October 2011 - ALAC - lists.icann.org

Re: [ALAC] [ALAC-ExCom] ALAC/At-Large Improvements Project -- important update
by Alan Greenberg Oct. 13, 2011

Oct. 13, 2011

I am not sure they are difficult to assess, but they are most definitely subjective. And we tend to have an aversion to making subjective decisions in this sort of area (although in real life, we are continually called upon to make them). Alan At 13/10/2011 11:29 AM, Thompson, Darlene wrote: >Exactly Carleton, > >I've always maintained that we need to track both quantitative and >qualitative measures - but the qualitative measure are MUCH more >difficult to assess. I would really like to see suggestions on how >this can be done - because it must be done. > >D > >Darlene A. Thompson >Community Access Program Administrator >Nunavut Dept. of Education / N-CAP >P.O. Box 1000, Station 910 >Iqaluit, NU X0A 0H0 >Phone: (867) 975-5631 >Fax: (867) 975-5610 >E-mail: dthompson(a)gov.nu.ca<mailto:dthompson@gov.nu.ca> > >From: Carlton Samuels [mailto:carlton.samuels@gmail.com] >Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2011 11:13 AM >To: Thompson, Darlene >Cc: Evan Leibovitch; Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond; >lac-discuss-en(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org; ALAC EXCOM; At-Large Worldwide >Subject: Re: [ALAC] [ALAC-ExCom] ALAC/At-Large Improvements Project >-- important update > >On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 9:11 AM, Thompson, Darlene ><DThompson1(a)gov.nu.ca<mailto:DThompson1@gov.nu.ca>> wrote: >The members of the region, right now, have no idea if their ALAC rep >is showing up to meetings or giving any kind of substantive input >while at these meetings. > >Ah, there's the rub.....emphasis on 'substantive input'! > >Carlton > > >============================== >Carlton A Samuels >Mobile: 876-818-1799 >Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround >============================= >_______________________________________________ >ALAC-ExCom mailing list >ALAC-ExCom(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac-excom

1 0

Re: [ALAC] [ALAC-ExCom] ALAC/At-Large Improvements Project -- important update
by Alan Greenberg Oct. 13, 2011

Oct. 13, 2011

As the person who arguably started this discussion by proposing monitoring and subsequent possible actions several years ago (and still bear the scars from presiding over what may be the hottest-under-the-collar ALAC meeting on record), I would like to add a few thoughts. I agree that the word "sanctions" is far too strong and onerous a word to be used here, but as Olivier has pointed out, we still need to discuss what type of action the ALAC or perhaps the ALAC Chair or officers) *might* take in the case of significant under-performance. And I of course agree that we do need to be as specific as possible in identifying ahead of time what is expected of ALAC members and RALO officers. There are three additional perspectives that I have not seen being raised. In my years on and watching the ALAC, I have seen all three, so they are not just theoretical. - For a RALO appointed ALAC member, if the RALO is happy with their representatives performance, perhaps the rest of At-Large should accept that. But even if they are not, it is counter to the personality (and cultures) of some to actually confront the person who they often have to deal with in other contexts, and who they often consider a friend. Having the ALAC (or a someone) do the dirty work for them might be a safe way out of the situation. - If an ALAC member severely under-performs, it is not just their region that suffers. This adds to the load carried by the rest of the ALAC. If (as sadly has been the case in some past years), a significant percentage of the ALAC are in this category, the load on the rest becomes ridiculous. - The overall reputation and credibility of ALAC and At-Large can be impacted the poor performance of just a few. I am not proposing how we deal with such situations, but it is important to consider all implications when we discuss what if anything should be done other than collect and make available performance data (as all seem to agree should be done). Alan At 12/10/2011 11:56 AM, Wolf Ludwig wrote: >Hi all, > >I share Evan's basic question: "accountable to who?" and subsequent >considerations. And I would say: In a broader sense to the Internet >users in general, in a causal sense to the regional community that >selected them = the RALOs concerned by such an under-performing >candidate should be "in charge" of any potential "sanction" >mechanisms because the two *RALO selected* ALAC members are - first >and foremost - accountable to their electorate. A defective >performance of a regional representative / ALAC member affects >performance and reputation of the particular region and cannot be in >their interest = be tolerated over a certain span of time (except >for serious circumstances such as sickness and the like). > >I understand Carlton's reservations against sanctions or punishments >of volunteers but as soon as limited seats (15 or 2 per region) and >financial (travel etc.) resources are associated with a volunteer's >engagement, the mandated person and his community have a special >responsibility and accountability towards ALAC and ICANN. Otherwise, >we cannot fulfill our role and commitments - what we stand for - >diligently representing the users at ICANN. > >The key deliberation must be: The standards and professionalism we >expect and demand from others, we must fulfill ourselves at first >hand (typical trap of credibility ;-). > >Best, >Wolf > > >Evan Leibovitch wrote Tue, 11 Oct 2011 19:39: > >On 11 October 2011 19:04, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl(a)gih.com> wrote: > > > >> Take imaginary example candidate A, ALAC member, does not attend calls, > >> does not attend meetings, or when he travels, uses their time outside of > >> the ALAC room. A does not get involved in ALAC & other working groups. A > >> is basically using their affiliation to ALAC as something that looks > >> good on their CV. Admittedly, this is an extreme, but Carlton, at the > >> moment, nothing can be done about that person, and that imaginary person > >> is occupying a seat on the ALAC, one of the only 15 seats of people > >> supposed to act in the best interests of the 2.1Bn Internet users out > >> there. That person is failing those 2.1Bn people. That person is not > >> accountable. > >> > >I guess the big question -- at least MY big question -- is, accountable to > >who? > > > >If that person was sent by a RALO, the RALO should be able to handle this > >issue through a recall or other similar measure. > > > >If the person was appointed by the NomCom, the procedure is different but a > >mechanism is still required. By definition a NomCom ALAC appointee is not > >accountable to ALAC or the region, however it reflects badly on the NomCom > >and ICANN itself if non-performing ALAC members are chosen and allowed to > >under-serve for an entire two-year term. > > > >What bothers me the most is the prospect of ALAC passing judgment over its > >own members. If a RALO elects someone who reflects their viewpoint, and that > >viewpoint is that only a small number of issues matter, this is indeed the > >RALO's choice to make and ALAC has no right to engage in top-down > >second-guessing. Education and persuasion, certainly, but not sanctions. > > > >I fully agree on requesting that every RALO has some kind of recall > >mechanism for their elected officials -- not just ALAC members but also RALO > >chairs, secretariats and liaisons as applicable. Indeed I have long > >advocated this within my own RALO. I am also greatly in favour of staff's > >providing attendance and other performance metrics that allow a RALO to act > >appropriately on factual inputs. But I am very much against any scheme that > >has ALAC members being accountable to other ALAC members. > > > >It's bad enough that the ICANN Board has no legal, fiduciary duty to the > >public, but only to ICANN itself. Let's not justify, let alone propagate > >that mistake within our own bounds. > > > >But in any case, this debate is premature. We're at an intermediate > >> stage, with more than 50 recommendations in this report, some of which > >> are completed, some of which need to be taken to the next stage. The > >> debate on sanctions/no sanctions will happen later. > > > > > >I don't think there's any problem with that. As I've mentioned, it's simply > >that the wording in the report right now could easily be interpreted by a > >casual reader to infer that we have already had the discussion, agreed on a > >regime of sanctions, and are simply discussing appropriate implementation > >going forward. WE know the debate is incomplete, but that is not what the > >report indicates. > > > >- Evan > >_______________________________________________ > >ALAC mailing list > >ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > >https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac > > > >At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org > >ALAC Working Wiki: > https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL… > > > >EuroDIG Secretariat >http://www.eurodig.org/ >mobile +41 79 204 83 87 >Skype: Wolf-Ludwig > >EURALO - ICANN's Regional At-Large Organisation >http://euralo.org > >Profile on LinkedIn >http://ch.linkedin.com/in/wolfludwig >_______________________________________________ >ALAC-ExCom mailing list >ALAC-ExCom(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac-excom

3 2

Re: [ALAC] [ALAC-ExCom] ALAC/At-Large Improvements Project -- important update
by Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond Oct. 12, 2011

Oct. 12, 2011

Carlton, On 11/10/2011 15:49, Carlton Samuels wrote : > As I have already stated, I cannot vote for any report that recommends > "sanctions" on volunteers, even if they are yet to be determined. The > state of mind that delivers this gem can only be repudiated for cause. Take imaginary example candidate A, ALAC member, does not attend calls, does not attend meetings, or when he travels, uses their time outside of the ALAC room. A does not get involved in ALAC & other working groups. A is basically using their affiliation to ALAC as something that looks good on their CV. Admittedly, this is an extreme, but Carlton, at the moment, nothing can be done about that person, and that imaginary person is occupying a seat on the ALAC, one of the only 15 seats of people supposed to act in the best interests of the 2.1Bn Internet users out there. That person is failing those 2.1Bn people. That person is not accountable. Yes, that person is a volunteer, but when you volunteer for ALAC, you're not doing it as a piece of fun. There is a deep responsibility that goes along with that. There is accountability to users in the rest of the world. But in any case, this debate is premature. We're at an intermediate stage, with more than 50 recommendations in this report, some of which are completed, some of which need to be taken to the next stage. The debate on sanctions/no sanctions will happen later. (and in Dakar we have a session on metric which might touch on that... or we might have to wait until after Dakar. In any case, there will be plenty of times to debate this) Warmest regards, Olivier -- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html

6 9

Re: [ALAC] [lac-discuss-en] [ALAC-ExCom] ALAC/At-Large Improvements Project -- important update
by Dev Anand Teelucksingh Oct. 12, 2011

Oct. 12, 2011

Well said, Darlene +1 Dev Anand Teelucksingh On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 10:11 AM, Thompson, Darlene <DThompson1(a)gov.nu.ca> wrote: > I agree with both Olivier and Evan. ;) > > One thing that I think is *super* important is to educate the RALOs in: > > 1) What their elected ALAC rep is supposed to be doing. If they know this from the beginning, they may make different choices when electing their ALAC rep. Since this is an elected position that people actually campaign for, the ideals need to be set at the beginning so that those that are running for the position know what is expected of them and the region knows where to set their expectations. > > 2) Being kept informed about how their ALAC rep is actually performing. The members of the region, right now, have no idea if their ALAC rep is showing up to meetings or giving any kind of substantive input while at these meetings. > > Right now, the RALOs are powerless to remove an elected ALAC rep that is non-performing because they have no idea HOW they are performing. This problem needs to be addressed as soon as possible, IMHO. I'm tired of seeing just a few ALAC members over and over again on these lists shouldering all of the work when I know that there are 10 elected reps out there. That also leaves the matter of the NomCom reps. They need to be made accountable too but I'm just not sure how. > > D > > Darlene A. Thompson > Community Access Program Administrator > Nunavut Dept. of Education / N-CAP > P.O. Box 1000, Station 910 > Iqaluit, NU X0A 0H0 > Phone: (867) 975-5631 > Fax: (867) 975-5610 > E-mail: dthompson(a)gov.nu.ca > > > -----Original Message----- > From: alac-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Evan Leibovitch > Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2011 7:40 PM > To: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond > Cc: Carlton Samuels; lac-discuss-en(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org; ALAC EXCOM; At-Large Worldwide > Subject: Re: [ALAC] [ALAC-ExCom] ALAC/At-Large Improvements Project -- important update > > On 11 October 2011 19:04, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl(a)gih.com> wrote: > > > >> Take imaginary example candidate A, ALAC member, does not attend calls, >> does not attend meetings, or when he travels, uses their time outside of >> the ALAC room. A does not get involved in ALAC & other working groups. A >> is basically using their affiliation to ALAC as something that looks >> good on their CV. Admittedly, this is an extreme, but Carlton, at the >> moment, nothing can be done about that person, and that imaginary person >> is occupying a seat on the ALAC, one of the only 15 seats of people >> supposed to act in the best interests of the 2.1Bn Internet users out >> there. That person is failing those 2.1Bn people. That person is not >> accountable. >> > > I guess the big question -- at least MY big question -- is, accountable to > who? > > If that person was sent by a RALO, the RALO should be able to handle this > issue through a recall or other similar measure. > > If the person was appointed by the NomCom, the procedure is different but a > mechanism is still required. By definition a NomCom ALAC appointee is not > accountable to ALAC or the region, however it reflects badly on the NomCom > and ICANN itself if non-performing ALAC members are chosen and allowed to > under-serve for an entire two-year term. > > What bothers me the most is the prospect of ALAC passing judgment over its > own members. If a RALO elects someone who reflects their viewpoint, and that > viewpoint is that only a small number of issues matter, this is indeed the > RALO's choice to make and ALAC has no right to engage in top-down > second-guessing. Education and persuasion, certainly, but not sanctions. > > I fully agree on requesting that every RALO has some kind of recall > mechanism for their elected officials -- not just ALAC members but also RALO > chairs, secretariats and liaisons as applicable. Indeed I have long > advocated this within my own RALO. I am also greatly in favour of staff's > providing attendance and other performance metrics that allow a RALO to act > appropriately on factual inputs. But I am very much against any scheme that > has ALAC members being accountable to other ALAC members. > > It's bad enough that the ICANN Board has no legal, fiduciary duty to the > public, but only to ICANN itself. Let's not justify, let alone propagate > that mistake within our own bounds. > > But in any case, this debate is premature. We're at an intermediate >> stage, with more than 50 recommendations in this report, some of which >> are completed, some of which need to be taken to the next stage. The >> debate on sanctions/no sanctions will happen later. > > > I don't think there's any problem with that. As I've mentioned, it's simply > that the wording in the report right now could easily be interpreted by a > casual reader to infer that we have already had the discussion, agreed on a > regime of sanctions, and are simply discussing appropriate implementation > going forward. WE know the debate is incomplete, but that is not what the > report indicates. > > - Evan > _______________________________________________ > ALAC mailing list > ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac > > At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org > ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL… > > _______________________________________________ > lac-discuss-en mailing list > lac-discuss-en(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-en >

1 0

Re: [ALAC] Election Call for ALAC Liaisons to serve from October 2011 to ICANN AGM 2012
by Alan Greenberg Oct. 12, 2011

Oct. 12, 2011

Thank you Evan, Cheryl and Jean-Jacques. I accept. Alan At 12/10/2011 01:53 AM, Jean-Jacques Subrenat wrote: And I too would like to support Evan's nomination of Alan. Jean-Jacques. On 12 October 2011 13:31, Cheryl Langdon-Orr <<https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac>langdonorr at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Evan as I had intended to pen a similar nomination for Alan to continue > with the superb job he does in this role as the ALAC's Liaison to the GNSO, > for the following year, but you 'beat me to it' ;-) So may I stand as a > seconder and supporter for this *most* worthy nomination... > > > Cheryl Langdon-Orr > (CLO) > > > > On 12 October 2011 16:12, Evan Leibovitch <<https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac>evan at telly.org> wrote: > > > I nominate Alan Greenberg to continue another term in the admirable job > he > > has done for us as GNSO liaison > > > > - Evan

1 0

Re: [ALAC] The end of time?
by Alan Greenberg Oct. 12, 2011

Oct. 12, 2011

I know nothing about this particular issue, but I do recall that compilations of sports scores and other sports statistics have long been deemed to be copyrighted by various sports associations and their publishers, so there certainly is precedent to copyrighting compilations of facts. Alan At 11/10/2011 02:19 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote: >Hello everyone, > >I call your attention to this post on The Economist ><http://www.economist.com/blogs/babbage/2011/10/copyright-and-time-zones>regarding >the database of timezones used by the world's computers. Apparently a US >company has issued a takedown order based on a copyright claim. > >Further in the article there is mention that IANA was considered a possible >custodian of the database, hence the relevance here. The article also >suggests that the takedown notice might be invalid since timezones are facts >and not expression -- but that this won't be tested in court. > >Is there anyone here that understands the issue better than I? Is this >something in which At-Large can -- or should -- play a role? > >More info can be found -- including detauls of efforts to recreate the >database -- are found in this blog >post<http://blog.joda.org/2011/10/today-time-zone-database-was-closed.html> >. > >- Evan >_______________________________________________ >ALAC mailing list >ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac > >At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org >ALAC Working Wiki: >https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL…

2 1

Re: [ALAC] Verisign Service Request - Malware monitoring and Malicious site takedown
by Alan Greenberg Oct. 12, 2011

Oct. 12, 2011

Thanks Jean-Jacques, It is interesting that you use as an example the lax regulatory environment which led to financial problems, because the industry did not exercise prudent restraint itself. In this case, most of those who have commented seem to be worried that Verisign will be TOO active in policing. The discussion of this issue will indeed be interesting. It highlights the sometimes opposing needs to protect the Internet and users from things that are generally agreed upon as bad, while maintaining the freedoms that many of us feel are essential to the Internet. Alan At 11/10/2011 11:46 PM, Jean-Jacques Subrenat wrote: >Thank you Alan for pointing this out. > >The proposal under consideration illustrates the approach of many >large companies today, calling for self-regulation to replace a >proper regulatory body acting in the public interest. We've seen how >Greenspan, Paulson and others, by playing down the regulatory duties >of the US federal government over the years, have allowed widespread >disaster in the financial sector, with incalculable consequences for >taxpayers worldwide. > >Verisign's proposal brings up questions which have been well >formulated by the commentators Alan has pointed to (Kirikos, >Jeftovic) and which should also be looked at from a (higher) policy >standpoint: >- to what extent can a private company be allowed to exercise >regulatory duties, against payment? >- the proposed mechanism carries the risk of collateral damage to >legitimate entities and users. > >Alan, I support your call for ALAC to adopt and make known its >position on this. > >Regards, >Jean-Jacques. > >On 12 October 2011 03:20, Alan Greenberg ><<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> wrote: >Verisign has requested ICANN permission to offer a new service under >the Registry Service Evaluation Process (RSTEP). > >There are two services described within the proposed Verisign >Anti-Abuse Domain Use Policy. >- Periodic scans of websites to identify possible malware >- An anti-abuse policy and procedures to take down sites that violate >the policy. >They would be applicable to the .com, .net and .name TLDs managed by Verisgin. > >The full request can be seen at ><http://www.icann.org/en/registries/rsep/verisign-com-net-name-request-10oct…>http://www.icann.org/en/registries/rsep/verisign-com-net-name-request-10oct…, >and there are articles about the request at ><http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/10/11/verisign_asks_for_web_takedown_powe…>http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/10/11/verisign_asks_for_web_takedown_powe… >and ><http://domainnamewire.com/2011/10/11/verisign-proposes-takedown-procedures-…>http://domainnamewire.com/2011/10/11/verisign-proposes-takedown-procedures-…. > >There are already a few comments on the service - see ><http://forum.icann.org/lists/registryservice/>http://forum.icann.org/lists/registryservice/. > >In theory, ICANN could approve the service in as little as two weeks >from today. However, in this case I suspect that a longer time will >be allowed, and perhaps a formal Public Comment period will also be opened. > >As you will see from the news articles and the early comments, there >are a number of issues involved here and the ALAC may well want to >comment on this Service Request. > >Alan > >_______________________________________________ >ALAC mailing list ><mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org>ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac > >At-Large Online: <http://www.atlarge.icann.org>http://www.atlarge.icann.org >ALAC Working Wiki: ><https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL…>https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL… >

1 0

Verisign Service Request - Malware monitoring and Malicious site takedown
by Alan Greenberg Oct. 12, 2011

Oct. 12, 2011

Verisign has requested ICANN permission to offer a new service under the Registry Service Evaluation Process (RSTEP). There are two services described within the proposed Verisign Anti-Abuse Domain Use Policy. - Periodic scans of websites to identify possible malware - An anti-abuse policy and procedures to take down sites that violate the policy. They would be applicable to the .com, .net and .name TLDs managed by Verisgin. The full request can be seen at http://www.icann.org/en/registries/rsep/verisign-com-net-name-request-10oct…, and there are articles about the request at http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/10/11/verisign_asks_for_web_takedown_powe… and http://domainnamewire.com/2011/10/11/verisign-proposes-takedown-procedures-…. There are already a few comments on the service - see http://forum.icann.org/lists/registryservice/. In theory, ICANN could approve the service in as little as two weeks from today. However, in this case I suspect that a longer time will be allowed, and perhaps a formal Public Comment period will also be opened. As you will see from the news articles and the early comments, there are a number of issues involved here and the ALAC may well want to comment on this Service Request. Alan

4 4

The end of time?
by Evan Leibovitch Oct. 11, 2011

Oct. 11, 2011

Hello everyone, I call your attention to this post on The Economist <http://www.economist.com/blogs/babbage/2011/10/copyright-and-time-zones>regarding the database of timezones used by the world's computers. Apparently a US company has issued a takedown order based on a copyright claim. Further in the article there is mention that IANA was considered a possible custodian of the database, hence the relevance here. The article also suggests that the takedown notice might be invalid since timezones are facts and not expression -- but that this won't be tested in court. Is there anyone here that understands the issue better than I? Is this something in which At-Large can -- or should -- play a role? More info can be found -- including detauls of efforts to recreate the database -- are found in this blog post<http://blog.joda.org/2011/10/today-time-zone-database-was-closed.html> . - Evan

1 0

ALAC/At-Large Improvements Project -- important update
by Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond Oct. 11, 2011

Oct. 11, 2011

Dear ALAC members, I want to inform you of some changes to the Improvements report based on information Heidi and Seth received. After consulting with ICANN Legal, it has been suggested that the only "final report" appropriate for Board approval would come once the ALAC can report having implemented *all* the recommendations of the ALAC Review WG. At this stage, however, we could report that the ALAC has completed a substantial amount of ALAC Improvements work, including developing specific proposals for the implementation of the ALAC Review WG recommendations. Consequently, it was suggested that the current status report – which need only be submitted by staff (not by the ALAC) – not be called a “final report”’; we are thinking of calling it the "ALAC/At-Large Improvements Project Milestone Report." Still, an endorsement of this Milestone Report by the ALAC would send a strong message to the Board. So I have instructed Staff to start a vote endorsing the report on Sunday. The next steps in the At-Large Improvements Project will be for the ALAC to discuss the implementation of the remaining ALAC Review recommendations and WT proposals in Dakar, including allocating them to existing At-Large Working Groups, creating timelines for their completion, and determining potential resource implications. I would like to be able to submit these details to the Board as soon as practical but hopefully no later than the meeting in Costa Rica (11-16 March 2012). The ALAC could then aim to submit the actual final Final Report -- marking the completion of the implementation of all Improvements recommendations -- to the Board in Prague (24-28 June 2012). Comments/Questions are welcome. Seth and others are working to convert the report into a "Milestone" report as we speak. Best regards, Olivier Crépin-Leblond ALAC Chair

6 9