[gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Please participate - poll on RDS PDP WG leadership team characteristics
Volker Greimann
vgreimann at key-systems.net
Mon Feb 8 09:36:39 UTC 2016
Do we have any such suitable volunteers? If not, let's cross that bridge
when we have to. This theoretcal debate, while interesting, only serves
a purpose when such a candidate arises.
Volker
Am 05.02.2016 um 23:19 schrieb Alan Greenberg:
> Someone who signs up to run this WG is letting themselves in for a lot
> of work and no doubt a lot of anguish. We would be stupid to select
> someone who is not suitably qualified. Given that, I fail to see why
> their affiliation matters. In other environments, we would use a paid
> consultant with good facilitation skills to chair such a group.
>
> I have not seen any SSAC people volunteering, but I know of a few
> where if they DID volunteer, we would be very foolish not to take them
> up on their offer.
>
> I am struck by how silent all of the long-time GNSO contributors are
> on this thread.
>
> Alan
>
> At 05/02/2016 04:34 PM, Stephanie Perrin wrote:
>> I am sorry if you find the discussion sad, Alan (and Carlton and
>> Holly) but in the context of recent CCWG activities, I think it is
>> very important. If the GAC and the SSAC also had candidates, this
>> GNSO pdp would be led by ACs, not the stakeholder groups who comprise
>> the GNSO. I don't think this is acceptable. Nothing precludes
>> vigorous and active participation in the pdp, we are only talking
>> about leadership. And if you don't all know how deeply I respect
>> your contributions, let me say it now. This is not about individuals.
>> Kind regards,
>> Stephanie
>>
>> On 2016-02-05 13:26, Carlton Samuels wrote:
>>> I purposely did not respond to this thread because I know Alan is on
>>> here and I wanted him to tell his own story. Now I feel compelled to
>>> give public support.
>>>
>>> +1.
>>>
>>> I can attest to the substance of facts he recorded. And while for
>>> this engagement I too would preferentially select the leadership
>>> from GNSO ranks for reasons already aired, I believe that a blanket
>>> order against non-GNSO aspirants to leadership would be a retrograde
>>> step.
>>>
>>> There are many paths to salvation. But what is absolutely required
>>> is leadership that is fit to purpose. We have a semblance of
>>> purpose already defined. And we have a fairly well-defined frame to
>>> evaluate aspirants for leadership. GNSO affiliation is weighted
>>> here. But in the end, it is one and only one attribute. A stinker
>>> (for what is required) that is GNSO-labeled would be counterintuitive.
>>>
>>> -Carlton
>>>
>>>
>>> ==============================
>>> Carlton A Samuels
>>> Mobile: 876-818-1799
>>> /Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround/
>>> =============================
>>>
>>> On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 11:00 PM, Alan Greenberg
>>> <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca <mailto:alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca> > wrote:
>>>
>>> I enter this discussion with some trepidation, but I have no choice.
>>>
>>> Before I start, I will point out that I have no interest in a
>>> leadership role in this WG - my plate is quite full already.
>>>
>>> I served as a ALAC Liaison to the GNSO for EIGHT years. I
>>> believe I hold the record for service on the GNSO in ANY role,
>>> other than that held by Glen de Saint Géry (Marika will top me
>>> in a few months).
>>>
>>> At my first meeting as a novice to ICANN, I was somewhat amazed
>>> to find that the then-current ALAC Liaison to the GNSO, Bret
>>> Fausett, was one of the GNSO presenters in a public session.
>>> Somehow it surprised me that they would let a "foreigner" speak
>>> on their behalf.
>>>
>>> I was appointed as the ALAC Liaison at the end of that meeting,
>>> and I quickly learned not to be surprised. With very few
>>> exceptions over the eight years, I felt welcomed and fairly
>>> treated by the GNSO as a group and by the vast majority of
>>> Councillors individually. Along the way I played key roles in a
>>> very large number of PDP and other WGs, including Chairing a PDP WG.
>>>
>>> I totally agree with those who say that the leaders of this new
>>> group should not be newbies and need a good history in ICANN and
>>> the GNSO and GNSO WGs. To the extent possible (and it is not
>>> always possible), WG leaders should not be espousing the
>>> positions of their constituency. Yes, understanding the various
>>> positions is important, but that is not necessarily a
>>> characteristic of someone who is themselves a "believer".
>>>
>>> I will have no problem if the leaders of this WG end up being
>>> from GNSO groups, but the message being sent that the GNSO
>>> cannot accept having outsiders lead one of their WGs is counter
>>> to what I understood about the GNSO in my eight years, and is
>>> counter to where I think that the GNSO should be going. Now is
>>> NOT the time to become more insular and suspicious of anyone who
>>> does not bear an insider logo on their T-shirt.
>>>
>>> I will also note that people move around in their ICANN life.
>>> When I started, Bret Fausett, as I mentioned, was with At-Large,
>>> as he was for ten years according to his ICANNWiki entry), Avri
>>> Dora was a NomCom appointee, and soon after became Council Chair
>>> (the ONLY GNSO Chair who was not a member of a Contracted
>>> Party), Stephane Van Gelder was a Registrar, Roberto Gaetano,
>>> was ALAC Liaison to the Board, later Board member and Vice-Chair
>>> and later he co-chaired a GNSO PDP! And Liz Williams was an
>>> ICANN staff member working with the GNSO and Donna Austin was
>>> also an ICANN staff member. Where you are today says little of
>>> their past history or experience.
>>>
>>> I must thank Liz who is the only "GNSO" person I can recall who
>>> objected, and I support what she said.
>>>
>>> I find this entire conversation very sad.
>>>
>>> Alan
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> At 04/02/2016 09:55 AM, Stephanie Perrin wrote:
>>>> I cannot speak for James, but I will repeat that I do
>>>> object to ICANN volunteers from other SGs playing a
>>>> leadership role, even wonderful contenders such as Holly!
>>>> Given the somewhat tumultuous discussions that have gone on
>>>> at the CCWG over the past year, it seems to me prudent that
>>>> the GNSO lead its own processes. Furthermore, the WHOIS
>>>> debates over the past 15 years have amply demonstrated the
>>>> different economic and policy interests in the data, and
>>>> these interests tend to be sharply divided along
>>>> stakeholder groups. Ensuring a balance of those
>>>> stakeholder groups on the leadership team from the get-go
>>>> will help diminish perceptions of unfairness and lack of trust.
>>>>
>>>> That in no way diminishes the important role and
>>>> contributions of volunteers to this committee, and I would
>>>> stress that there are likely to be be working groups
>>>> established in this (doubtless multi-year effort) where
>>>> people can contribute in a leader role. However, this is
>>>> undoubtedly going to be a fractious process and I think it
>>>> is reasonable to look for previous participation at ICANN,
>>>> not necessarily leadership of a pdp per se, but
>>>> demonstrated ability to remain neutral, understand
>>>> procedure, and support staff who are going to be doing a
>>>> great deal of work for us. With great respect to all
>>>> volunteers, I don't think this is a role for those who have
>>>> not recently participated in at least some kind of working
>>>> group at ICANN. It is very important that we have a broad
>>>> range of expertise and talent represented here, but let us
>>>> be clear about the various roles we all will be playing.
>>>> My original point, which James clarified far better than I
>>>> had originally expressed it, is that volunteers who are not
>>>> used to ICANN and its processes will not understand any of
>>>> the political questions embedded in the poll, meaning no
>>>> disrespect to staff who created that poll.
>>>>
>>>> If I may reiterate the point that Michele made, many of the
>>>> SOIs of people who have volunteered for this work need
>>>> serious editing and clarification. If staff could review
>>>> the list and reach out to those in question it would be
>>>> appreciated. Our membership list for NCUC is public,
>>>> non-members are welcome to apply.
>>>> And if I may respond to a point that Dr. Williams made: "I
>>>> would suggest that we leave it to the leadership group to
>>>> decide who “leads†it…all of us are capable of leading"
>>>> 1. We are discussing the process of how to select that
>>>> leadership group at the moment, once that group is
>>>> determined, how they spell one another off is of course up
>>>> to them with group concensus, providing procedures are duly
>>>> followed (and I for one depend on Marika to remind us of
>>>> procedures on a regular basis)
>>>> 2. With great respect, we are not all equal in our
>>>> leadership ability and experience. This is why several of
>>>> us are insisting on demonstrated ability to perform a
>>>> neutral, balanced role in an ICANN setting. I think it is
>>>> quite challenging. For those who are new to ICANN,
>>>> following this group for a year or so every week will give
>>>> you a rich and varied experience which will doubtless be
>>>> useful in future efforts.
>>>> I am sorry to go on at such length, but I wanted to dispel
>>>> any impression I had given that I was intending this to be
>>>> an insider process....far from it, I am very keen on
>>>> recruiting (for instance) some individuals who have
>>>> knowledge of data protection and human rights law who have
>>>> rarely in the past participated at ICANN, resulting in
>>>> unfortunate policies that violate national law. However,
>>>> such new individuals/volunteers with varied expertise are,
>>>> regardless of past leadership roles, perhaps not the best
>>>> choices for the leadership team. I speak as a newbie with
>>>> only 3 years of working experience at ICANN, who has now
>>>> participated in at least 6 working groups. Doing a good job
>>>> here, in my view, requires a lot of learning and bandwidth.
>>>> Kind regards,
>>>> Stephanie Perrin
>>>> On 2016-02-04 6:07, Holly Raiche wrote:
>>>>> Point of clarification James
>>>>>
>>>>> I think we all put our hands together when Chuck put
>>>>> his hand up. He is the obvious Chair of this PDP from
>>>>> my perspective (and, I believe, a large number of
>>>>> hoers) - with his own stated qualification that it is
>>>>> for Phase one. But we also all agreed that he would
>>>>> need help - Vice-chairs. Are you objecting to other
>>>>> ICANN folk (or others with loads of ICANN experience)
>>>>> in those positions as well?
>>>>>
>>>>> Holly
>>>>> On 4 Feb 2016, at 6:25 pm, James Gannon
>>>>> <james at cyberinvasion.net
>>>>> <mailto:james at cyberinvasion.net> > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi Holly,
>>>>>> Yes apologies for the typo and yes as I said
>>>>>> later in the post I do object to GNSO PDPs being
>>>>>> led by non-GNSO members. This is my own personal
>>>>>> opinion but given the current discussions I
>>>>>> thought I should be clear in my position.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -jg
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sent from my iPad
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 4 Feb 2016, at 06:59, Holly Raiche
>>>>>> <h.raiche at internode.on.net
>>>>>> <mailto:h.raiche at internode.on.net>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi James
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Just a question about your first sentence -
>>>>>>> probably caused by what I think is a
>>>>>>> misspelling of ‘linking’. Are you
>>>>>>> seriously objecting to leadership roles for
>>>>>>> people who are not members of the GNSO?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Just checking
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Holly
>>>>>>> On 4 Feb 2016, at 5:15 pm, James Gannon
>>>>>>> <james at cyberinvasion.net
>>>>>>> <mailto:james at cyberinvasion.net> > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I agree with your point in principle
>>>>>>>> Sana, but in reality I think a couple
>>>>>>>> of us are concerned that the poll is
>>>>>>>> being used for some strange questions
>>>>>>>> that are more political in nature such
>>>>>>>> as the question on leadership inkling
>>>>>>>> people from outside of the GNSO. The
>>>>>>>> results of this first poll will be used
>>>>>>>> to determine eligibility for leadership
>>>>>>>> positions based on a set of criteria
>>>>>>>> that will be formed from the poll.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Given the extremely complex political
>>>>>>>> aspects of WHOIS and its interrelations
>>>>>>>> with so many areas of the community it
>>>>>>>> may be extremely difficult for a
>>>>>>>> newcomer to the entire PDP process and
>>>>>>>> in particular to WHOIS/RDS to make a
>>>>>>>> fully educated decision on some of the
>>>>>>>> questions posed. So its not so much
>>>>>>>> that experience and understanding of
>>>>>>>> the landscape is necessary to be
>>>>>>>> polled, but that to make a fully
>>>>>>>> informed decision will take longer than
>>>>>>>> the 2 weeks that the PDP has been
>>>>>>>> running so far.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Take for example the issues that some
>>>>>>>> of us have noticed with peoples
>>>>>>>> SOI’s, there are people wit incorrect
>>>>>>>> information and affiliations, people
>>>>>>>> claiming to be part of constituencies
>>>>>>>> that they are not and people listing
>>>>>>>> themselves as independent when they are
>>>>>>>> known to have affiliations and
>>>>>>>> sometimes business relationships with
>>>>>>>> parties with commercial and legal
>>>>>>>> interests at stake in the RDS
>>>>>>>> discussions, until we get the basics
>>>>>>>> such as these things correct its hard
>>>>>>>> to take an informed decision on the
>>>>>>>> need or want to take an independent
>>>>>>>> member of the working group into a
>>>>>>>> leadership role that is not GNSO
>>>>>>>> affiliated.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Also there is a principle involved
>>>>>>>> here, I firmly and strongly believe
>>>>>>>> that the GNSO operates its membership
>>>>>>>> in an open and inclusive manner, where
>>>>>>>> almost everyone can find a home for
>>>>>>>> themselves if they wish to participate
>>>>>>>> in the policy development process. And
>>>>>>>> even if one feels the need to be
>>>>>>>> independent we offer open membership to
>>>>>>>> non-affiliated persons and they are
>>>>>>>> considered fully during all dissuasions
>>>>>>>> and decision making efforts. However at
>>>>>>>> the core of the PDP is the fact that it
>>>>>>>> is the GNSOs mission to create gTLD
>>>>>>>> policy through its PDP, and that that
>>>>>>>> role sits firmly with the GNSO not with
>>>>>>>> the other ACs and Sos.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I am likely going to open myself up to
>>>>>>>> some backlash here but I am of the
>>>>>>>> opinion that we cannot allow GNSO
>>>>>>>> policy development to be led by other
>>>>>>>> parts of the ICANN ecosphere, the role
>>>>>>>> of the GNSO is diluted when we do so
>>>>>>>> and results in a GNSO that is not
>>>>>>>> performing the self-control that it
>>>>>>>> needs to do in order to fulfil its own
>>>>>>>> mission. In particular when it comes to
>>>>>>>> AC’s participating in leadership
>>>>>>>> roles on a PDP like this I feel that it
>>>>>>>> in some way violates the system of
>>>>>>>> checks and balances that ICANN is
>>>>>>>> formed on, AC’s such as ALAC an the
>>>>>>>> GAC have the opportunity to provide
>>>>>>>> advice to the board when the results of
>>>>>>>> GNSO PDPs come for consideration by the
>>>>>>>> ICANN board, to wish to lead those same
>>>>>>>> PDPs I feel takes two bites from the
>>>>>>>> apple, and given that ALAC and At-Large
>>>>>>>> members are free to participate in the
>>>>>>>> policy development process as
>>>>>>>> decisional members I think that adding
>>>>>>>> leadership roles to that dynamic
>>>>>>>> complicates things massively.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Bit of a wall of text but
>>>>>>>> TL;DR: Its the GNSOs role in ICANN to
>>>>>>>> produce policy for gTLDs therefore this
>>>>>>>> needs to be a GNSO led process with
>>>>>>>> open and collaborative membership.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> -jg
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> From:
>>>>>>>> <gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org
>>>>>>>> <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org>>
>>>>>>>> on behalf of Sana Ali
>>>>>>>> <sana.ali2030 at gmail.com
>>>>>>>> <mailto:sana.ali2030 at gmail.com> >
>>>>>>>> Date: Thursday 4 February 2016 at 1:33 a.m.
>>>>>>>> To: Jennifer Gore Standiford
>>>>>>>> <JStandiford at web.com
>>>>>>>> <mailto:JStandiford at web.com>>
>>>>>>>> Cc: "gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
>>>>>>>> <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>"
>>>>>>>> <gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
>>>>>>>> <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>>
>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Please
>>>>>>>> participate - poll on RDS PDP WG
>>>>>>>> leadership team characteristics
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Dear Stephanie,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I’ll respectfully disagree with you here.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Experience should certainly be a matter
>>>>>>>> of importance when determining who
>>>>>>>> should be in leadership roles, but to
>>>>>>>> suggest it should also be required for
>>>>>>>> something as simple as voting on who
>>>>>>>> should be in those roles, based on
>>>>>>>> pretty straightforward and
>>>>>>>> comprehensible principles, I find a bit
>>>>>>>> dangerous. It inhibits participation
>>>>>>>> based on…prior participation, which can
>>>>>>>> become a slippery slope.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And from following the discussion, as a
>>>>>>>> newcomer, I have at least picked up on
>>>>>>>> the fact that even more experienced
>>>>>>>> members of this group seem in no way
>>>>>>>> unanimous on what should be the key
>>>>>>>> characteristics of the team.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> My two cents (with full disclosure that
>>>>>>>> these are indeed rather newly-minted
>>>>>>>> pennies)
>>>>>>>> Sana Ali
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> sana.ali2030 at gmail.com
>>>>>>>> <mailto:sana.ali2030 at gmail.com>
>>>>>>>> https://ca.linkedin.com/in/sanaali2030
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Feb 3, 2016, at 8:00 PM,
>>>>>>>>> Jennifer Gore Standiford
>>>>>>>>> <JStandiford at web.com
>>>>>>>>> <mailto:JStandiford at web.com>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Agreed. +1
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Feb 3, 2016, at 7:50 PM,
>>>>>>>>> Stephanie Perrin
>>>>>>>>> <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca
>>>>>>>>> <mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> There is a fundamental
>>>>>>>>>> problem here, in my view.
>>>>>>>>>> There are a great many
>>>>>>>>>> members of the group who are
>>>>>>>>>> not accustomed to ICANN and
>>>>>>>>>> its SGs. We are therefore
>>>>>>>>>> asking them to vote on
>>>>>>>>>> something with which they
>>>>>>>>>> have no/little experience.
>>>>>>>>>> Not sure it is going to prove
>>>>>>>>>> to be a useful survey.
>>>>>>>>>> Stephanie Perrin
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 2016-02-02 15:42, Marika
>>>>>>>>>> Konings wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Dear All,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> As discussed, staff has
>>>>>>>>>>> created a poll to
>>>>>>>>>>> solicit the WG’s input
>>>>>>>>>>> on the key
>>>>>>>>>>> characteristics of the
>>>>>>>>>>> RDS PDP WG Leadership
>>>>>>>>>>> Team which we hope will
>>>>>>>>>>> help inform the the
>>>>>>>>>>> WG’s deliberations on
>>>>>>>>>>> this topic during next
>>>>>>>>>>> week’s meeting. This
>>>>>>>>>>> poll will be followed by
>>>>>>>>>>> a second poll later this
>>>>>>>>>>> week which will allow WG
>>>>>>>>>>> members to indicate
>>>>>>>>>>> which candidates they
>>>>>>>>>>> would like to endorse
>>>>>>>>>>> for the leadership team.
>>>>>>>>>>> To participate in the
>>>>>>>>>>> poll, please go to
>>>>>>>>>>> https://s.zoomerang.com/r/RDSPDPWGleadership.
>>>>>>>>>>> If you have difficulties
>>>>>>>>>>> accessing this page
>>>>>>>>>>> and/or completing the
>>>>>>>>>>> poll, please contact me
>>>>>>>>>>> off-list.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Please note that this
>>>>>>>>>>> poll is for WG members
>>>>>>>>>>> only. If you are an
>>>>>>>>>>> observer and want to
>>>>>>>>>>> become a member of the
>>>>>>>>>>> WG, please contact the
>>>>>>>>>>> GNSO secretariat at
>>>>>>>>>>> gnso-secs at icann.org
>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org>.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Marika
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> gnso-rds-pdp-wg
>>>>>>>>>>> mailing list
>>>>>>>>>>> gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.orghttps://
>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.orghttps://>
>>>>>>>>>>> mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
>>>>>>>>>>> <http://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>> gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
>>>>>>>>>> gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>> gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
>>>>>>>>> gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
>>>>>>>>> <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>
>>>>>>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
>>>>>>>> gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
>>>>>>>> <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>
>>>>>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>
>>>>> gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
>>>>> gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
>>>>> <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>
>>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
>>>> gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>
>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
>>> gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>
>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
>>> <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg>
>>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
> gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rds-pdp-wg/attachments/20160208/8c9c28fd/attachment.html>
More information about the gnso-rds-pdp-wg
mailing list