ALS certification and decertification votes
On our last ALAC call, Olivier brought up the subject of whether ALS certification and decertification votes should use secret ballots (such as we used for personnel votes) or not, and it was decided to discuss the issue on the mailing list. The history is that most ALAC votes are open and it is disclosed who voted which way, with the exception of personnel votes and others that the ALAC explicitly decides should be secret. We have made such a decision of rare occasions. The only example I can recall is when we voted on whether to file objections to the .health new TLDs and we did so to avoid any harassment of ALAC members who voted for such objections. A couple of years ago, a change was made to certification and decertification votes to change them from open to closed because of one or more objections filed by applicants. There is also a concern that a rejected application could lead to harassment of those who rejected it, and a concern that people might not vote honestly if the result was public (similar to the reason for secret ballots on personnel votes). I think that this concern should be considered. However, under our rules and the ICANN Bylaws, ALS certification and decertification decisions may be appealed to the Board. As such, we should be in a position to explain why a decision was made. Accordingly I offer the following proposal. ALS certification votes shall be conducted in such a way that there will be no public disclosure of how ALAC Members voted. However, the details of how ALAC Members voted will be available to ICANN At-Large staff and the ALAC Chair to allow them to conduct private interviews with voters to be able to put together a rationale for why any particular decision was made. Comments? Alan
On 2 October 2014 09:37, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
ALS certification votes shall be conducted in such a way that there will be no public disclosure of how ALAC Members voted. However, the details of how ALAC Members voted will be available to ICANN At-Large staff and the ALAC Chair to allow them to conduct private interviews with voters to be able to put together a rationale for why any particular decision was made.
Comments ?
I like this. Fine with me. - Evan
Secret ballots on decertification are not transparent. There should be utmost transparency involved in processes such as decertification. On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 1:37 AM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
On our last ALAC call, Olivier brought up the subject of whether ALS certification and decertification votes should use secret ballots (such as we used for personnel votes) or not, and it was decided to discuss the issue on the mailing list.
The history is that most ALAC votes are open and it is disclosed who voted which way, with the exception of personnel votes and others that the ALAC explicitly decides should be secret. We have made such a decision of rare occasions. The only example I can recall is when we voted on whether to file objections to the .health new TLDs and we did so to avoid any harassment of ALAC members who voted for such objections.
A couple of years ago, a change was made to certification and decertification votes to change them from open to closed because of one or more objections filed by applicants. There is also a concern that a rejected application could lead to harassment of those who rejected it, and a concern that people might not vote honestly if the result was public (similar to the reason for secret ballots on personnel votes).
I think that this concern should be considered.
However, under our rules and the ICANN Bylaws, ALS certification and decertification decisions may be appealed to the Board. As such, we should be in a position to explain why a decision was made.
Accordingly I offer the following proposal.
ALS certification votes shall be conducted in such a way that there will be no public disclosure of how ALAC Members voted. However, the details of how ALAC Members voted will be available to ICANN At-Large staff and the ALAC Chair to allow them to conduct private interviews with voters to be able to put together a rationale for why any particular decision was made.
Comments?
Alan
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@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+(ALAC)
On 2 October 2014 11:08, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro@gmail.com> wrote:
Secret ballots on decertification are not transparent. There should be utmost transparency involved in processes such as decertification.
On reflection, I have the following change of tack. I agree on open votes for Decertification because it is a serious act of disenfranchisement. By the time a vote comes up there must be compelling reason to do this, it must not be taken lightly. However, on certification, for better or worse some recent instances have become incredibly politicised, with even the RALO itself unable to properly advise the ALAC on a way to proceed. In these instances, I would prefer a closed vote that enables ALAC members to vote on the merits of the action rather than risk acrimony amongst people they will have to work with. As Alan has said, this is now close to the realm of a personal election, and IMO this is a specific instance in which privacy trumps transparency. So, on reflection, I suggest this: - Decertification votes are always open. - Certification votes are open UNLESS the RALO does not provide definitive advice. Then Alan's protocol applies. - Evan
On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 1:37 AM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
On our last ALAC call, Olivier brought up the subject of whether ALS certification and decertification votes should use secret ballots (such as we used for personnel votes) or not, and it was decided to discuss the issue on the mailing list.
The history is that most ALAC votes are open and it is disclosed who voted which way, with the exception of personnel votes and others that the ALAC explicitly decides should be secret. We have made such a decision of rare occasions. The only example I can recall is when we voted on whether to file objections to the .health new TLDs and we did so to avoid any harassment of ALAC members who voted for such objections.
A couple of years ago, a change was made to certification and decertification votes to change them from open to closed because of one or more objections filed by applicants. There is also a concern that a rejected application could lead to harassment of those who rejected it, and a concern that people might not vote honestly if the result was public (similar to the reason for secret ballots on personnel votes).
I think that this concern should be considered.
However, under our rules and the ICANN Bylaws, ALS certification and decertification decisions may be appealed to the Board. As such, we should be in a position to explain why a decision was made.
Accordingly I offer the following proposal.
ALS certification votes shall be conducted in such a way that there will be no public disclosure of how ALAC Members voted. However, the details of how ALAC Members voted will be available to ICANN At-Large staff and the ALAC Chair to allow them to conduct private interviews with voters to be able to put together a rationale for why any particular decision was made.
Comments?
Alan
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@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+(ALAC)
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@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+(ALA...)
-- Evan Leibovitch Toronto Canada Em: evan at telly dot org Sk: evanleibovitch Tw: el56
I like this last suggestion made by Evan. Best regards, León El 02/10/2014, a las 11:44, Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> escribió:
On 2 October 2014 11:08, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro@gmail.com> wrote:
Secret ballots on decertification are not transparent. There should be utmost transparency involved in processes such as decertification.
On reflection, I have the following change of tack.
I agree on open votes for Decertification because it is a serious act of disenfranchisement. By the time a vote comes up there must be compelling reason to do this, it must not be taken lightly.
However, on certification, for better or worse some recent instances have become incredibly politicised, with even the RALO itself unable to properly advise the ALAC on a way to proceed. In these instances, I would prefer a closed vote that enables ALAC members to vote on the merits of the action rather than risk acrimony amongst people they will have to work with. As Alan has said, this is now close to the realm of a personal election, and IMO this is a specific instance in which privacy trumps transparency.
So, on reflection, I suggest this:
- Decertification votes are always open.
- Certification votes are open UNLESS the RALO does not provide definitive advice. Then Alan's protocol applies.
- Evan
On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 1:37 AM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
On our last ALAC call, Olivier brought up the subject of whether ALS certification and decertification votes should use secret ballots (such as we used for personnel votes) or not, and it was decided to discuss the issue on the mailing list.
The history is that most ALAC votes are open and it is disclosed who voted which way, with the exception of personnel votes and others that the ALAC explicitly decides should be secret. We have made such a decision of rare occasions. The only example I can recall is when we voted on whether to file objections to the .health new TLDs and we did so to avoid any harassment of ALAC members who voted for such objections.
A couple of years ago, a change was made to certification and decertification votes to change them from open to closed because of one or more objections filed by applicants. There is also a concern that a rejected application could lead to harassment of those who rejected it, and a concern that people might not vote honestly if the result was public (similar to the reason for secret ballots on personnel votes).
I think that this concern should be considered.
However, under our rules and the ICANN Bylaws, ALS certification and decertification decisions may be appealed to the Board. As such, we should be in a position to explain why a decision was made.
Accordingly I offer the following proposal.
ALS certification votes shall be conducted in such a way that there will be no public disclosure of how ALAC Members voted. However, the details of how ALAC Members voted will be available to ICANN At-Large staff and the ALAC Chair to allow them to conduct private interviews with voters to be able to put together a rationale for why any particular decision was made.
Comments?
Alan
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@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+(ALAC)
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@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+(ALA...)
-- Evan Leibovitch Toronto Canada
Em: evan at telly dot org Sk: evanleibovitch Tw: el56 _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@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+(ALA...)
Evan, I agree with the last suggestion. Regards Alberto -----Mensaje original----- De: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] En nombre de León Felipe Sánchez Ambía Enviado el: jueves, 02 de octubre de 2014 01:52 p.m. Para: Evan Leibovitch CC: ALAC; Alan Greenberg Asunto: Re: [ALAC] ALS certification and decertification votes I like this last suggestion made by Evan. Best regards, León El 02/10/2014, a las 11:44, Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> escribió:
On 2 October 2014 11:08, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro@gmail.com> wrote:
Secret ballots on decertification are not transparent. There should be utmost transparency involved in processes such as decertification.
On reflection, I have the following change of tack.
I agree on open votes for Decertification because it is a serious act of disenfranchisement. By the time a vote comes up there must be compelling reason to do this, it must not be taken lightly.
However, on certification, for better or worse some recent instances have become incredibly politicised, with even the RALO itself unable to properly advise the ALAC on a way to proceed. In these instances, I would prefer a closed vote that enables ALAC members to vote on the merits of the action rather than risk acrimony amongst people they will have to work with. As Alan has said, this is now close to the realm of a personal election, and IMO this is a specific instance in which privacy trumps transparency.
So, on reflection, I suggest this:
- Decertification votes are always open.
- Certification votes are open UNLESS the RALO does not provide definitive advice. Then Alan's protocol applies.
- Evan
On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 1:37 AM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
On our last ALAC call, Olivier brought up the subject of whether ALS certification and decertification votes should use secret ballots (such as we used for personnel votes) or not, and it was decided to discuss the issue on the mailing list.
The history is that most ALAC votes are open and it is disclosed who voted which way, with the exception of personnel votes and others that the ALAC explicitly decides should be secret. We have made such a decision of rare occasions. The only example I can recall is when we voted on whether to file objections to the .health new TLDs and we did so to avoid any harassment of ALAC members who voted for such objections.
A couple of years ago, a change was made to certification and decertification votes to change them from open to closed because of one or more objections filed by applicants. There is also a concern that a rejected application could lead to harassment of those who rejected it, and a concern that people might not vote honestly if the result was public (similar to the reason for secret ballots on personnel votes).
I think that this concern should be considered.
However, under our rules and the ICANN Bylaws, ALS certification and decertification decisions may be appealed to the Board. As such, we should be in a position to explain why a decision was made.
Accordingly I offer the following proposal.
ALS certification votes shall be conducted in such a way that there will be no public disclosure of how ALAC Members voted. However, the details of how ALAC Members voted will be available to ICANN At-Large staff and the ALAC Chair to allow them to conduct private interviews with voters to be able to put together a rationale for why any particular decision was made.
Comments?
Alan
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@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+(ALAC)
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@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+Committ ee+(ALAC)
-- Evan Leibovitch Toronto Canada
Em: evan at telly dot org Sk: evanleibovitch Tw: el56 _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@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+Committe e+(ALAC)
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@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+(ALA...)
I would always urge on being on the 'more transparent side’ of the argument, but I think I am swayed by Evans suggestion. It is a balancing act, and whilst I think it is not ideal, it is pragmatic and fair to the situation we find ourselves in. Kind Regards, Raf Rafid A Y Fatani Eng. MA. Ph.D. (Exon) Policy and Stakeholder Relations Director Disclaimer This message and its attachments are confidential and may be privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient or the person responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, please email the sender and delete this message and any attachments from your system. Further, you should not disclose, copy, distribute or use this message and any attachments. On 2 Oct 2014, at 17:44, Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> wrote:
On 2 October 2014 11:08, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro@gmail.com> wrote:
Secret ballots on decertification are not transparent. There should be utmost transparency involved in processes such as decertification.
On reflection, I have the following change of tack.
I agree on open votes for Decertification because it is a serious act of disenfranchisement. By the time a vote comes up there must be compelling reason to do this, it must not be taken lightly.
However, on certification, for better or worse some recent instances have become incredibly politicised, with even the RALO itself unable to properly advise the ALAC on a way to proceed. In these instances, I would prefer a closed vote that enables ALAC members to vote on the merits of the action rather than risk acrimony amongst people they will have to work with. As Alan has said, this is now close to the realm of a personal election, and IMO this is a specific instance in which privacy trumps transparency.
So, on reflection, I suggest this:
- Decertification votes are always open.
- Certification votes are open UNLESS the RALO does not provide definitive advice. Then Alan's protocol applies.
- Evan
On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 1:37 AM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
On our last ALAC call, Olivier brought up the subject of whether ALS certification and decertification votes should use secret ballots (such as we used for personnel votes) or not, and it was decided to discuss the issue on the mailing list.
The history is that most ALAC votes are open and it is disclosed who voted which way, with the exception of personnel votes and others that the ALAC explicitly decides should be secret. We have made such a decision of rare occasions. The only example I can recall is when we voted on whether to file objections to the .health new TLDs and we did so to avoid any harassment of ALAC members who voted for such objections.
A couple of years ago, a change was made to certification and decertification votes to change them from open to closed because of one or more objections filed by applicants. There is also a concern that a rejected application could lead to harassment of those who rejected it, and a concern that people might not vote honestly if the result was public (similar to the reason for secret ballots on personnel votes).
I think that this concern should be considered.
However, under our rules and the ICANN Bylaws, ALS certification and decertification decisions may be appealed to the Board. As such, we should be in a position to explain why a decision was made.
Accordingly I offer the following proposal.
ALS certification votes shall be conducted in such a way that there will be no public disclosure of how ALAC Members voted. However, the details of how ALAC Members voted will be available to ICANN At-Large staff and the ALAC Chair to allow them to conduct private interviews with voters to be able to put together a rationale for why any particular decision was made.
Comments?
Alan
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@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+(ALAC)
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@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+(ALA...)
-- Evan Leibovitch Toronto Canada
Em: evan at telly dot org Sk: evanleibovitch Tw: el56 _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@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+(ALA...)
Evan's emend on Sala's intervention improves the proposal. Here's something else. The advisory from the RALO on certification is open on list and archived. So to my mind it is entirely appropriate that a 'no decision' from the RALO ought to adjourn the certification process, sine die. -Carlton ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* ============================= On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 11:44 AM, Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> wrote:
On 2 October 2014 11:08, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro@gmail.com> wrote:
Secret ballots on decertification are not transparent. There should be utmost transparency involved in processes such as decertification.
On reflection, I have the following change of tack.
I agree on open votes for Decertification because it is a serious act of disenfranchisement. By the time a vote comes up there must be compelling reason to do this, it must not be taken lightly.
However, on certification, for better or worse some recent instances have become incredibly politicised, with even the RALO itself unable to properly advise the ALAC on a way to proceed. In these instances, I would prefer a closed vote that enables ALAC members to vote on the merits of the action rather than risk acrimony amongst people they will have to work with. As Alan has said, this is now close to the realm of a personal election, and IMO this is a specific instance in which privacy trumps transparency.
So, on reflection, I suggest this:
- Decertification votes are always open.
- Certification votes are open UNLESS the RALO does not provide definitive advice. Then Alan's protocol applies.
- Evan
On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 1:37 AM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca
wrote:
On our last ALAC call, Olivier brought up the subject of whether ALS certification and decertification votes should use secret ballots (such as we used for personnel votes) or not, and it was decided to discuss the issue on the mailing list.
The history is that most ALAC votes are open and it is disclosed who voted which way, with the exception of personnel votes and others that the
ALAC
explicitly decides should be secret. We have made such a decision of rare occasions. The only example I can recall is when we voted on whether to file objections to the .health new TLDs and we did so to avoid any harassment of ALAC members who voted for such objections.
A couple of years ago, a change was made to certification and decertification votes to change them from open to closed because of one or more objections filed by applicants. There is also a concern that a rejected application could lead to harassment of those who rejected it, and a concern that people might not vote honestly if the result was public (similar to the reason for secret ballots on personnel votes).
I think that this concern should be considered.
However, under our rules and the ICANN Bylaws, ALS certification and decertification decisions may be appealed to the Board. As such, we should be in a position to explain why a decision was made.
Accordingly I offer the following proposal.
ALS certification votes shall be conducted in such a way that there will be no public disclosure of how ALAC Members voted. However, the details of how ALAC Members voted will be available to ICANN At-Large staff and the ALAC Chair to allow them to conduct private interviews with voters to be able to put together a rationale for why any particular decision was made.
Comments?
Alan
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@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+(ALAC)
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@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+(ALA...)
-- Evan Leibovitch Toronto Canada
Em: evan at telly dot org Sk: evanleibovitch Tw: el56 _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@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+(ALA...)
Dear Alan, Unfortunately, I didnt attend the last ALAC call. I do appreciate that this issue was brought to the table. I do think that the ALS certification and decertification votes should be conducted as confidential votes to avoid any tension or harassment. Even staff and the ALAC chair shouldnt know how ALAC Members voted. We may ask voters to give the rational of their vote, but anonymously. My fear is that when the ALAC members cast their votes knowing that there will be someone (staff and ALAC Chair) who will see how they voted, they will not vote according to their conscience, they will modulate their choice according the relationship they think staff members and ALAC Chair have with the concerned ALS. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- Tijani BEN JEMAA Executive Director Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (FMAI) Phone: + 216 41 649 605 Mobile: + 216 98 330 114 Fax: + 216 70 853 376 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- -----Message d'origine----- De : alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] De la part de Alan Greenberg Envoyé : jeudi 2 octobre 2014 14:37 À : ALAC Objet : [ALAC] ALS certification and decertification votes On our last ALAC call, Olivier brought up the subject of whether ALS certification and decertification votes should use secret ballots (such as we used for personnel votes) or not, and it was decided to discuss the issue on the mailing list. The history is that most ALAC votes are open and it is disclosed who voted which way, with the exception of personnel votes and others that the ALAC explicitly decides should be secret. We have made such a decision of rare occasions. The only example I can recall is when we voted on whether to file objections to the .health new TLDs and we did so to avoid any harassment of ALAC members who voted for such objections. A couple of years ago, a change was made to certification and decertification votes to change them from open to closed because of one or more objections filed by applicants. There is also a concern that a rejected application could lead to harassment of those who rejected it, and a concern that people might not vote honestly if the result was public (similar to the reason for secret ballots on personnel votes). I think that this concern should be considered. However, under our rules and the ICANN Bylaws, ALS certification and decertification decisions may be appealed to the Board. As such, we should be in a position to explain why a decision was made. Accordingly I offer the following proposal. ALS certification votes shall be conducted in such a way that there will be no public disclosure of how ALAC Members voted. However, the details of how ALAC Members voted will be available to ICANN At-Large staff and the ALAC Chair to allow them to conduct private interviews with voters to be able to put together a rationale for why any particular decision was made. Comments? Alan _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@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+(ALA C) --- Ce courrier électronique ne contient aucun virus ou logiciel malveillant parce que la protection avast! Antivirus est active. http://www.avast.com
participants (8)
-
Alan Greenberg -
Alberto Soto -
Carlton Samuels -
Evan Leibovitch -
León Felipe Sánchez Ambía -
Raf Fatani -
Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro -
Tijani BENJEMAA