[governance] Proposed statement on .ORG sale
Bill Woodcock
woody at pch.net
Sat Dec 7 08:55:54 EST 2019
Second approach.
-Bill
> On Dec 7, 2019, at 08:13, Sheetal Kumar <sheetal at gp-digital.org> wrote:
>
>
> Dear all,
>
> Thanks for weighing in. Everyone agrees that transparency is what we must ask for, at a minimum but there seems to be general agreement that this isn't enough to ask for. I get the impression that there are two approaches suggested here: 1) an approach that accepts the deal is going ahead and asking for PIR to be incorporated as a benefit corporation 2) asking for a halt/suspension to the sale unless certain conditions are met.
>
> Opinions seem to weigh in more on the second approach but I suggest we hold a poll to ascertain which path to go down and then go with that.
>
>
> Best
> Sheetal
>
>> On Fri, 6 Dec 2019 at 20:47, Ayden Férdeline <ayden at ferdeline.com> wrote:
>> Thank you Imran, I do appreciate your edits, comments, and questions.
>>
>> It's not that I am comfortable with this deal. I suspect it will be a disaster.
>>
>> I just do not believe we will be able to persuade ISOC to change its decision here.
>>
>> All of the comments that I have seen individual ISOC Trustees make indicate a low level of understanding of the difference between a non-profit entity and a for-profit entity.
>>
>> They see PIR as an asset to be sold, like an office building, and believe the financial sustainability of ISOC is more important than meeting the public interest elements of their charter.
>>
>> I also see a deep belief in technological determinism in many of their comments.
>>
>> So I was trying to be as pragmatic as possible in what I was proposing.
>>
>> If this deal is happening, and ISOC doesn't seem to be backing down (nor in their evaluation do they believe criticism is sincerely held by anyone but a small number of individuals), then I think we need to put pressure on the Board to condition the sale on there being certain protections in place for registrants.
>>
>> PIR is transitioning into a for-profit company. I think that ISOC may have already petitioned the Orphans Court in Pennsylvania for this to happen. Ethos Capital will have a fiduciary duty to its shareholders, and it will be required to increase wholesale costs on .ORG domain names to fulfil that obligation. While their CEO has said they have no intention of operating PIR differently going forward, this is not consistent with his fiduciary duty. His role is to maximize shareholder value for Ethos Capital and act in the best interest of the corporation – not .ORG registrants.
>>
>> The only way we can be assured that they consider more than just the fiduciary interests of the corporation is to have PIR incorporated as a real benefit corporation (NOT a B Lab B Certification, which is what we are being offered at the moment). I think that is the best thing we can ask for at present.
>>
>> If PIR is a benefit corporation, this cannot be reversed, even if PIR is subsequently sold by Ethos Capital, and so we have long-term assurances that PIR will be legally obliged to consider societal impacts as well as fiduciary ones. But a B Lab B Certification can be dropped at any time if Ethos Capital so desires.
>>
>> ISOC's Board does not seem willing to rise to the occasion and to consider what is in the interests of the broader non-profit, non-governmental organization, and non-commercial communities. The Board is not in listening mode, they are just being defensive. I don't see that changing unfortunately, and I see no way to compel ISOC to listen to us. It is not a membership-based organization, it is essentially an independent trust. There are serious governance deficiencies that we need to attempt to address there in the future, particularly as the organization absorbs $1.135 billion. But the Board wants the money, and unless someone else steps forward offering more, they seem unwilling to change their mind.
>>
>> If that's the case, I regretfully feel like we have to ask for what little we can get in order to try to minimize the harm that is likely to accrue to .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG registrants.
>>
>> Best wishes,
>>
>> Ayden Férdeline
>>
>>
>>
>> ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
>>> On Friday, 6 December 2019 13:17, Imran Ahmed Shah <governance at lists.riseup.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Dear Sheetal,
>>>
>>> I agree with the Ian Peter. We needs the point to weigh-in our statement.
>>>
>>> I have some queries, suggestions and recommendations on the initial draft of Ayden and copying hereunder.
>>>
>>> Few comments:
>>> I think we should not evaluate Public Interest in terms of Money.... in any case...
>>> We should not to be more concerned with the financial figures.
>>> Perhaps, we may be concerned if it is being discussed in reference of the ICANN's decision and reasoning behind handing over the dotOrg to ISOC 'to support recurring expenses etc.'.. and now, if the ISOC has gotten enough benefits out of it,......dotORG should have to be returned to ICANN, so that ICANN can handover to some other similar not-for-profit trustworthy, credible organizations working for Public Interests, having the capacity to over see the Internet in Public domain and public interest.... to benefit next one after ISOC....
>>>
>>> Secondly, our goal is the protection of dotOrg from going it into the hand of commercial and nonpublic interest companies even if they could be able to recruiting, the hundreds of the CS members or can employee (or buy in some in-kind trade) ..to address public interests to claim.some kind of notional support board...
>>>
>>> I also suggest to create etherpad document... just created with the points shared by you... https://pad.riseup.net/p/IGConPIRv0NiRaxk3qi-keep
>>>
>>> = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
>>>
>>> To: Gonzalo Camarillo, Chair of the Board of Trustees, Internet Society
>>> As members of a network which encompasses many non-commercial organizations and public interest technologists, we are concerned by the announcement that Ethos Capital is acquiring the assets of the Public Interest Registry (PIR) from the Internet Society (ISOC), including the .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG Registry Agreements.
>>> Principally, we are concerned that the sale of PIR to a private entity will significantly alter the Domain Name System and weaken ISOC. PIR played an important role, as the only remaining non-commercial top-level domain registry operator, in serving as a counterbalance against commercial exploitation. PIR ran .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG for the benefit of its users, whereas other top-level domains are run by private companies with purely financial objectives. While the interests of companies and users do at times overlap, they can also conflict, and when this occurs there are significant human rights implications. PIR, as a subsidiary of ISOC, could be relied upon to do what was best for domain name registrants, and has a proud history of doing just that. However, PIR also gave ISOC legitimacy and influence. It allowed ISOC to take an active role in shaping Internet infrastructure [IAS: suggest to add here… “keeping the Public Interest Intact”]. In relinquishing its control over PIR, ISOC loses its ability to directly impact how millions of people around the world positively experience the Internet every day, and we think that is a great pity.
>>> This is a significant change, for ISOC and for the Internet community, and we are not yet satisfied that there are appropriate safeguards in place to protect the interests of .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG registrants and the people who visit their websites every day. You have the ability to put requests to Ethos Capital and to call this deal off if appropriate and binding safeguards cannot be put in place. [IAS: it very polite, humble request or perhaps diplomatic sentence/phrase. Which will result a simple answer “thanks for your deep concerns but we do not feel it appropriate at this stage the take the deal off”, the same I have listen from ICANN Chair in 2009] We encourage you to do just that. [IAS: What to do, to stop the deal or what is appropriate? Need to change this sentence and to be specific result that we are recommending or demanding] As a sign of good faith, we ask that ISOC have Ethos Capital commit to incorporating PIR as a benefit corporation. [IAS: again we are allowing them to proceed with the deal and seeking the alteration of the terms, rules/bylaws and commitment of a commercial entity to keep this public interest entity protected as a benefit organization…? Secondly, believing and understanding that the Investor “Ethos Capital” has invested the PIR to convert in B-Corp/ commercial entity how we assume that he will be accepting when he has investing billions..] We understand that Ethos Capital has said they are evaluating becoming a B Lab B Corp, but this is not the same thing as a benefit corporation and is instead a non-binding certification. [IAS: I suggest that we should use it as a proof that Ethos Capital has intention to transform the public interest entity into a B-Corp/ commercial entity. In the same context, we should ask ‘the Board’ that is this ‘intention’ was in their knowledge or in the knowledge of decision maker bodies that this faith base public interest entity will be commercialized by the new investor? If, yes, how they accepted it?]
>>> Large parts of the world [IAS: I suggest that here we have to use other terms which has higher weightage (weigh-in); e.g. one of the ISOC/PIR representative has responded like this “the objections are not reported from the majority of users, which means the majority of the users has no concern who is running the registry”] are uncomfortable with the Internet being governed entirely by commercial interests, and many of our members [IAS: I suggest that we have to elaborate “the members”, e.g IGC Members, IGC coalition Partners or perhaps including CSCG] are deeply uncomfortable with PIR being sold at all. However, incorporation as a benefit corporation could provide a sturdier path forward if ISOC does proceed to sell the assets of PIR, and could be [IAS: I suggest rephrase “Could have been assured”] an effective means of mitigating against some of the risks that we can foresee emerging from this sale. A benefit corporation in the right jurisdiction would require the publication of comprehensive, credible, independent, and transparent annual reports on social impact and, most importantly, require the organization to consider benefits to the public in addition to profit when decisions are being made. And, it would oblige Ethos Capital to honor the promises and commitments it is making today.
>>> We trust that you understand why this is important to us. Ethos Capital is an unknown entity, and in the absence of clear information about their motives behind acquiring PIR and their sales pitch to investors, the non-profit and non-governmental communities require assurances that the future of the .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG domain names that we use for our email, websites, campaigns, and fundraising efforts are in safe hands. [IAS: I suggest add these lines here “Our Data & Privacy is not being compromised, shared, observed, monitored are not shared or sold to the competitors (right now during transition or) in future by the Registry, or partner commercial/ noncommercial entities”] These are more than just domains, they are symbols of our desire to do good.
>>> = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
>>> [IAS: I also have few more concerns:
>>>
>>> 1. Needs transparency and disclosure of the followings (to re-establish of the trust being shacked):
>>>
>>> i. the reasoning behind the selling PIR ‘out of the way’ (as apparently seems to me)?,
>>>
>>> ii. the reasoning behind the avoidance of engaging a proper bidding?,
>>>
>>> iii. the reasoning to giving sole power of decision of sales without the evaluation through open competition and opening comments to sell or not?,
>>>
>>> iv. the information of intention disclosure regarding the commercialization aspect or transformation of PIR to B-Corp, when it came in to the knowledge of the selling bodies (prior/during/post sales agreement).
>>>
>>> v. Technical Terms and basis of the Technical Evaluations of the Investor Ability, Capability, Credibility, Dependability.
>>>
>>> vi. Safeguards evaluated in terms of Public Interest, Faith, Data Protection, Privacy, Security evaluated before making the decision of sales of PIR (.ORG/.NGO/.ONG)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 2. I would suggest that the statement should be in the following format:
>>>
>>> Preamble/Preface paragraph:
>>>
>>> Objection/Obligation/Concerns
>>>
>>> What we demand:
>>>
>>> Our First Requirement is:
>>>
>>> Requirement of Information (e.g Transparency, Disclosure of deal/ agreement/ technical/ functional/ organizational structural design/basis/planning)
>>>
>>> Our Second Requirement is:
>>>
>>> A. The above facts and figures demand you to stop/end-up the due diligence process and stop the deal.
>>>
>>> If the efforts for A are convincingly & persuasively exercised and but could not achieving required goal-A, we recommends to achieve minimal goal-B after the adoption of above….
>>>
>>> B. What we need if the Sales Deal is accomplished, i.e. ensure the commitment
>>>
>>> a. Immediate commitment (prior to sale),
>>>
>>> b. long term commitment (after sales),
>>>
>>> (by the way I am not convinced that a commercial organization remains commitment for public interest for long term benefits. Maximum commitments one can expect is just for 2-3 years not beyond. Secondly, if the Ethos Capital sales this entity to any other commercial entity after changing its status to B-Corp, where the agreements with ISOC stands?)
>>>
>>> = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
>>>
>>> Best Regards
>>>
>>> Imran Ahmed Shah
>>>
>>> [TLDians/UISoc/UiCouncil]
>>>
>>> On Friday, 6 December 2019, 01:13:59 GMT+5, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> I agree approach and basic points Sheetal - but I would drop the human rights clause because it is contentious and does not add great value to the strong basic argument.
>>>
>>> Ian
>>>
>>> ------ Original Message ------
>>> From: "Sheetal Kumar" <sheetal at gp-digital.org>
>>> To: "parminder" <parminder at itforchange.net>
>>> Cc: "governance" <governance at lists.riseup.net>
>>> Sent: 6/12/2019 6:48:38 AM
>>> Subject: Re: [governance] Proposed statement on .ORG sale
>>>
>>>> Dear Ayden, Parminder, all,
>>>>
>>>> First, thank you very much Ayden for putting this together! I appreciate the attempt to reconcile opposing views, which are clearly present in the IGC.
>>>>
>>>> I would just say that we have heard from very few others on this list. This may be for any number of reasons, and we could do a poll if its helpful to gather views, including whether people feel they need more information to be able to weigh in.
>>>>
>>>> To move forward, if we can agree on the following key points that we need to get across, we can work together on editing/finalising text.
>>>>
>>>> Short of a poll, if everyone could weigh-in on whether they agree on these points that would be helpful.
>>>>
>>>> There is a need for greater transparency about the terms of the sale
>>>> There are potential implications for human rights if the sale goes through (need to list/clearly enumerate these)
>>>> As a result, many members of IGC align themselves with the statements from EFF and Access Now and the call for an outright halt to the sale.
>>>> At a minimum, all IGC members agree there is a need for greater transparency regarding the terms and potential implications of this sale, and that there are appropriate safeguards in place to protect the interests of .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG registrants and the people who visit their websites every day
>>>>
>>>> It's difficult to get consensus at best of times, but this is a tricky issue and if we want to put forward something together we might need to go with what we can all agree on at a top-level.
>>>>
>>>> I look forward to hearing from a wide-range of people, and if anyone has alternative ideas please let us know.
>>>>
>>>> Best
>>>> Sheetal
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, 4 Dec 2019 at 08:12, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
>>>> thanks for this effort Ayden
>>>>
>>>> But when there is such a strong 'stop the sale' movement out there, it will be embarrassing for the IG related civil society groups to say, well, at least let Ethos now behave when ISOC did not .... Why ask Ethos to set PIR as a benefit corporation (which they will certainly not) when the existing arrangement (since the sale is not through) is itself more satisfactory? Why not ask for status quo and stopping the sale?
>>>>
>>>> parminder
>>>>
>>>> On 04/12/19 6:01 PM, Ayden Férdeline wrote:
>>>>> Dear all,
>>>>>
>>>>> I have a new proposed statement that I hope we may consider issuing. Please see below. I have used Sheetal's language as a starting point (thank you!) but I am afraid I did change the messaging quite a bit. This is just a suggestion and please do feel free to edit it to pieces.
>>>>>
>>>>> Like Brett, I too would prefer we advocate for stopping the sale altogether, but in the spirit of compromise and given a number of posts on this list that seem supportive of the sale, I've tried a different approach here.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks and best wishes,
>>>>> Ayden Férdeline
>>>>>
>>>>> To: Gonzalo Camarillo, Chair of the Board of Trustees, Internet Society
>>>>>
>>>>> As members of a network which encompasses many non-commercial organizations and public interest technologists, we are concerned by the announcement that Ethos Capital is acquiring the assets of the Public Interest Registry (PIR) from the Internet Society (ISOC), including the .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG Registry Agreements.
>>>>>
>>>>> Principally, we are concerned that the sale of PIR to a private entity will significantly alter the Domain Name System and weaken ISOC. PIR played an important role, as the only remaining non-commercial top-level domain registry operator, in serving as a counterbalance against commercial exploitation. PIR ran .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG for the benefit of its users, whereas other top-level domains are run by private companies with purely financial objectives. While the interests of companies and users do at times overlap, they can also conflict, and when this occurs there are significant human rights implications. PIR, as a subsidiary of ISOC, could be relied upon to do what was best for domain name registrants, and has a proud history of doing just that. However, PIR also gave ISOC legitimacy and influence. It allowed ISOC to take an active role in shaping Internet infrastructure. In relinquishing its control over PIR, ISOC loses its ability to directly impact how millions of people around the world positively experience the Internet every day, and we think that is a great pity.
>>>>>
>>>>> This is a significant change, for ISOC and for the Internet community, and we are not yet satisfied that there are appropriate safeguards in place to protect the interests of .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG registrants and the people who visit their websites every day. You have the ability to put requests to Ethos Capital and to call this deal off if appropriate and binding safeguards cannot be put in place. We encourage you to do just that. As a sign of good faith, we ask that ISOC have Ethos Capital commit to incorporating PIR as a benefit corporation. We understand that Ethos Capital has said they are evaluating becoming a B Lab B Corp, but this is not the same thing as a benefit corporation and is instead a non-binding certification.
>>>>>
>>>>> Large parts of the world are uncomfortable with the Internet being governed entirely by commercial interests, and many of our members are deeply uncomfortable with PIR being sold at all. However, incorporation as a benefit corporation could provide a sturdier path forward if ISOC does proceed to sell the assets of PIR, and could be an effective means of mitigating against some of the risks that we can foresee emerging from this sale. A benefit corporation in the right jurisdiction would require the publication of comprehensive, credible, independent, and transparent annual reports on social impact and, most importantly, require the organization to consider benefits to the public in addition to profit when decisions are being made. And, it would oblige Ethos Capital to honor the promises and commitments it is making today.
>>>>>
>>>>> We trust that you understand why this is important to us. Ethos Capital is an unknown entity, and in the absence of clear information about their motives behind acquiring PIR and their sales pitch to investors, the non-profit and non-governmental communities require assurances that the future of the .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG domain names that we use for our email, websites, campaigns, and fundraising efforts are in safe hands. These are more than just domains, they are symbols of our desire to do good.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
>>>>>> On Sunday, 1 December 2019 17:44, Sheetal Kumar <sheetal at gp-digital.org> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Dear Ayden, all,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks for your responses! It seems to me that if we're going to agree on anything, it's the lack of transparency that we can agree needs to be rectified. I've slightly reworded the below in light of the recent suggestions and remarks.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What do others think about Sylvain's suggestions of asking about setting up a commons PIR (is this possible/feasible?) and of sending this also to ISOC's BoT and CEO? Do you have any others?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As members of a network which encompasses many non-commercial organisations, we are concerned about the lack of transparency regarding the sale of .ORG. When the board discusses the sale of .org, we request that these questions are considered in the due diligence process:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - What does the Board intend to do in order to protect the existing millions of .ORG registrants?
>>>>>> - After the changes to the .ORG contract to preserve existing rights of .ORG registrants, how else does the Board intend to ensure the sale of PIR (this new steward of .org) will act on behalf of the public interest and the world community of noncommercial, civil society groups in the world?
>>>>>> - What are ICANN's obligation to protect those organizations engaged in missions of "public interest around the world?"
>>>>>> - How does the Board respond to allegations/concerns regarding possible conflict of interest in transference of stewardship to Ethos capital?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We request answers to these questions in the spirit of building trust among NGOs and the non-commercial constituency more generally and those who play a key role in stewarding the Internet.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sat, 30 Nov 2019 at 17:58, Ayden Férdeline <ayden at ferdeline.com> wrote:
>>>>>> While I agree these are questions for the ISOC Board of Trustees, I believe they are *also* questions for the ICANN Board. I expect that the ICANN Board will not respond to them, but I think they could - and should - and I encourage us to place pressure on both parties to take these questions and the sentiments behind them seriously.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ICANN, in particular, does need to address at least the perception that there is a revolving door of insiders who are behind this and other deals. And ISOC needs to be more transparent about what due diligence it did before entering into the arrangement to sell PIR, and what mechanisms it has put in place (if any) to protect .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG registrants. Thanks.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Best wishes, Ayden Férdeline
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
>>>>>> On Saturday, 30 November 2019 13:34, James Gannon <james at cyberinvasion.net> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> These are questions for the ISOC Board not the ICANN board.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 30 Nov 2019, at 13:09, Sheetal Kumar <sheetal at gp-digital.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Dear all,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What do people think about sending a letter to the ICANN Board with a series of questions in order to get more transparency? Bruna and I discussed this, and chatted to others, and are wondering what you think of this approach. As the Board will meet and discuss the sale as part of a due diligence process, we thought it might be a constructive approach to request they consider and answer certain questions.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It would be great to hear your views on this approach and on the questions. See below:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> When the board discusses the sale of .org, we request that these questions are considered in the due diligence process:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> - What does the Board intend to do in order to protect the existing millions of .ORG registrants?
>>>>>>>> - After the changes to the .ORG contract to preserve existing rights of .ORG registrants, how else does the Board intend to ensure the sale of PIR (this new steward of .org) will act on behalf of the public interest and the world community of noncommercial, civil society groups in the world?
>>>>>>>> - What's ICANN's obligation to protect those organizations engaged in missions of "public interest around the world?"
>>>>>>>> - How does the Board respond to allegations/concerns regarding possible conflict of interest in transference of stewardship to Ethos capital
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Best
>>>>>>>> Sheetal
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Fri, 29 Nov 2019 at 02:36, Sylvain Baya <governance at lists.riseup.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Le jeudi 28 novembre 2019, Bill Woodcock <woody at pch.net> a écrit :
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> > they can (even without sourcing their affirmation) then note that the
>>>>>>>> > minority of *non-commercial* [1] Internet Community is about to be *eliminated* by their
>>>>>>>> > 'well intended' *big deal*.
>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>> > Why ?
>>>>>>>> > ...i guess that 1% of 10M (domain names) +=> the non-commercial [1] world is under
>>>>>>>> > the pressure of commercial world in the Internet, even in .ORG registrations they are
>>>>>>>> > still oppressed by 99% of 10M
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> None of the above parses. Please try again, with simpler construction. You can break it out into as many sentences as you like, but please try to make each one encapsulate exactly one thought. Else nobody is going to be able to engage in a constructive conversation with you.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ...what's the point please, dear Bill ?
>>>>>>>> Do you really want to convince me without argumenting ?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Shalom,
>>>>>>>> --sb.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> -Bill
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> Best Regards !
>>>>>>>> baya.sylvain [AT cmNOG DOT cm] | <https://www.cmnog.cm> | <https://survey.cmnog.cm>
>>>>>>>> Subscribe to Mailing List : <https://lists.cmnog.cm/mailman/listinfo/cmnog/>
>>>>>>>> __
>>>>>>>> #LASAINTEBIBLE|#Romains15:33«Que LE #DIEU de #Paix soit avec vous tous! #Amen!»
>>>>>>>> #MaPrière est que tu naisses de nouveau. #Chrétiennement
>>>>>>>> «Comme une biche soupire après des courants d’eau, ainsi mon âme soupire après TOI, ô DIEU!» (#Psaumes42:2)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe: <mailto:igc-unsubscribe at lists.riseup.net>
>>>>>>>> List help: <https://riseup.net/lists>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Sheetal Kumar
>>>>>>>> Senior Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL
>>>>>>>> Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL
>>>>>>>> T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514 |
>>>>>>>> PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31|
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe: <mailto:igc-unsubscribe at lists.riseup.net>
>>>>>>>> List help: <https://riseup.net/lists>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sheetal Kumar
>>>>>> Senior Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL
>>>>>> Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL
>>>>>> T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514 |
>>>>>> PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31|
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ---
>>>>> To unsubscribe: <mailto:igc-unsubscribe at lists.riseup.net>
>>>>> List help: <https://riseup.net/lists>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ---
>>>> To unsubscribe: <mailto:igc-unsubscribe at lists.riseup.net>
>>>> List help: <https://riseup.net/lists>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Sheetal Kumar
>>>> Senior Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL
>>>> Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL
>>>> T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514 |
>>>> PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31|
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> ---
>>> To unsubscribe: <mailto:igc-unsubscribe at lists.riseup.net>
>>> List help: <https://riseup.net/lists>
>>
>
>
> --
>
>
> Sheetal Kumar
> Senior Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL
> Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL
> T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514 |
> PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31|
>
>
> ---
> To unsubscribe: <mailto:igc-unsubscribe at lists.riseup.net>
> List help: <https://riseup.net/lists>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20191207/c91b2345/attachment.htm>
More information about the Governance
mailing list