecsvLhgsyXrxgtbL10DTBs0i1jYiBM_uTSDzgqG&m=LN_Zwu0QdQrB0sHeIQckj3e2dEUZj28P_FRzge-5cns&s=6ICcKJIDUbDCBJXyA3WEljVWYV3q2Y17bqm9MhfIdiE&e=). The CCT-RT Final Report contains 35 recommendations and is the culmination of nearly three years of work, reviewing how the expansion of top-level domain names impacted competition, consumer trust and choice. For more information on the CCT Review and Specific Reviews, please read [https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/bylaws-en#article4.6 [icann.org]](https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_resources_pages_governance_bylaws-2Den-23article4.6&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=PDd_FX3f4MVgkEIi9GHvVoUhbecsvLhgsyXrxgtbL10DTBs0i1jYiBM_uTSDzgqG&m=LN_Zwu0QdQrB0sHeIQckj3e2dEUZj28P_FRzge-5cns&s=sk_R5n9lFzK-VjJ5MajW0gufBPKP-hHHtxwwm9affK4&e=).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The ICANN Board took action on each of the 35 recommendations produced by the CCT-RT - see [https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2019-03-01-en [icann.org]](https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_resources_board-2Dmaterial_resolutions-2D2019-2D03-2D01-2Den&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=PDd_FX3f4MVgkEIi9GHvVoUhbecsvLhgsyXrxgtbL10DTBs0i1jYiBM_uTSDzgqG&m=LN_Zwu0QdQrB0sHeIQckj3e2dEUZj28P_FRzge-5cns&s=d653AEmkPoU5I6YTgKVksELfQQX3Pv9KlOR-qZCykbo&e=) - on 1 March 2019 and was informed by public comment input received on the Final report (see [https://www.icann.org/public-comments/cct-final-recs-2018-10-08-en [icann.org]](https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_public-2Dcomments_cct-2Dfinal-2Drecs-2D2018-2D10-2D08-2Den&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=PDd_FX3f4MVgkEIi9GHvVoUhbecsvLhgsyXrxgtbL10DTBs0i1jYiBM_uTSDzgqG&m=LN_Zwu0QdQrB0sHeIQckj3e2dEUZj28P_FRzge-5cns&s=rnlQOqTJ0L8ars1j7DT1jgHvcY51YUlkAEoXnRf7NsE&e=)).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The  Board’s decisions on each recommendation is documented in the scorecard published at [https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/resolutions-final-cct-recs-scorecard-01mar19-en.pdf [icann.org]](https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_en_system_files_files_resolutions-2Dfinal-2Dcct-2Drecs-2Dscorecard-2D01mar19-2Den.pdf&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=PDd_FX3f4MVgkEIi9GHvVoUhbecsvLhgsyXrxgtbL10DTBs0i1jYiBM_uTSDzgqG&m=LN_Zwu0QdQrB0sHeIQckj3e2dEUZj28P_FRzge-5cns&s=WHL6AQ0pPSwroWvDA9W4TTMRwnPc7hzcwmmrtiU346o&e=). A blog post on the Board action can be found at [https://www.icann.org/news/blog/board-action-on-competition-consumer-trust-and-consumer-choice-review [icann.org]](https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_news_blog_board-2Daction-2Don-2Dcompetition-2Dconsumer-2Dtrust-2Dand-2Dconsumer-2Dchoice-2Dreview&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=PDd_FX3f4MVgkEIi9GHvVoUhbecsvLhgsyXrxgtbL10DTBs0i1jYiBM_uTSDzgqG&m=LN_Zwu0QdQrB0sHeIQckj3e2dEUZj28P_FRzge-5cns&s=tPbh87sl7effhOUw5FF9BkBI7x6y32Z1v4ucSL93tCg&e=) for more context.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We thank you for your collaboration in considering the CCT-RT output. Please let us know whether you have any questions.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thank you.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Best regards.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Larisa  Gurnick
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Vice-President, Multi-stakeholder Strategy & Strategic Initiatives, ICANN
>>>>
>>>>> <Proposed GNSO Council Response to CCT Review Recommendations Passed Through to GNSO_revised_15August2019.docx>
>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> council mailing list
>>>>> council at gnso.icann.org
>>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_policy&d=DwICAg&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=PDd_FX3f4MVgkEIi9GHvVoUhbecsvLhgsyXrxgtbL10DTBs0i1jYiBM_uTSDzgqG&m=LN_Zwu0QdQrB0sHeIQckj3e2dEUZj28P_FRzge-5cns&s=RE22OFJbx8_qCz9fmVxjYD5bSBWSra5Fht1r_CAvFp4&e= ) and the website Terms of Service (https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_tos&d=DwICAg&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=PDd_FX3f4MVgkEIi9GHvVoUhbecsvLhgsyXrxgtbL10DTBs0i1jYiBM_uTSDzgqG&m=LN_Zwu0QdQrB0sHeIQckj3e2dEUZj28P_FRzge-5cns&s=ZfTZxU0UZbd1AfNvK-d8E_O17i2IASh4IWsYKLBZmu4&e= ). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20190916/52fe05d1/attachment.htm>

More information about the NCSG-PC mailing list