[Internal-cg] bylaws feedback
Subrenat, Jean-Jacques
jjs at dyalog.net
Thu May 12 07:21:28 UTC 2016
Thank you Alissa. I fully support this statement.
Jean-Jacques.
----- Mail original -----
De: "Alissa Cooper" <alissa at cooperw.in>
À: "Kavouss Arasteh" <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>
Cc: "Lynn St.Amour" <Lynn at LStAmour.org>, "Milton L Mueller" <milton at gatech.edu>, "IANA etc etcCoordination Group" <internal-cg at ianacg.org>
Envoyé: Mercredi 11 Mai 2016 21:11:25
Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] bylaws feedback
I’d like us to close out on this. If anyone objects to us submitting the text below as a public comment on the draft bylaws, please say so by Friday, May 13 at 23:59. If there are no objections, I’ll submit it.
---
The ICG appreciates the opportunity to comment on the draft ICANN Bylaws.
The ICG previously communicated concerns about Section 1.1(d)(ii) to the Bylaws drafting group [1]. However, these concerns were not addressed in the draft Bylaws that were posted for public comment.
Section 1.1(d) "grandfathers" a number of agreements into the Bylaws in order to prevent parties from challenging those agreements on the basis that they violate the ICANN Mission statement. Under Section 1.1(d)(ii), (A) applies to RA/RAA agreements; (B)-(D) apply to agreements between ICANN and the NRO, ASO, IETF, RZM, and PTI; and (E) applies to ICANN's Five-Year Strategic Plan and Five-Year Operating Plan. (F) applies the grandfathering to renewals of the agreements appearing in (B)-(E).
The ICG process was fashioned to ensure that the transition plans reflected the consensus of the Internet community and allowed the operational communities to define their own transition plans. The ICG and the CCWG proposals define those wishes, and any changes to the Bylaws were to be to implement those wishes, nothing more. Yet Sections 1.1(d)(ii)(B)-(E) are outside the scope of both the ICG and the CCWG proposals. Unlike Section 1.1(d)(ii)(A), the substance of which was debated in the CCWG and is documented in paragraph 147 of the CCWG proposal, the substance of (B)-(E) have not enjoyed appropriate community involvement or review. These sections affect much of the Internet community since they apply to agreements with a variety of external parties, including all of the operational communities.
Because several of the referenced agreements have not yet been written and most have not yet been agreed to by the relevant parties, the draft Bylaws essentially allow these external agreements to define ICANN's Mission. This seems like a bad idea for many reasons, not the least of which is that it creates the possibility for the agreements to contradict or circumvent the desires of the community who worked hard to clarify and correctly state ICANN’s Mission throughout the IANA stewardship transition process (see paragraphs 140-147 of the CCWG proposal).
The ICG believes that in order for the Bylaws to be considered consistent with the transition plans, Sections 1.1(d)(ii)(B)-(E) need to be removed, and Section 1.1(d)(ii)(F) needs to be edited to apply only to Section 1.1(d)(ii)(A). This assumes that (F) is indeed called for by paragraph 147 of the CCWG proposal, which we leave for the CCWG to judge.
Regards,
Alissa Cooper on behalf of the ICG
> On May 6, 2016, at 2:59 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Jean Jaques
> Tks
> This is what I and you pushed since long time but have not yet been heard
> Kavousd
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>> On 5 May 2016, at 09:43, Narelle Clark <narelle.clark at accan.org.au> wrote:
>>
>> Jean-Jacques has the rationale exactly.
>>
>> +1
>>
>> Narelle
>>
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of
>>> Subrenat, Jean-Jacques
>>> Sent: Wednesday, 4 May 2016 4:28 PM
>>> To: Martin Boyle
>>> Cc: Lynn St.Amour; Milton L Mueller; IANA etc etcCoordination Group
>>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] bylaws feedback
>>>
>>> Hello Alissa & All,
>>>
>>> I support the draft as it now stands, in order to
>>> - warn against any initiative or mechanism which would endanger the
>>> Transition proposal before it has even been thoroughly vetted in
>>> Washington,
>>> - underline the risk of the ICANN Mission being susceptible to modification
>>> by external texts or undertakings, some of which are not yet in existence,
>>> - demand the withdrawal of Sections 1.1(d)(ii)(B)-(E), and the modification
>>> of Section 1.1(d)(ii)(F) so as to apply only to Section 1.1(d)(ii)(A).
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>> Jean-Jacques.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ----- Mail original -----
>>> De: "Martin Boyle" <Martin.Boyle at nominet.uk>
>>> À: "Alissa Cooper" <alissa at cooperw.in>, "Milton L Mueller"
>>> <milton at gatech.edu>
>>> Cc: "Lynn St.Amour" <Lynn at LStAmour.org>, "IANA etc etcCoordination
>>> Group" <internal-cg at ianacg.org>
>>> Envoyé: Mercredi 4 Mai 2016 00:15:40
>>> Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] bylaws feedback
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Hi Alissa, all,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I agree with you, Alissa. This sort of detail does seem to me to go well
>>> beyond the remit of the ICG and we should certainly not be seeking to
>>> upset areas already agreed in the CCWG-Accountability process.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> For the rest of this, I am afraid I have not been following the CCWG process
>>> carefully enough to have a view of where the text bylaw drafting goes
>>> beyond the consensus of the proposal. I’ll try to look at it tomorrow, but on
>>> my cursory reading of the arguments below, this does look like a legitimate
>>> input from the ICG.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Hope this helps
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Martin
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of
>>> Alissa Cooper
>>> Sent: 03 May 2016 22:10
>>> To: Mueller, Milton L <milton at gatech.edu>
>>> Cc: Lynn St.Amour <Lynn at LStAmour.org>; IANA etc etcCoordination Group
>>> <internal-cg at ianacg.org>
>>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] bylaws feedback
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I don’t have an opinion about the substance of the RA/RAA renewals, but I
>>> don’t think they are within the scope of what the ICG should comment on.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The renewal of RA and RAA agreements were discussed on today’s CCWG
>>> call (as well as on several previous CCWG calls and the CCWG mailing list). It
>>> appears that the CCWG will be commenting on these renewals in its own
>>> comments about the Bylaws, and will be supporting the existing language in
>>> (F) as it applies to the RA and RAA agreements. Considering that the CCWG
>>> appears to have discussed this topic at great length and has consensus on
>>> it, I don’t think the same argument we are making about (B)-(E) applies to
>>> the RA/RAA renewals.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The CCWG is planning to submit its comments by May 10, so there should
>>> be more clarity about exactly what they intend to say soon.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Alissa
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On May 3, 2016, at 9:59 AM, Mueller, Milton L < milton at gatech.edu >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> (F) applies the grandfathering to renewals of the agreements appearing in
>>> (B)-(D).
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> MM: not correct: (F) applies the grandfathering to renewals of A – D. It
>>> reads:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> “(F) any renewals of agreements described in subsections (A)-(D) pursuant
>>> to their terms and conditions for renewal.”
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> As I said in my initial comment, renewals of RA and RAA agreements are the
>>> most susceptible to bypassing mission limitations, because ICANN has the
>>> most expansive powers over names and the names community, unlike
>>> numbers and protocols, has not created a viable mechanism for changing
>>> the IFO.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Picture this scenario: ICANN adds a highly regulatory requirement to the
>>> .com contract renewal; requiring it to pre-screen content in all .com second-
>>> level registrations. We might say, “this obviously violates the prohibition of
>>> content regulation in the mission statement,” but ICANN legal replies: “oh
>>> no, this is a renewal of the com agreement and therefore it is exempt from
>>> any such challenge.”
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> If someone can show me that I am wrong legally about this possibility I’d be
>>> happy to drop it. But I haven’t seen any convincing arguments as to how
>>> this would not be possible.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Therefore it would be extremely difficult for me to sign on to this statement
>>> if it does not mention the RA/RAA renewals problem and I frankly think
>>> we’d be missing the boat in a big way.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --MM
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The ICG process was fashioned to ensure that the transition plans reflected
>>> the consensus of the Internet community and allowed the operational
>>> communities to define their own transition plans. The ICG and the CCWG
>>> proposals define those wishes, and any changes to the Bylaws were to be to
>>> implement those wishes, nothing more. Yet Sections 1.1(d)(ii)(B)-(E) are
>>> outside the scope of both the ICG and the CCWG proposals. Unlike Section
>>> 1.1(d)(ii)(A), the substance of which was debated in the CCWG and is
>>> documented in paragraph 147 of the CCWG proposal, the substance of (B)-
>>> (E) have not enjoyed appropriate community involvement or review. These
>>> sections affect much of the Internet community since they apply to
>>> agreements with a variety of external parties, including all of the
>>> operational communities.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Because several of the referenced agreements have not yet been written
>>> and most have not yet been agreed to by the relevant parties, the draft
>>> Bylaws essentially allow these external agreements to define ICANN's
>>> Mission. This seems like a bad idea for many reasons, not the least of which
>>> is that it creates the possibility for the agreements to contradict or
>>> circumvent the desires of the community who worked hard to clarify and
>>> correctly state ICANN’s Mission throughout the IANA stewardship
>>> transition process (see paragraphs 140-147 of the CCWG proposal).
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The ICG believes that in order for the Bylaws to be considered consistent
>>> with the transition plans, Sections 1.1(d)(ii)(B)-(E) need to be removed, and
>>> Section 1.1(d)(ii)(F) needs to be edited to apply only to Section 1.1(d)(ii)(A).
>>> This assumes that (F) is indeed called for by paragraph 147 of the CCWG
>>> proposal, which we leave for the CCWG to judge.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Alissa Cooper on behalf of the ICG
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> [1] http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/2016-
>>> April/004877.html
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Apr 30, 2016, at 8:16 AM, Mueller, Milton L < milton at gatech.edu >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Ok, I have had time to read the transcript. I am even more strongly
>>> committed to developing a comment as ICG.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Alissa said on the call that 1.1.d.(ii) “creates a giant loophole that allows all
>>> of the work that was done to more precisely define the mission statement
>>> of ICANN in these bylaws ...to be completely contravened by whatever gets
>>> written into the ICANN PTI contract Because what this is says is that no one
>>> in the future will ever be able to challenge that contract on the basis that it
>>> contravenes the mission.”
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> [and, I might add, the RZM contract, and renewals of registry contracts].
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The only answer I saw to this was that we don’t need to worry about it
>>> because the PTI contract will be put up for public comment.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Alissa also made the point:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "this memo ... seems to imply that ... the most important thing out of all of
>>> this is that ICANN can continue to perform the IANA function. And I think
>>> what we all learned in (unintelligible) in terms of what the ICG proposal says
>>> is that in fact that is not the most important thing. The most important
>>> thing is that the IANA functions can continue to be performed by some
>>> operator who’s capable of performing them according to the service level
>>> agreements that the community ...has. And those two things are not the
>>> same. And I certainly –I will put my IETF hat on here for a second and say
>>> that I think from an IETF perspective the important thing is that a protocol
>>> parameters functions can continue to be performed, not that they can only
>>> continue to be performed by ICANN."
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I don't think this argument of Alissa was ever answered. It seems like there
>>> could be ways of drafting these sections that do not commit us to a specific
>>> contract but makes it clear that performance of the IANA functions is not
>>> challengable as a mission violation so long as the community actually wants
>>> ICANN to perform those functions.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Indeed, I am having trouble understanding the threat that these sections
>>> are supposed to avoid.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> However, the most dangerous mission-limitation-busting potential is in the
>>> renewals section (F). This is problematic partly because the CCWG never
>>> agreed to exempt renewals. We agreed to grandfather existing agreements,
>>> for the sake of stability. But the assumption was that if anything in these
>>> existing agreements contravened the new mission limitations, that they
>>> COULD be challenged during a renewal process. A contract renewal with a
>>> registry could include all kinds of regulatory measures that exceed the
>>> mission, and if these measures are framed as a "renewal of an existing
>>> agreement" then ICANN could in principle get away with anything.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> So I hope we are able to make it clear to ICANN and the CCWG that these
>>> provisions need to be changed..
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> From: Alissa Cooper [ mailto:alissa at cooperw.in ]
>>> Sent: Friday, April 29, 2016 3:00 PM
>>> To: Mueller, Milton L < milton at gatech.edu >
>>> Cc: Lynn St.Amour < Lynn at LStAmour.org >; IANA etc etcCoordination
>>> Group < internal-cg at ianacg.org >
>>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] bylaws feedback
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> For folks following this issue, it is definitely worth reading the transcript or
>>> listening to the recording of the last CCWG call:
>>> https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=58730392
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The more that I have thought about this, it has become clear to me that the
>>> core issue here is that there is a portion of bylaws section 1.1(d) that is not
>>> called for either by our proposal or by the CCWG proposal, as Lynn says.
>>> Had the content of 1.1(d)(ii)(B-E) been discussed as part of the transition
>>> proposal development, I think the concerns being raised now would have
>>> been raised then, and the whole community would have had time to sort
>>> them out. (I note that there was an extended discussion about RA/RAA
>>> agreements in the CCWG and that did result in text in its proposal in
>>> paragraph 147, which is reflected in 1.1(d)(ii)(A). But that does not extend
>>> to any other agreements.) Sections 1.1(d)(ii)(B-E) seem to have been created
>>> out of whole cloth by the bylaws drafting team, and that was not within
>>> their remit in my opinion. The Bylaws are just supposed to implement the
>>> proposals.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I think there are substantive issues too, but from an ICG perspective we
>>> may or may not want to focus on those.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I would support sending a comment. We sent a message early on during the
>>> bylaws drafting and received no response, and the call to discuss this didn’t
>>> even occur until after the bylaws were put out for public comment.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Alissa
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Apr 29, 2016, at 11:17 AM, Mueller, Milton L < milton at gatech.edu >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I support what you are saying. I take it you are not satisfied with the
>>> lawyers' explanation? I was not able to attend the 0:400 call a few days ago
>>> so was not able to question them about it or hear their answers.
>>>
>>> --MM
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Lynn St.Amour [ mailto:Lynn at LStAmour.org ]
>>> Sent: Friday, April 29, 2016 1:55 PM
>>> To: Alissa Cooper < alissa at cooperw.in >; Mueller, Milton L <
>>> milton at gatech.edu >; IANA etc etcCoordination Group <internal-
>>> cg at ianacg.org >
>>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] bylaws feedback
>>>
>>> Hi Alissa, Milton, all,
>>>
>>> I would like to come back to this subject. Specifically, I would like to
>>> propose that the ICG send in a statement to the By-laws comment period.
>>>
>>> Alissa commented on a specific concern (see thread below) and I also
>>> believe the ICG should be concerned about the overreach in the draft
>>> bylaws.
>>>
>>> My main concerns are:
>>>
>>> - the fact that these draft by-laws, through the grand-fathering provisions,
>>> allow external agreements to define ICANN's Mission which seems like a
>>> bad idea for many reasons. Further, this contradicts the desires of the
>>> community (or is a run around the community - intentional or not) who
>>> worked hard to clarify and correctly state ICANN’s mission throughout the
>>> IANA Transition process (paragraphs 140-144 of the CCWG-Accountability
>>> proposal).
>>>
>>> - the ICG process was fashioned to ensure that the transition plans reflected
>>> the consensus of the Internet community. And, it was to respect the roles
>>> and responsibilities of the OCs in defining their own transition plans. The
>>> ICG and the CCWG reports define those wishes, and any changes to the
>>> bylaws were to be to implement those wishes, nothing more. Yet provisions
>>> in sections
>>> 1.1(d)(ii)(B)-(D) are outside the scope of both the ICG and the CCWG-
>>> Accountability proposals, and so there has not been appropriate
>>> community involvement or review for those changes. Note: these sections
>>> affect much of the Internet community, as they apply to agreements
>>> between ICANN and the ASO, NRO, IETF, Root Zone Maintainer, and PTI.
>>>
>>> For transparency: the IAB/IETF are also concerned about the overreach and
>>> are drafting their own comments, and as an IAB appointee to the ICG, I am
>>> part of that review as well.
>>>
>>> If there is support for the ICG sending in a comment, I would be happy to
>>> work with Alissa and others to draft something for ICG review.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Lynn
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Apr 12, 2016, at 3:15 PM, Alissa Cooper < alissa at cooperw.in > wrote:
>>>
>>> From the minutes it looks like this was discussed on the CCWG call and
>>> there
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> will be follow-up.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Apr 12, 2016, at 8:39 AM, Mueller, Milton L < milton at gatech.edu >
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I sent it yesterday but there has been no response at all.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Alissa Cooper [ mailto:alissa at cooperw.in ]
>>> Sent: Monday, April 11, 2016 4:54 PM
>>> To: Mueller, Milton L < milton at gatech.edu >
>>> Cc: IANA etc etcCoordination Group < internal-cg at ianacg.org >
>>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] bylaws feedback
>>>
>>> I think that would be fine.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Alissa
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Apr 11, 2016, at 1:04 PM, Mueller, Milton L < milton at gatech.edu >
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Alissa
>>> If you don't mind I will just forward your message to the bylaws
>>> and CWG
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> lists.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> If there is some other way you want me to do this, please let me know.
>>>
>>> --MM
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Internal-cg [ mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org ] On
>>> Behalf Of Alissa Cooper
>>> Sent: Monday, April 11, 2016 1:49 PM
>>> To: IANA etc etcCoordination Group < internal-cg at ianacg.org >
>>> Subject: [Internal-cg] bylaws feedback
>>>
>>> I have looked a bit at the draft bylaws and I’d like to ask
>>> Kavouss and Milton to bring the following issue back to the bylaws
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> drafting group:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Section 1.1(d)(ii) incorporates by reference a number of documents
>>> external to the bylaws as a means to prevent challenges on the
>>> basis that those documents conflict with or violate the bylaws. In
>>> particular, bullet (D) applies this provision to "the IANA Naming
>>> Function Contract between ICANN and PTI effective [October 1, 2016]."
>>>
>>> Given the ICG's historical encouragement of the community to meet
>>> timelines necessary for a successful transition, I find this
>>> provision to be extremely problematic. It incorporates a reference
>>> to a document that does not exist yet and that is unlikely to be
>>> completed by the time the bylaws are supposed to be done (early
>>> June). In fact, it is not even clear at this point whether the new
>>> ICANN affiliate to be setup will be name "PTI" or have some other
>>> name. I don't understand how anyone can reason about whether
>>> 1.1(d)(ii) is an acceptable bylaws provision if it references a
>>> document that has not been written. (This also applies to (B) and
>>> (C) since it could apply to future documents that haven’t been
>>> written
>>> yet.)
>>>
>>> Furthermore, I question whether it is a sound decision to
>>> essentially allow for documents external to the bylaws to be able
>>> to modify the bylaws (under (F)). This section would make more
>>> sense if it was entirely internally specified, without the
>>> references to external documents. At a minimum, I think we should
>>> recommend that (D) be
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> removed.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Alissa
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Internal-cg mailing list
>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Internal-cg mailing list
>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Internal-cg mailing list
>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org
>> _______________________________________________
>> Internal-cg mailing list
>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org
>
> _______________________________________________
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org
_______________________________________________
Internal-cg mailing list
Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org
More information about the Internal-cg
mailing list