Hi all IMHO, we have separate issues that we might want to keep separated. The first issue is about the original point Jeff is making, about whether there is a problem about whether his reconsideration request has been properly dealt with and/or there has been a retaliation or other consequences. This is a question about the process, not the person, and I am extremely surprised that it spawned consideration about the person. It is by and large irrelevant whether Jeff has a conflict of interest, ALAC should look a the process itself and if there has been some misbehaviour - or even a mistaken in the process - it should act regardless what role the claimant has and not wait until the same issue hits a person that does not have any involvement with the contracted parties. The second issue is about the conflict of interest. Here as well we must abstract from the specific case and ask whether the CoI policy is sound or need modification. IANAL, but it looks to me that the procedure followed by Jeff is the correct one as related to his nomination: he has declared his potential conflict at application time, correctly omitting the name of the TLD he might get involved in. Sure, he should have updated his SOI more promptly. OTOH, I doubt that any subscriber to this mailing list does not know the involvement of Jeff with the contracted parties. So, the question is whether the CoI policy and the management (and actualisation) of SOIs are sound or need revision, and that is again something that is orthogonal to the practical case. Last but not least, the Multi-Stakeholder Model. I am not a theorist, so my opinion is not authoritative, but I personally believe that a process in which all potential stakeholders are involved guarantees better - and more stable - results than a process in which some forces are prevailing over others. I can discuss whether ICANN applies it correctly, whether it is necessary to improve it to make it “global” (i.e. independent from geopolitics) and “equal” (i.e. with a balanced power of the stakeholders), but I firmly believe that this is the best answer - surely superior to the classical multilateral approach, that gives the ultimate power to agreement by the governments. I agree that some, but not all, the UN organisations have introduced some perfume of involvement by other stakeholder types, whether business, civil society, or other, but we cannot forget that the ultimate power of the UN system resides in the UNGA, where the vote is cast by the governments only. Just an additional note about the last point, related to ICANN’s model. I personally believe that nowadays the table is tilted to favour contracted parties, and the fact that some business interests are linked to contracted parties makes the matter even worse, but I also believe that a sort of people’s tribunal whether it is the users - or even generally the non-contracted parties - the sole arbiter of the behaviour of the contracted parties is a non-starter. Of course, we should achieve better collaboration among stakeholders while sometimes we have confrontation with little effort to reach a compromise, but this only means to me that the model has to be improved, not abandoned. Cheers, and Happy New Year Roberto
Thank you Roberto Really well articulated. I absolutely agree with your discussion on this point. In my view as well, the issue for ALAC is really about process - first, whether the process itself is fair, and then, if it is, whether it has been followed. And I tend to agree that yes, the process itself does appear to be tilted in favor of the contracted parties. And it is that issue that should be of concern to ALAC - how to make the mult-istakeholder model more closely reflect the concerns of everyone around that table. Holly
On Jan 4, 2022, at 7:07 PM, Roberto Gaetano via At-Large <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> wrote:
Hi all
IMHO, we have separate issues that we might want to keep separated.
The first issue is about the original point Jeff is making, about whether there is a problem about whether his reconsideration request has been properly dealt with and/or there has been a retaliation or other consequences. This is a question about the process, not the person, and I am extremely surprised that it spawned consideration about the person. It is by and large irrelevant whether Jeff has a conflict of interest, ALAC should look a the process itself and if there has been some misbehaviour - or even a mistaken in the process - it should act regardless what role the claimant has and not wait until the same issue hits a person that does not have any involvement with the contracted parties.
The second issue is about the conflict of interest. Here as well we must abstract from the specific case and ask whether the CoI policy is sound or need modification. IANAL, but it looks to me that the procedure followed by Jeff is the correct one as related to his nomination: he has declared his potential conflict at application time, correctly omitting the name of the TLD he might get involved in. Sure, he should have updated his SOI more promptly. OTOH, I doubt that any subscriber to this mailing list does not know the involvement of Jeff with the contracted parties. So, the question is whether the CoI policy and the management (and actualisation) of SOIs are sound or need revision, and that is again something that is orthogonal to the practical case.
Last but not least, the Multi-Stakeholder Model. I am not a theorist, so my opinion is not authoritative, but I personally believe that a process in which all potential stakeholders are involved guarantees better - and more stable - results than a process in which some forces are prevailing over others. I can discuss whether ICANN applies it correctly, whether it is necessary to improve it to make it “global” (i.e. independent from geopolitics) and “equal” (i.e. with a balanced power of the stakeholders), but I firmly believe that this is the best answer - surely superior to the classical multilateral approach, that gives the ultimate power to agreement by the governments. I agree that some, but not all, the UN organisations have introduced some perfume of involvement by other stakeholder types, whether business, civil society, or other, but we cannot forget that the ultimate power of the UN system resides in the UNGA, where the vote is cast by the governments only.
Just an additional note about the last point, related to ICANN’s model. I personally believe that nowadays the table is tilted to favour contracted parties, and the fact that some business interests are linked to contracted parties makes the matter even worse, but I also believe that a sort of people’s tribunal whether it is the users - or even generally the non-contracted parties - the sole arbiter of the behaviour of the contracted parties is a non-starter. Of course, we should achieve better collaboration among stakeholders while sometimes we have confrontation with little effort to reach a compromise, but this only means to me that the model has to be improved, not abandoned.
Cheers, and Happy New Year Roberto
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org _______________________________________________ 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://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). 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.
Thank you Roberto for your comments. I agree that the conflict issues are separate and apart from the procedural Accountability flaws. And I think it is important to note that what I would like to see fixed involve Urgent Requests for Reconsideration. The Urgent Request we filed has already been decided and is over. Therefore, regardless of what fixes we make to the Accountability Mechanisms with respect to Urgent Requests for Reconsideration, it will be way too late to have any impact on our request. I was just so disturbed and upset by what had happened in our case that I did not want others to go through this. If I can help future claimants, that I believe I will have done my job. So, is there something that needs to happen to formally raise this issue to be a topic of discussion? I am happy to do whatever leg work is required. Whatever will happen with .hiphop itself will be what it will be. It is in the hands of the ICANN staff/board and not the policy process. I am not asking (nor would I even think of asking) the At Large to weigh in on that request. What I am asking the At-Large is consideration of the serious impacts on the Accountability Mechanisms for the future. Jeffrey J. Neuman Founder & CEO JJN Solutions, LLC p: +1.202.549.5079 E: jeff@jjnsolutions.com http://jjnsolutions.com -----Original Message----- From: At-Large <at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org> On Behalf Of Roberto Gaetano via At-Large Sent: Tuesday, January 4, 2022 3:07 AM To: At Large <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Subject: [At-Large] Separate issues Hi all IMHO, we have separate issues that we might want to keep separated. The first issue is about the original point Jeff is making, about whether there is a problem about whether his reconsideration request has been properly dealt with and/or there has been a retaliation or other consequences. This is a question about the process, not the person, and I am extremely surprised that it spawned consideration about the person. It is by and large irrelevant whether Jeff has a conflict of interest, ALAC should look a the process itself and if there has been some misbehaviour - or even a mistaken in the process - it should act regardless what role the claimant has and not wait until the same issue hits a person that does not have any involvement with the contracted parties. The second issue is about the conflict of interest. Here as well we must abstract from the specific case and ask whether the CoI policy is sound or need modification. IANAL, but it looks to me that the procedure followed by Jeff is the correct one as related to his nomination: he has declared his potential conflict at application time, correctly omitting the name of the TLD he might get involved in. Sure, he should have updated his SOI more promptly. OTOH, I doubt that any subscriber to this mailing list does not know the involvement of Jeff with the contracted parties. So, the question is whether the CoI policy and the management (and actualisation) of SOIs are sound or need revision, and that is again something that is orthogonal to the practical case. Last but not least, the Multi-Stakeholder Model. I am not a theorist, so my opinion is not authoritative, but I personally believe that a process in which all potential stakeholders are involved guarantees better - and more stable - results than a process in which some forces are prevailing over others. I can discuss whether ICANN applies it correctly, whether it is necessary to improve it to make it “global” (i.e. independent from geopolitics) and “equal” (i.e. with a balanced power of the stakeholders), but I firmly believe that this is the best answer - surely superior to the classical multilateral approach, that gives the ultimate power to agreement by the governments. I agree that some, but not all, the UN organisations have introduced some perfume of involvement by other stakeholder types, whether business, civil society, or other, but we cannot forget that the ultimate power of the UN system resides in the UNGA, where the vote is cast by the governments only. Just an additional note about the last point, related to ICANN’s model. I personally believe that nowadays the table is tilted to favour contracted parties, and the fact that some business interests are linked to contracted parties makes the matter even worse, but I also believe that a sort of people’s tribunal whether it is the users - or even generally the non-contracted parties - the sole arbiter of the behaviour of the contracted parties is a non-starter. Of course, we should achieve better collaboration among stakeholders while sometimes we have confrontation with little effort to reach a compromise, but this only means to me that the model has to be improved, not abandoned. Cheers, and Happy New Year Roberto _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org _______________________________________________ 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://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). 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.
Sorry it was send only to Roberto Here it is +1 I must add that regarding A&T the ATRT3 final report is worth reading And hopefully acting soon Happy new year to all Sébastien Bachollet Envoyé de mon iPhone
Le 4 janv. 2022 à 09:07, Roberto Gaetano via At-Large <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> a écrit :
Hi all
IMHO, we have separate issues that we might want to keep separated.
The first issue is about the original point Jeff is making, about whether there is a problem about whether his reconsideration request has been properly dealt with and/or there has been a retaliation or other consequences. This is a question about the process, not the person, and I am extremely surprised that it spawned consideration about the person. It is by and large irrelevant whether Jeff has a conflict of interest, ALAC should look a the process itself and if there has been some misbehaviour - or even a mistaken in the process - it should act regardless what role the claimant has and not wait until the same issue hits a person that does not have any involvement with the contracted parties.
The second issue is about the conflict of interest. Here as well we must abstract from the specific case and ask whether the CoI policy is sound or need modification. IANAL, but it looks to me that the procedure followed by Jeff is the correct one as related to his nomination: he has declared his potential conflict at application time, correctly omitting the name of the TLD he might get involved in. Sure, he should have updated his SOI more promptly. OTOH, I doubt that any subscriber to this mailing list does not know the involvement of Jeff with the contracted parties. So, the question is whether the CoI policy and the management (and actualisation) of SOIs are sound or need revision, and that is again something that is orthogonal to the practical case.
Last but not least, the Multi-Stakeholder Model. I am not a theorist, so my opinion is not authoritative, but I personally believe that a process in which all potential stakeholders are involved guarantees better - and more stable - results than a process in which some forces are prevailing over others. I can discuss whether ICANN applies it correctly, whether it is necessary to improve it to make it “global” (i.e. independent from geopolitics) and “equal” (i.e. with a balanced power of the stakeholders), but I firmly believe that this is the best answer - surely superior to the classical multilateral approach, that gives the ultimate power to agreement by the governments. I agree that some, but not all, the UN organisations have introduced some perfume of involvement by other stakeholder types, whether business, civil society, or other, but we cannot forget that the ultimate power of the UN system resides in the UNGA, where the vote is cast by the governments only.
Just an additional note about the last point, related to ICANN’s model. I personally believe that nowadays the table is tilted to favour contracted parties, and the fact that some business interests are linked to contracted parties makes the matter even worse, but I also believe that a sort of people’s tribunal whether it is the users - or even generally the non-contracted parties - the sole arbiter of the behaviour of the contracted parties is a non-starter. Of course, we should achieve better collaboration among stakeholders while sometimes we have confrontation with little effort to reach a compromise, but this only means to me that the model has to be improved, not abandoned.
Cheers, and Happy New Year Roberto
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org _______________________________________________ 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://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). 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.
Roberto & all interested friends. I totally agree with Roberto that was irrelevant for us – AT Large focused members – say anything about person and not the process. I have abstained myself commenting on the exchange of messages. Sebastien is al right. We should read! Vanda Scartezini Polo Consultores Associados Av. Paulista 1159, cj 1004 Mobile: + 55 11 98181.1464 Sorry for any typos. From: At-Large <at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org> on behalf of Sebastien Bachollet via At-Large <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Date: Tuesday, January 4, 2022 at 16:14 To: Roberto Gaetano <roberto_gaetano@hotmail.com> Cc: At Large <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Subject: Re: [At-Large] Separate issues Sorry it was send only to Roberto Here it is +1 I must add that regarding A&T the ATRT3 final report is worth reading And hopefully acting soon Happy new year to all Sébastien Bachollet Envoyé de mon iPhone
Le 4 janv. 2022 à 09:07, Roberto Gaetano via At-Large <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> a écrit :
Hi all
IMHO, we have separate issues that we might want to keep separated.
The first issue is about the original point Jeff is making, about whether there is a problem about whether his reconsideration request has been properly dealt with and/or there has been a retaliation or other consequences. This is a question about the process, not the person, and I am extremely surprised that it spawned consideration about the person. It is by and large irrelevant whether Jeff has a conflict of interest, ALAC should look a the process itself and if there has been some misbehaviour - or even a mistaken in the process - it should act regardless what role the claimant has and not wait until the same issue hits a person that does not have any involvement with the contracted parties.
The second issue is about the conflict of interest. Here as well we must abstract from the specific case and ask whether the CoI policy is sound or need modification. IANAL, but it looks to me that the procedure followed by Jeff is the correct one as related to his nomination: he has declared his potential conflict at application time, correctly omitting the name of the TLD he might get involved in. Sure, he should have updated his SOI more promptly. OTOH, I doubt that any subscriber to this mailing list does not know the involvement of Jeff with the contracted parties. So, the question is whether the CoI policy and the management (and actualisation) of SOIs are sound or need revision, and that is again something that is orthogonal to the practical case.
Last but not least, the Multi-Stakeholder Model. I am not a theorist, so my opinion is not authoritative, but I personally believe that a process in which all potential stakeholders are involved guarantees better - and more stable - results than a process in which some forces are prevailing over others. I can discuss whether ICANN applies it correctly, whether it is necessary to improve it to make it “global” (i.e. independent from geopolitics) and “equal” (i.e. with a balanced power of the stakeholders), but I firmly believe that this is the best answer - surely superior to the classical multilateral approach, that gives the ultimate power to agreement by the governments. I agree that some, but not all, the UN organisations have introduced some perfume of involvement by other stakeholder types, whether business, civil society, or other, but we cannot forget that the ultimate power of the UN system resides in the UNGA, where the vote is cast by the governments only.
Just an additional note about the last point, related to ICANN’s model. I personally believe that nowadays the table is tilted to favour contracted parties, and the fact that some business interests are linked to contracted parties makes the matter even worse, but I also believe that a sort of people’s tribunal whether it is the users - or even generally the non-contracted parties - the sole arbiter of the behaviour of the contracted parties is a non-starter. Of course, we should achieve better collaboration among stakeholders while sometimes we have confrontation with little effort to reach a compromise, but this only means to me that the model has to be improved, not abandoned.
Cheers, and Happy New Year Roberto
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org _______________________________________________ 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://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). 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.
At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org _______________________________________________ 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://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). 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.
On 05/01/22 2:35 am, Vanda Scartezini via At-Large wrote: > > Roberto & all interested friends. > > I totally agree with Roberto that was irrelevant for us – AT Large > focused members – say anything about person and not the process. > Vanda Two things were said: (1) I think there is a conflict of interest, and therefore the concerned party should step down. (2) the COI statement is prima facie inappropriate (substantiating matter was provided that I dont think has been countered till now). I understand that you think that these are personal and not process-related statements, right? In that case, what I have to say is this: If you indeed want to run the (supposedly) public interest communities around an important global public interest governance function as they were some collegial cocktail parties, then it is entirely your choice. But, then, God save this system -- it is only headed down and downer, as we have seen it go over the years. It is these attitudes responsible for the system's or organization's decay (at least in the eyes of the outsiders).... Now, you are welcome to call even this is a personal and not process-related statement. Be my guest! I have enough knowledge an experience n how external public interest vigil is kept on public governance systems and bodies... But you need not ask me. If you only care, there is a lot of material out there accessible through search engines. > I have abstained myself commenting on the exchange of messages. > In fact, if I were to press hard, your such 'holding my nose' statements are rather personal statements against me -- as someone doing some nefarious work, worthy of collective condemnation -- when i am only doing a genuine public interest work, which indeed all other, more present here, including yourself, should be doing... parminder > Sebastien is al right. We should read! > > > > */Vanda Scartezini/* > > */Polo Consultores Associados/* > > */Av. Paulista 1159, cj 1004/* > > */Mobile: + 55 11 98181.1464 /* > > */Sorry for any typos. /* > > > > > > > > > > > > *From: *At-Large <at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org> on behalf > of Sebastien Bachollet via At-Large <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> > *Date: *Tuesday, January 4, 2022 at 16:14 > *To: *Roberto Gaetano <roberto_gaetano@hotmail.com> > *Cc: *At Large <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> > *Subject: *Re: [At-Large] Separate issues > > Sorry it was send only to Roberto > Here it is > > +1 > I must add that regarding A&T the ATRT3 final report is worth reading > And hopefully acting soon > Happy new year to all > > Sébastien Bachollet > Envoyé de mon iPhone > > > Le 4 janv. 2022 à 09:07, Roberto Gaetano via At-Large > <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> a écrit : > > > > Hi all > > > > IMHO, we have separate issues that we might want to keep separated. > > > > The first issue is about the original point Jeff is making, about > whether there is a problem about whether his reconsideration request > has been properly dealt with and/or there has been a retaliation or > other consequences. This is a question about the process, not the > person, and I am extremely surprised that it spawned consideration > about the person. It is by and large irrelevant whether Jeff has a > conflict of interest, ALAC should look a the process itself and if > there has been some misbehaviour - or even a mistaken in the process - > it should act regardless what role the claimant has and not wait until > the same issue hits a person that does not have any involvement with > the contracted parties. > > > > The second issue is about the conflict of interest. Here as well we > must abstract from the specific case and ask whether the CoI policy is > sound or need modification. IANAL, but it looks to me that the > procedure followed by Jeff is the correct one as related to his > nomination: he has declared his potential conflict at application > time, correctly omitting the name of the TLD he might get involved in. > Sure, he should have updated his SOI more promptly. OTOH, I doubt that > any subscriber to this mailing list does not know the involvement of > Jeff with the contracted parties. So, the question is whether the CoI > policy and the management (and actualisation) of SOIs are sound or > need revision, and that is again something that is orthogonal to the > practical case. > > > > Last but not least, the Multi-Stakeholder Model. I am not a > theorist, so my opinion is not authoritative, but I personally believe > that a process in which all potential stakeholders are involved > guarantees better - and more stable - results than a process in which > some forces are prevailing over others. I can discuss whether ICANN > applies it correctly, whether it is necessary to improve it to make it > “global” (i.e. independent from geopolitics) and “equal” (i.e. with a > balanced power of the stakeholders), but I firmly believe that this is > the best answer - surely superior to the classical multilateral > approach, that gives the ultimate power to agreement by the > governments. I agree that some, but not all, the UN organisations have > introduced some perfume of involvement by other stakeholder types, > whether business, civil society, or other, but we cannot forget that > the ultimate power of the UN system resides in the UNGA, where the > vote is cast by the governments only. > > > > Just an additional note about the last point, related to ICANN’s > model. I personally believe that nowadays the table is tilted to > favour contracted parties, and the fact that some business interests > are linked to contracted parties makes the matter even worse, but I > also believe that a sort of people’s tribunal whether it is the users > - or even generally the non-contracted parties - the sole arbiter of > the behaviour of the contracted parties is a non-starter. Of course, > we should achieve better collaboration among stakeholders while > sometimes we have confrontation with little effort to reach a > compromise, but this only means to me that the model has to be > improved, not abandoned. > > > > Cheers, and Happy New Year > > Roberto > > > > _______________________________________________ > > At-Large mailing list > > At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org > > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large > <https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large> > > > > At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org > <http://atlarge.icann.org> > > _______________________________________________ > > 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://www.icann.org/privacy/policy > <https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy>) and the website Terms of > Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos > <https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos>). 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. > _______________________________________________ > At-Large mailing list > At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large > <https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large> > > At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org > <http://atlarge.icann.org> > _______________________________________________ > 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://www.icann.org/privacy/policy > <https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy>) and the website Terms of > Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos > <https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos>). 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. > > > _______________________________________________ > At-Large mailing list > At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large > > At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org > _______________________________________________ > 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://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). 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.
participants (6)
-
h.raiche＠internode.on.net -
Jeff Neuman -
parminder -
Roberto Gaetano -
Sebastien Bachollet -
Vanda Scartezini