[governance] Reviving IGC: Merging Bestbits in, IGF Day zero event and other subjects
parminder
parminder at itforchange.net
Fri Jul 19 00:04:26 EDT 2019
There is going to be no fancy 'leadership group'
No one has mentioned its need, justification, etc.
I dont mind Arsene and Bruno to continue till elections, and they should.
Sala, you were the greatest proponent for early even intimidate
elections. Now, you agree with Ian below that no "immediate coco
election" "seems to be he most supported option"? Anyway...
If elections are due, they should take place.
If they are postponed, clear reasons may be described and action be
taken as per.... Charter amendment is out from such a list of reasons...
Website work is independent and nothing to do with elections (although
remember IGC was never much about a great website, it needs to first
gets its 'substance' right which is nearly at about 'zero' right now,
but new things are always welcome, pl go ahead. But let not the website
volunteer list become anything else meanwhile).
Are elections therefore being postponed bec BB members (that are not
already in the IGC) need to be able to get to vote (although no one has
really explained why that such a tearing hurry to vote for what everyone
agrees is likely a pretty small number, but anyway)? Pl be clear and
specific in response -- both, the cocos, and those from BB who know
about this matter. election postponement is a big thing. Thanks.
Let us clearly be told why elections are being postponed... If the above
BB issue, then we want clarity on; is BB closure and folding into the
IGC decided, when would the non IGC members enrol in the IGC, any time
lines etc for that..
That alone is the clear issue in front of us, related to coco elections.
So please convey clarity to the IGC membership asap on this matter, and
I request cocos special attention to this
Thanks and regards
parminder
On 19/07/19 4:37 AM, "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" (via governance
Mailing List) wrote:
> Ditto everything that Ian said.
>
> On Thu, 18 Jul 2019, 11:49 pm ian.peter at ianpeter.com
> <mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com>, <ian.peter at ianpeter.com
> <mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com>> wrote:
>
> Well its good to see so many people who care about the future of a
> credible voice for civil society in the internet governance field,
> even if there are big differences as regards how to revive things
> in this space!
>
> If I may summarise:
>
> 1. IGC Charter revisions are not urgent. They should be discussed
> down the track after a credible web presence and leadership
> structure have been restored.
>
> 2. We have offers of assistance (including Farzeneh and Jeremy)
> regards website restoration. There is no reason why this cannot
> take place now with a small group reporting back here. (see
> separate topic)
>
> 3. Regarding leadership. Many strong voices argue for coco
> election now, others suggest a delay of a couple of months until
> other matters are in place. I am not convinced either way - do we
> have a membership list, for instance, which is necessary for
> elections? If not, there seems to be no choice but to delay. And
> if there is one election now, there will also be another one in
> less than six months when Bruna's term expires. So an argument to
> do both together in a few months is reasonable perhaps. I will be
> happy for whatever outcome the call suggests for this, BUT::::::
>
> If there is not an immediate coco election, which seems to be the
> most supported option, I believe it is essential; we agree to an
> interim leadership group until it is practical to hold such
> elections. Apart from Bruna, capable names like Sheeta and
> Farzeneh have been mentioned. Such an interim group is absolutely
> necessary, I believe, if the group decides on the call not to
> proceed immediately with coco elections.
>
> So I am happy whichever way the call determines on this one: but I
> am not happy for there to be no action at all to resolve this issue.
>
> Ian Peter
> -
>
>
> ------ Original Message ------
> From: "Sheetal Kumar" <sheetal at gp-digital.org
> <mailto:sheetal at gp-digital.org>>
> To: "parminder" <parminder at itforchange.net
> <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>>
> Cc: "Mueller, Milton L" <milton at gatech.edu
> <mailto:milton at gatech.edu>>; "Nnenna Nwakanma" <nnenna75 at gmail.com
> <mailto:nnenna75 at gmail.com>>; "governance"
> <governance at lists.riseup.net <mailto:governance at lists.riseup.net>>
> Sent: 18/07/2019 7:43:41 PM
> Subject: Re: [governance] Reviving IGC: Merging Bestbits in, IGF
> Day zero event and other subjects
>
>> Dear Parminder, all,
>>
>> As you and others have pointed out, the conversation about
>> closing Bestbits and requesting any members there who are not
>> already on IGC to join IGC (aka 'merger' to some) has been
>> ongoing for months. The information has been continually shared
>> on both this list/among this community and on the Bestbits list.
>> Anyway, we could have done more to reach out to key people and
>> communicated things more clearly perhaps. That's something I've
>> learned. We did try but we can always do more to communicate
>> better.
>>
>> There are just a few things which Parminder you've asked clarity
>> on, and what follows is my reading of things as someone who has
>> been part of the relevant discussions from the beginning so I do
>> hope I'm not misrepresenting anything. As Farzaneh was doing
>> earlier, I think it's worth identifying what we agree on and then
>> work through what we disagree on.
>>
>> /If there is anything more? If so, everyone involved, please
>> state it out here, explicitly, on the IGC's primary working
>> space. Why are we going in so many circles about it?/
>>
>> //
>>
>> /What process is being disregarded, the one about which
>> yesterday Arsene reported that it was decided that elections will
>> be held after (1) the IGC charter is amended (and I have been
>> asking what is this, who triggered this demand, with what
>> objectives, what justifications, and so on, and people simply
>> refuse to answer), and (2) when their is a combined list (sorry,
>> IGC is not a list, one has to individually take its membership
>> with an explicit individual-based process, there is no merging or
>> combining lists here) ./
>>
>> All that has been discussed, on both IGC and Bestbits lists,
>> including by active, long-standing and even founding members of
>> both, has been how to reinvigorate civil society coordination. It
>> was agreed by those taking part in these discussions which have
>> been open to everyone from the start (there is a whole archive of
>> the discussions that have been continually shared on here and on
>> Bestbits, including in the etherpad here
>> <https://etherpad.wikimedia.org/p/Bestbitscallfuture>), that the
>> existence of both Bestbits and IGC wasn't helping so Bestbits
>> should close. As we are all sticklers for process (a good thing,
>> in my opinion), this could not simply be a matter of closing the
>> list and telling everyone to move off onto another (IGC) if they
>> weren't already members. As I mentioned before, Bestbits was more
>> than a list too. Instead, we had conversations about it, that
>> lasted months. Some people even wanted to create a new group. We
>> decided not to. Among some suggestions that came out of these
>> conversations was the opportunity to revise the IGC charter.
>> Founding IGC members were part of this discussion, nothing, and I
>> repeat, nothing was decided or agreed in that regard. Indeed it
>> would be bizarre for that to happen. Any such process would have
>> to respect the IGC charter and involve all members. Of course.
>> Anything that has been shared which says otherwise are simply
>> unfortunate misunderstandings, and we should move on. There are
>> no reverse takeovers taking place, no desire to rip apart the
>> Charter. Respect for process is key. There is no self-appointed
>> leadership from what I can see, just people trying to steer
>> things towards more unity and less fracture.
>>
>> /Any newcomer needs just 2 months of membership to vote.. No one
>> really is insisting that we hold elections like today . But this
>> certainly cannot be the reason for a process that you / Sheetal
>> are saying has been on for more than 6 months now. That would be
>> so very illogical, no..... Is just the issue of eligibility for
>> voting stopping the process, but why labour it over 7 months when
>> it needs just 2 months cooling period? -- Although it does make
>> me wonder, and I repeat, why such a strong focus on the
>> coordinator election!! IGC is much more than that... Why such
>> insistence!!? What does one read into it.
>> /
>>
>> It may seem bizarre, but honestly, it just took ages for those in
>> the discussions which have been open to everyone since the
>> beginning to decide to close Bestbits as a 'solution' to a lack
>> of civil society coordination. There were other proposals like I
>> said, including setting up a new group. So here we are. 7 months
>> later, with agreement to close Bestbits and not create a new list
>> or do something else. IGC is more than a list, sure, but because
>> leadership is I guess key to reinvigorating things, elections are
>> seen as a way to start.
>>
>> Also, others have asked 'how many people are on Bestbits' that
>> are not on IGC? Honestly, I don't know. Maybe its 2, maybe its
>> 20. My reasoning is that even if one or two of those people join
>> and have the energy and commitment to run for elections and
>> coordinate going forward, we should wait for them to join. Do we
>> have much to lose? David and Jeanette have pointed out that we
>> could wait for an indefinite period of time and it would just be
>> a for a handful of people to join. That is true, so we could
>> undertake an exercise comparing who is not on both lists and
>> reach out to them directly. Alternatively, we are planning to
>> have a call in w/c August 05 (I will send the details soon) and
>> we can collectively set a date then for the closure of Bestbits,
>> requesting those not already on IGC to join. And then we'll be
>> all having this conversation on this list, including new members.
>> Once new BB members have joined (even if its just 2-3 people) we
>> can then decide whether to hold elections right away or wait 2
>> months. Maybe everyone will want to just hold elections right
>> away, including the handful of new members. Or maybe they'll want
>> to wait. Also, we can discuss the day 0 event together. If we
>> don't do the closure properly then we risk relevant and
>> interested people losing out on the opportunity to discuss these
>> things.
>>
>> So, can we agree that we set a date and time by which members of
>> Bestbits who are not members of IGC join IGC and then we set an
>> agenda, and have a conversation about when to hold elections etc etc?
>>
>> Also, btw the day 0 event is from 16h00-18h00 in Room X.
>>
>> Best
>>
>> Sheetal
>>
>>
>> On Thu, 18 Jul 2019 at 09:35, parminder
>> <parminder at itforchange.net <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 17/07/19 11:02 PM, Mueller, Milton L wrote:
>>> What Sheetal says below is correct in my opinion. We are in
>>> fact trying to merge BB and IGC.
>>
>> Only loosely speaking, formally from IGC point of view, there
>> is no merging happening... Some new people want to join IGC,
>> and if conditions are fulfilled they are indeed welcome.
>>
>> If there is anything more? If so, everyone involved, please
>> state it out here, explicitly, on the IGC's primary working
>> space. Why are we going in so many circles about it?
>>
>> Lately, two specific, and what I consider minor, issues have
>> been stated.
>>
>> 1. Can enough time be given to elections so that the new
>> members can go through their 2 month cooling period.... I
>> said that can be done, and there has been no major opposition
>> to it (Although, frankly, if you ask me, I really do not
>> understand why this hurry and absolute insistence on voting
>> right away . That should not be such a big thing. Cooling
>> periods are there for a reason. People who havent ever been
>> on the IGC need to observe, see and know and mingle before
>> insisting on some absolute rights to vote for their choice of
>> coordinator. So, why, really this insistence ? What is the
>> plan? But anyway, I really said I am fine either way.)
>>
>> 2. What to do with BB's web archives, and again there is not
>> much problem with it. Whenever we have a working IGC website,
>> we can put them somewhere on it, no problem.
>>
>> What else? Is there anything more? Why dont people tell us
>> clearly, rather than going in circles and creating so much
>> confusion.
>>
>>> We are trying to create a more unified civil society
>>> presence. We don’t do that by throwing up procedural walls
>>> around this group.
>>
>> Can you be explicit? what procedural walls are blocking BB
>> people -- other than those who already are there-- from
>> joining IGC, ?
>>
>>
>>> Face facts, IGC needs the people from BB just as much as
>>> they need us. It is destructive, as Sheetal says, to
>>> disregard the process we have been going through to bring
>>> things back together.
>>
>> What process is being disregarded, the one about which
>> yesterday Arsene reported that it was decided that elections
>> will be held after (1) the IGC charter is amended (and I have
>> been asking what is this, who triggered this demand, with
>> what objectives, what justifications, and so on, and people
>> simply refuse to answer), and (2) when their is a combined
>> list (sorry, IGC is not a list, one has to individually take
>> its membership with an explicit individual-based process,
>> there is no merging or combining lists here) .
>>
>>
>>> I hope I don’t need to remind people why a significant
>>> chunk of civil society broke off from IGC to begin with -
>>> but it looks like certain actors are doing the reminding for
>>> me.
>>
>> Sure, Milton, since you are now going towards a
>> confrontational abyss, please do remind us. (Btw, I was
>> among the founding members of BB, and I remember you werent
>> around that much in those discussions). In fact any coming
>> back of BB member to IGC -- if you really think so --should
>> perhaps be helped by visiting the original conditions of why
>> they went away and so on... We are capable of an adult
>> conversation here, and should not be afraid. Important public
>> facts are always good to know and discuss. And then one may
>> also discuss what happened with BB, whether they were able to
>> achieve the objectives they set themselves for, if not, why,
>> and what are the reasons of BB's dissolution and coming back
>> to an IGC, which admittedly is far weaker and lost now than
>> when they left it.
>>
>>>
>>> It is exclusionary to hold elections now, before the
>>> newcomers can vote. Can someone tell me what positive goal
>>> is achieved by doing that? Can someone tell me what is lost
>>> if we don’t hold elections?
>>
>> Any newcomer needs just 2 months of membership to vote.. No
>> one really is insisting that we hold elections like today .
>> But this certainly cannot be the reason for a process that
>> you / Sheetal are saying has been on for more than 6 months
>> now. That would be so very illogical, no..... Is just the
>> issue of eligibility for voting stopping the process, but why
>> labour it over 7 months when it needs just 2 months cooling
>> period? -- Although it does make me wonder, and I repeat, why
>> such a strong focus on the coordinator election!! IGC is much
>> more than that... Why such insistence!!? What does one read
>> into it.
>>
>>> Do some people like for IGC to be a small and hostile place
>>> where they can be a big fish in a small pond? I hope not.
>>
>> (Just to match) Or are some people planning to make IGC their
>> private pond. I hope not.
>>
>>
>> parminder
>>
>>>
>>> Milton L Mueller
>>> Professor, School of Public Policy
>>> Georgia Institute of Technology
>>>
>>> On Jul 17, 2019, at 14:07, Sheetal Kumar
>>> <sheetal at gp-digital.org <mailto:sheetal at gp-digital.org>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Dear all,
>>>>
>>>> I agree that it is easy to join IGC if you sign up to the
>>>> Charter. It's indeed pretty straightforward. However, what
>>>> I don't understand is the disregard for a process that has
>>>> been ongoing for months, about a large and until recently
>>>> active splinter group of IGC (namely, Bestbits) which has
>>>> since agreed to close and its members who are not already
>>>> part of IGC 'join IGC'. Bestbits was not just a mailing
>>>> list, it had an active membership, it had a functioning
>>>> website, it had a steering group, it used to coordinate,
>>>> and more. It also had its own membership of the CSCG and
>>>> used to convene an event before the global IGF. And now it
>>>> is closing. Who knows how many people who have been part of
>>>> that discussion or at least following on Bestbits who are
>>>> not on IGC would like to be part of the IGC elections?
>>>> Whether its semantic or not to call it a 'merger', the
>>>> point remains that this has been a discussion for a few
>>>> months that should, IMHO, have an impact on when to hold
>>>> the IGC elections. They don't have to, but I think it makes
>>>> sense for them to considering the history of IGC and
>>>> Bestbits (as a splinter group of IGC). Also, I'm not saying
>>>> this because I want to run for any elections necessarily,
>>>> I've only ever been interested a discussion towards a more
>>>> impactful and coordinated civil society in this space. It
>>>> just seems to make sense not to disregard that Bestbits
>>>> discussion and to take decisions with the Bestbits
>>>> discussion in mind (again, because of the history of the
>>>> connection between Bestbits and IGC).
>>>>
>>>> I've looked at the IGC Charter and it says "Voting process:
>>>> Each person who is subscribed to the list at least two (2)
>>>> months before the election will be given a voter account".
>>>>
>>>> So, even if Bestbits members who are not part of IGC joined
>>>> then they couldn't vote right away. Shouldn't we wait for
>>>> 2-3 months? If there is a time sensitive reason not to,
>>>> that would be good to discuss.
>>>>
>>>> For clarity, revising the IGC charter was only ever an
>>>> idea, its not been agreed to anywhere by anyone. It's just
>>>> something to discuss, further down the line. Perhaps.
>>>>
>>>> Best
>>>> Sheetal
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, 17 Jul 2019 at 12:40, Nnenna Nwakanma
>>>> <governance at lists.riseup.net
>>>> <mailto:governance at lists.riseup.net>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I think we can pull off an IGC elections by Berlin IGF.
>>>> Joining the IGC from BB should not be "a process".
>>>>
>>>> Once an individual decides that it is worth it.. it
>>>> only takes a click to accept the charter and be added
>>>> to the mailing list.
>>>>
>>>> My 2 cents
>>>>
>>>> Nnenna
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Jul 17, 2019 at 11:36 AM Suresh Ramasubramanian
>>>> <suresh at hserus.net <mailto:suresh at hserus.net>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Much to my surprise I agree with Parminder. If
>>>> Bestbits is to be wound up, so be it.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> After which, those from Bestbits who wish to caucus
>>>> in the IGC please subscribe to the list and do so.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *From: *<governance-request at lists.riseup.net
>>>> <mailto:governance-request at lists.riseup.net>> on
>>>> behalf of parminder <parminder at itforchange.net
>>>> <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>>
>>>> *Reply to: *parminder <parminder at itforchange.net
>>>> <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>>
>>>> *Date: *Wednesday, 17 July 2019 at 4:50 pm
>>>> *To: *Arsène Tungali <arsenebaguma at gmail.com
>>>> <mailto:arsenebaguma at gmail.com>>, Sheetal Kumar
>>>> <sheetal at gp-digital.org
>>>> <mailto:sheetal at gp-digital.org>>
>>>> *Cc: *"ian.peter at ianpeter.com
>>>> <mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com>"
>>>> <ian.peter at ianpeter.com
>>>> <mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com>>, "Salanieta T.
>>>> Tamanikaiwaimaro"
>>>> <salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com
>>>> <mailto:salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com>>,
>>>> governance <governance at lists.riseup.net
>>>> <mailto:governance at lists.riseup.net>>
>>>> *Subject: *Re: [governance] Reviving IGC: Merging
>>>> Bestbits in, IGF Day zero event and other subjects
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 17/07/19 3:25 PM, Arsène Tungali wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Good point, Sheetal and I agree with you.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I had briefly discussed the election issue with Bruna during the last
>>>>
>>>> ICANN meeting and we agreed that the best time to conduct co-co
>>>>
>>>> elections is right after the merger step is completed, the new charter
>>>>
>>>> has been adopted and we have a unified list. I am sure Bruna was
>>>>
>>>> planning to report this to the list at some point, but here you are.
>>>>
>>>> Arsene
>>>>
>>>> I am not sure what you mean about a unified list...
>>>>
>>>> There is a clear, and rather easy, way to join the
>>>> IGC, and it is up to to those in Bestbits and not
>>>> already in IGC to take that route if they want to.
>>>> Meanwhile we do welcome all civil society members
>>>> adhering to iGC's charter (rather than insisting
>>>> for, unclear and unstated reasons, to modify it).
>>>>
>>>> And there is really no merger involved here, even
>>>> if people loosely use that language .
>>>>
>>>> I remain astonished about the repeated talk about a
>>>> new IGC charter, especially as an already decided
>>>> thing! What exactly are you talking about.
>>>>
>>>> And I am further pained for you, being still
>>>> perhaps an IGC co-coordinator, not at all
>>>> responding to my clear email about how this elist
>>>> is the primary work place for the IGC, and also an
>>>> ex-coordinator's assent tp the sentiment.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I would suggest we all plan to attend the call and agree on next steps.
>>>>
>>>> You can make whatever calls and agree on whatever
>>>> steps you have you may wish to -- that is no part
>>>> of IGC's procedure, and would have no meaning or
>>>> consequence for it.
>>>>
>>>> regards
>>>>
>>>> parminder
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>>
>>>> Arsene
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 2019-07-17 11:44 UTC+02:00, Sheetal Kumar <sheetal at gp-digital.org> <mailto:sheetal at gp-digital.org>:
>>>>
>>>> Dear all,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> While the closure of Bestbits is an internal matter for Bestbits, we have
>>>>
>>>> agreed for it to be closed and so I'd say any IGC conversations need to
>>>>
>>>> take that into account. We're at that point where the closure has been
>>>>
>>>> agreed but there are still people on Bestbits who are not on IGC but likely
>>>>
>>>> will sign up to be part of the discussions soon.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> As such, shouldn't we wait for those from Bestbits who want to join to join
>>>>
>>>> and we can then get the IGC coordinator elections going? The call to agree
>>>>
>>>> next steps and make sure everyone is on the same page is going to be w/c
>>>>
>>>> August 5.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Best
>>>>
>>>> Sheetal
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, 17 Jul 2019 at 06:29, ian.peter at ianpeter.com <mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com>
>>>>
>>>> <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> <mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com>
>>>>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Bruna,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On a more substantive matter -
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Can you also advise us on how progress is going as regards getting the
>>>>
>>>> IGC
>>>>
>>>> Coordinator elections (which were due last January) underway? On June 26
>>>>
>>>> you advised the list that you. would be talking to Arsene and would get
>>>>
>>>> back to the list ASAP. Do you have an update?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Ian Peter
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ------ Original Message ------
>>>>
>>>> From: "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" <governance at lists.riseup.net> <mailto:governance at lists.riseup.net>
>>>>
>>>> To: "Parminder" <parminder at itforchange.net> <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>
>>>>
>>>> Cc: "governance" <governance at lists.riseup.net> <mailto:governance at lists.riseup.net>
>>>>
>>>> Sent: 17/07/2019 2:14:13 PM
>>>>
>>>> Subject: Re: [governance] Reviving IGC: Merging Bestbits in, IGF Day zero
>>>>
>>>> event and other subjects
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Agree with Parminder.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, 17 Jul 2019, 5:11 am parminder, <parminder at itforchange.net> <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>
>>>>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> HI Bruna/ All
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Good morning to all!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Bestbits' merging into the IGC is their internal matter.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> As for a day zero event at the IGF for the IGC, when do you plan it...
>>>>
>>>> Just Net Coalition has an event post lunch on day zero, and please
>>>>
>>>> ensure
>>>>
>>>> that these do not clash. Thanks.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> While as a secondary or adjunct method call based discussions can be
>>>>
>>>> done
>>>>
>>>> among however wishes to do so, the charter clearly says that the main
>>>>
>>>> and
>>>>
>>>> authoritative space of IGC's work will be this e-list, which I request
>>>>
>>>> everyone's attention to.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> thanks and best regards
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> parminder
>>>>
>>>> On 17/07/19 7:32 AM, Bruna Martins dos Santos (via
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *
>>>> *
>>>> *Sheetal Kumar*
>>>> 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> <mailto:igc-unsubscribe at lists.riseup.net>
>>> List help: <https://riseup.net/lists> <https://riseup.net/lists>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> *
>> *
>> *Sheetal Kumar*
>> 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
> <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>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20190719/926ed241/attachment.htm>
More information about the Governance
mailing list