This mailing list is no longer active and has been transitioned to discuss@1net.org. Members of the I-coordination mailing list have been moved to the new mailing list. To learn more, visit 1net.org.

[I-coordination] ICANN's role vis-a-vis the Internet ecosystem

Grigori Saghyan gregor at arminco.com
Fri Dec 13 19:13:52 CET 2013


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Nathalie,
very important questions!
Grigori Saghyan
ISOC.AM

On 13.12.2013 19:14, nathalie coupet wrote:
> Hello Chris,
> 
> I would like to understand the motivation behind the selection of
> this particular structure for ICANN, as well as any structural
> changes made by the Staff or others since 1999 (like the
> introduction of ALAC, etc.); the thought process for deciding to
> divide stakeholders in 'sectors' (At-Large, GAC, GNSO) and the
> technical community; how the division of the GNSO in - I believe 6
> stakeholder groups - was approved and why; who is At-Large
> representing and statistics, as well as the nomination process; the
> role of commissions and how they affect the decision-making 
> process; the issue of membership and voting rights.
> 
> Also a legal analysis of the by-laws, the rights it affords and 
> restrictions it imposes on representation; the issue of poor
> countries' access to ICANN's decision-making process (the
> 'compelling need to travel of the I* community' and its impact on
> participation, does ICANN's Fellowship Program compensate for such
> restrictions on participation, and does it matter).
> 
> How is consensus built in WGs? Is it rough consensus, majority of
> votes (by raising hands) and why this choice? Who does the current
> structures and voting processes favor and why? In which stakeholder
> group?
> 
> The 12th-hour interventions by the GAC is a structural weakness in 
> ICANN's participation of all stakeholders on an equal footing. How
> does this not invalidate the multistakeholder model at ICANN? Is
> the GAC the appropriate venue for states to participate in the
> process? What a bout a piecemeal approach for each group?     Could
> we imagine a model that would be inclusive from the start to allow
> for objections to be worked out earlier in the decision-making
> process? i.e. the circular motion of people to all functions
> (deliberative, executive, review) ? It's impact on the legitimacy
> of the entire review process.
> 
> The powers of the Board; is ICANN moving into the political sphere?
> Is this an extension of its mandate and why? Does ICANN have the
> power to negotiate treaties? Why/why not? Are there external audits
> being performed? Or just internal reviews of the Board's actions?
> 
> I will have more questions with time...:)
> 
> Nathalie
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> 
*From:* Chris Disspain <ceo at auda.org.au>
> *To:* nathalie coupet <nathaliecoupet at yahoo.com> *Cc:*
> i-coordination at nro.net *Sent:* Thursday, December 12, 2013 5:32 PM 
> *Subject:* Re: [I-coordination] ICANN's role vis-a-vis the
> Internet ecosystem
> 
> Hi Nathalie,
> 
> Perhaps you could clarify who you mean by 'ICANN's architects'? And
> what you mean by 'each grouping, each division'? Happy to help
> answer questions once I'm clear on the context.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Chris Disspain| Chief Executive Officer .au Domain Administration
> Ltd
> 
> 
> 
> On 13/12/2013, at 05:29 , nathalie coupet
> <nathaliecoupet at yahoo.com <mailto:nathaliecoupet at yahoo.com>>
> wrote:
> 
>> George,
>> 
>> Why don't we ask ICANN's architects to explain point-by-point
>> the reason behind each grouping, each division? We could start
>> from there and comment on what they said. If I have all these
>> questions unanswered, I'm sure others might too.   And this would
>> give us something tangible to work on. If this was already done,
>> please tell me how I can find this document.
>> 
>> Thank you.
>> 
>> Nathalie
>> 
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> 
*From:* George Sadowsky <george.sadowsky at gmail.com
>> <mailto:george.sadowsky at gmail.com>> *To:* Nathalie Coupet
>> <nathaliecoupet at yahoo.com <mailto:nathaliecoupet at yahoo.com>> 
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, December 11, 2013 3:27 PM *Subject:* Re:
>> ICANN's role vis-a-vis the Internet ecosystem
>> 
>> Nathalie,
>> 
>> Milton Mueller has always questioned ICANN's legitimacy, but he
>> is in the minority.
>> 
>> I don't think that Bill Drake (University of Zurich) questions
>> ICANN's legitimacy.
>> 
>> The tradeoffs are what we are trying to come to grips with as a 
>> community/industry.  If you are very interested, I suggest that
>> you apply to the ICANN Fellowship program and try to attend an
>> ICANN meeting.  I  note that others on the list have been helpful
>> in steering you to some useful sources of information.
>> 
>> Regards,
>> 
>> George
>> 
>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>
>>
>>
>> 
On Dec 11, 2013, at 8:00 AM, Nathalie Coupet wrote:
>> 
>>> Good morning George,
>>> 
>>> It can be hard to be enthusiastic about participating in
>>> ICANN's
>> structure(s) when there seems to be such a deficit in
>> legitimacy: Robert Mueller and Mr. Walker from the University of
>> Zurich has well documented them.
>>> If we could better understand the trade-offs of such
>>> organizational
>> choices (bringing to light the hidden aspects of the iceberg),
>> it might reduce the frustration of all participants and future
>> volunteers at ICANN and inject some new blood in the WGs.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> My .02 cents Nathalie
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>> 
>>> On Dec 10, 2013, at 1:12 PM, i-coordination-request at nro.net
>> <mailto:i-coordination-request at nro.net> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Send I-coordination mailing list submissions to 
>>>> i-coordination at nro.net <mailto:i-coordination at nro.net>
>>>> 
>>>> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit 
>>>> https://nro.net/mailman/listinfo/i-coordination or, via
>>>> email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to 
>>>> i-coordination-request at nro.net
>>>> <mailto:i-coordination-request at nro.net>
>>>> 
>>>> You can reach the person managing the list at 
>>>> i-coordination-owner at nro.net
>>>> <mailto:i-coordination-owner at nro.net>
>>>> 
>>>> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more
>>>> specific than "Re: Contents of I-coordination digest..."
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Today's Topics:
>>>> 
>>>> 1. Re: Europe at a tipping point? (Carlos A. Afonso) 2. East
>>>> [Internet] Germany vs West [Internet] Germany (Techno CAT) 3.
>>>> ICANN's role via-?-vis the Internet ecosystem and Internet 
>>>> goverance (George Sadowsky) 4. Will ISOC ICANN... Co-Opt One
>>>> of Every 63 Internet    Users? (Techno CAT)
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>>> 
>> 
>>>> Message: 1 Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 15:37:00 -0200 From:
>>>> "Carlos A. Afonso" <ca at cafonso.ca <mailto:ca at cafonso.ca>> 
>>>> Subject: Re: [I-coordination] Europe at a tipping point? To:
>>>> Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam at gmail.com
>> <mailto:hallam at gmail.com>>,    Peter Dengate Thrush
>>>> <barrister at chambers.gen.nz
>>>> <mailto:barrister at chambers.gen.nz>> Cc:
>>>> "I-coordination at nro.net <mailto:I-coordination at nro.net>"
>> <i-coordination at nro.net <mailto:i-coordination at nro.net>>
>>>> Message-ID: <52A7513C.1070908 at cafonso.ca
>> <mailto:52A7513C.1070908 at cafonso.ca>>
>>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>>>> 
>>>> Before we end up blaming just govs for everything bad in the
>>>> world, let us remind ourselves that the dictatorships or
>>>> "authoritatian regimes" are fundamentally sustained by big
>>>> wigs of the private sector operating within or outside their
>>>> borders, with the help (or outright lead) of a major power.
>>>> 
>>>> Now we have the "five-eyes" group of countries which are part
>>>> of the most massive, pervasive, permanent violation of
>>>> private rights ever -- this pervasiness and massive
>>>> no-barriers operation with
>> state-of-the-art
>>>> techs, special legislation and money-is-no-object power
>>>> involves
>> five of
>>>> the so-called advanced democracies (yes, NZ and AU included),
>>>> spying on their own citizens at will, and on any other
>>>> citizen in the world, violating constitutions, bills of
>>>> rights, fairness in trial and prosecution, you name it. And
>>>> the major objective is not security, is economic leverage
>>>> (latest case: Aussies unlawfully peeking into East Timorese
>>>> offices to gain leverage in an oil&gas exploration deal).
>>>> 
>>>> So, what is the decision? We band together in a Brancaleone
>>>> bunch to keep ourselves in a fringe and achieve nothing or
>>>> try and work together with those horribly untrustful guys,
>>>> trying to converge to a reasonable outcome of ensuring
>>>> neutrality of the net, privacy, due process or law and
>>>> overall basic respect for human rights?
>>>> 
>>>> fraternal regards
>>>> 
>>>> --c.a.
>>>> 
>>>> On 12/10/2013 03:13 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 5:27 AM, Peter Dengate Thrush < 
>>>>> barrister at chambers.gen.nz
>>>>> <mailto:barrister at chambers.gen.nz>> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Hello Carlos, One of the delights of the ccTLD world is
>>>>>> the diversity of governance models, including the varying
>>>>>> degrees of government involvement,
>> ranging
>>>>>> from complete government ownership and control to no
>>>>>> government
>> presence at
>>>>>> all.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> What are the advantages ( assuming some) of having govt
>> representatives
>>>>>> round the table in Brazil? Is there a different kind of
>>>>>> interaction (qualitatively or
>> quantitatively)
>>>>>> between the reps. from Federal and the State rep?  Are
>>>>>> there
>> issues where
>>>>>> it would have been better to have had no government
>>>>>> reps..,more?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I can imagine other cultures less "robust" than Brazil
>>>>>> where the
>> presence
>>>>>> of even 1 government official would have a chilling
>>>>>> effect: is
>> having
>>>>>> government presence ever a problem in Brazil?
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> At what time, now, in the past or at some arbitrary date in
>>>>> the
>> future?
>>>>> 
>>>>> There have certainly been times within my lifetime when the
>>>>> rulers of Brazil would murder their political enemies. And
>>>>> the US was an
>> active and
>>>>> willing participant in many of those crimes.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> As a non-US citizen I get rather annoyed by the pom-pom
>>>>> waving
>> celebrations
>>>>> of "US ideals" of freedom and justice given the very recent
>>>>> history of working for the dictators. I also get rather
>>>>> annoyed by the
>> condescension
>>>>> that US politicians often display towards the countries
>>>>> whose progress their country has been disrupting.
>>>>> 
>>>>> No government has clean hands here. At the end of the cold
>>>>> war
>> Margaret
>>>>> Thatcher claimed to be speaking on behalf of all the
>>>>> Western
>> governments
>>>>> when she urged Gorbachev to send in the tanks to stop the
>>>>> fall of the Berlin wall.
>>>>> 
>>>>> The problem is that governments are made up of factions and
>>>>> just
>> as  every
>>>>> country has a communist faction, every country has a
>>>>> fascist one.
>> And most
>>>>> often those fascist tendencies bubble up to the surface in
>>>>> the
>> corridors of
>>>>> power. When JFK asked the chiefs of staff for options on
>>>>> invading
>> Cuba,
>>>>> they proposed false flag terrorist operations on US soil
>>>>> murdering US citizens as a pretext for the invasion. The
>>>>> better organized Italian fascists actually managed to carry
>>>>> out such an attack, the bologna
>> railway
>>>>> bombing.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> The fact that these fascist tendencies exist and are able
>>>>> to
>> exercise power
>>>>> even in countries like the US is part of the reason that we
>>>>> need the Internet so that it can foil such plots by
>>>>> bringing them to light.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> _______________________________________________ 
>>>>> I-coordination mailing list I-coordination at nro.net
>>>>> <mailto:I-coordination at nro.net> 
>>>>> https://nro.net/mailman/listinfo/i-coordination
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> ------------------------------
>>>> 
>>>> Message: 2 Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 11:53:29 -0600 From: Techno
>>>> CAT <mars.techno.cat at gmail.com
>> <mailto:mars.techno.cat at gmail.com>>
>>>> Subject: [I-coordination] East [Internet] Germany vs West
>>>> [Internet] Germany To: i-coordination at nro.net
>>>> <mailto:i-coordination at nro.net> Message-ID:
>>>> 
>> <CAK41CSSZSqx+0eesO2s_6GwyVapDsk717fuoeq1vZOWp_kbskw at mail.gmail.com
>>
>> 
<mailto:0eesO2s_6GwyVapDsk717fuoeq1vZOWp_kbskw at mail.gmail.com>>
>>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>>>> 
>>>> Stasi East [Internet] Germany vs West [Internet] Germany
>>>> 
>>>> Clearly - Some Humans prosper very well in the Stasi [East]
>>>> Internet of the ISOC IETF ICANN IANA NRO ARIN APNIC LACNIC
>>>> RIPE
>>>> 
>>>> ISOC - It Seeks Overall Control...of.. ...Protocol - Address
>>>> Space - Name Space - and MONEY
>>>> 
>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stasi "In 1975, Stasi recorded a
>>>> conversation between senior West German CDU politicians
>>>> Helmut Kohl and Kurt Biedenkopf. It was then "leaked" to the
>>>> Stern magazine as a transcript recorded by American
>>>> intelligence. The magazine then claimed that Americans were
>>>> wiretapping West Germans and the public believed the story."
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> East [Internet] Germany vs West [Internet] Germany
>>>> 
>>>> ...go West young people....P2P - Virtual Currency - C at T
>>>> <mailto:C at T>
>>>> 
>>>> --
>>>> 
>>>> @Techno_CAT_r http://Twitter.com/Techno_CAT_r
>>>> <http://twitter.com/Techno_CAT_r>
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> ------------------------------
>>>> 
>>>> Message: 3 Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 12:56:58 -0500 From: George
>>>> Sadowsky <george.sadowsky at gmail.com
>> <mailto:george.sadowsky at gmail.com>>
>>>> Subject: [I-coordination] ICANN's role via-?-vis the
>>>> Internet ecosystem and Internet goverance To:
>>>> i-coordination at nro.net <mailto:i-coordination at nro.net> 
>>>> Message-ID: <DA5D6486-15D3-46CC-8154-194145ACA733 at gmail.com
>> <mailto:DA5D6486-15D3-46CC-8154-194145ACA733 at gmail.com>>
>>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>>>> 
>>>> [I make these remarks in my individual capacity]
>>>> 
>>>> Bob Bruen is absolutely correct in that the US is not holding
>>>> back
>> the rest of the world in becoming involved in ICANN.  ICANN
>> values inputs from all over the world.  The US government, while
>> having some power with respect to delegations and redelegations
>> of top level domains, has never interfered with any
>> recommendations made by ICANN, and it would be political suicide
>> for them to do so.
>>>> 
>>>> ICANN has the responsibility for administration a small but
>>>> crucial
>> element of the global Internet ecosystem, viz. the administration
>> of the domain name andIP address space.  These elements are
>> central to navigating the Internet, and are highly visible.
>>>> 
>>>> The question of what is Internet governance received one
>>>> answer
>> from the Working Group on Internet Governance in 2004:
>>>> 
>>>> www.wgig.org/docs/WGIGREPORT.pdf?
>> <http://www.wgig.org/docs/WGIGREPORT.pdf?>
>>>> 
>>>> although there was some dissent and an alternative definition
>>>> was
>> proposed by some.,
>>>> 
>>>> Much of what is called Internet governance should be called
>> Internet administration.  A larger definition of Internet
>> governance often includes functions that already exist in the
>> non-Internet world, such as consumer protection, privacy and
>> security of information, licensing of ISPs, acceptable use
>> policies and laws for use of resources, trade agreements,
>> intellectual property protection, etc. Those issues are mostly at
>> the national level, with some needing to be addressed
>> internationally.  On the ISO/OSI stack they are mostly well above
>> layer 7, and none of them are remotely within ICANN's remit.
>>>> 
>>>> ICANN is seeking a role in the improvement of Internet
>>>> governance
>> issues for mostly the same reason that we all are: to make the 
>> Internet a more efficient, effective, safer place for all of us
>> to occupy and exploit.  The US connection has very little if
>> anything to do with this.
>>>> 
>>>> The decentralized multi-stakeholder model that characterized
>>>> the
>> growth of the INternet ecosystem has provided all of us with an 
>> enormously powerful tool that has reshaped our lives.  If there
>> is any connection between results and legitimacy, then the
>> current model can claim as much legitimacy as anything else in
>> the world.  There is surely room for improvement, but critics of
>> the current system have an obligation to show conclusively that
>> other options are at least as sound as what exists today.
>>>> 
>>>> George Sadowsky
>>>> 
>>>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>
>>>> 
>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 11:14:48 -0500 (EST) From: Bob Bruen
>>>>> <korg at coldrain.net <mailto:korg at coldrain.net>> Subject: Re:
>>>>> [I-coordination] A different model To: Phillip Hallam-Baker
>>>>> <hallam at gmail.com <mailto:hallam at gmail.com>>
>>>>> 
>>>>> Hi Phillip,
>>>>> 
>>>>> Your thoughtful email desverves more than I am about to
>>>>> give, but
>> I want
>>>>> to make two points in response, because they relate to many
>>>>> other
>> posts.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 1) The US does have a privileged position with ICANN. This
>>>>> is the
>> result
>>>>> of history. The US invented the Internet and has driven
>>>>> much of its development. The US has not really done very
>>>>> much to influence ICANN's work, when it could have done
>>>>> more.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I understand the rest of the world wants more of a say in
>>>>> what
>> ICANN does,
>>>>> but they are not being held back by the US. The ICANN
>>>>> meetings are
>> filled
>>>>> with people from all over the world expressing their
>>>>> opinions.
>> Many of he
>>>>> top positions in ICANN (eg CEO, COO, Compliance) are help
>>>>> by
>> non-Americans
>>>>> Believe it or not, many Americans like the world wide
>>>>> input.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Attacking the US position is more of a attempt to take
>>>>> perceived power away from the US than anything else.
>>>>> Moreover, if ICANN were suddenly totally free or under the
>>>>> influence of some other government or
>> group of
>>>>> governments, there is no evidence that things would be
>>>>> better. In
>> fact,
>>>>> things could get much worse. For example, think about the
>>>>> UN Security Council's inability to do things, because one
>>>>> or two members veto a proposal.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 2) My second point is about the definition of Internet
>>>>> Governance,
>> where
>>>>> you say the Internet is ungovernable and previously pointed
>>>>> out the difference between the technical view and the
>>>>> political view. I
>> agree with
>>>>> you.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I am still looking for a definition of IG, not the policy
>>>>> choices,
>> such
>>>>> "keep it free" and "stop spying," but what can be governed
>>>>> (like your control points) and how. I worked on a
>>>>> governance  committee at a
>> college
>>>>> once. It was about sharing of power between the faculty and
>>>>> the
>> president
>>>>> over runnning the college. It was clear what was being
>>>>> governed,
>> the only
>>>>> issue was how.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Looking at the Internet, there seems to me that there is
>>>>> nothing to govern. Governments can try to control things
>>>>> like access and
>> content, but
>>>>> only within their borders.  The rest of world is not
>>>>> subject to what a particular government chooses.
>>>>> 
>>>>> If you or anyone else can provide a base definition of IG,
>>>>> I would appreciate it. What does governing the Internet
>>>>> mean?
>>>>> 
>>>>> --bob
>>>> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment
>>>> was scrubbed... URL:
>> https://nro.net/pipermail/i-coordination/attachments/20131210/1c60c87b/attachment-0001.html
>>
>> 
<https://nro.net/pipermail/i-coordination/attachments/20131210/1c60c87b/attachment-0001.html>
>>>> 
>>>> ------------------------------
>>>> 
>>>> Message: 4 Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 12:12:23 -0600 From: Techno
>>>> CAT <mars.techno.cat at gmail.com
>> <mailto:mars.techno.cat at gmail.com>>
>>>> Subject: [I-coordination] Will ISOC ICANN... Co-Opt One of
>>>> Every 63 Internet    Users? To: i-coordination at nro.net
>>>> <mailto:i-coordination at nro.net> Message-ID:
>>>> 
>> <CAK41CSS-NshEMC-ekx9rQmjqgX5m2aH_vqseaVktd+WUqK-XAQ at mail.gmail.com
>>
>> 
<mailto:WUqK-XAQ at mail.gmail.com>>
>>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>>>> 
>>>> Will ISOC ICANN... Co-Opt One of Every 63 Internet Users?
>>>> 
>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stasi "The Stasi infiltrated
>>>> almost every aspect of GDR life. In the mid-1980s, a network
>>>> of IMs began growing in both German states; by the time East
>>>> Germany collapsed in 1989, the Stasi employed 91,015 
>>>> employees and 173,081 informants.[25] About one of every 63
>>>> East Germans collaborated with the Stasi. "
>>>> 
>>>> Will ISOC ICANN... Co-Opt One of Every 63 Internet Users?
>>>> 
>>>> By the way - It is a common Internet Stasi "Trick" to claim
>>>> that they are speaking only for themselves while they report
>>>> back to their various institutions, Boards and $$$$$ FUNders
>>>> $$$$$
>>>> 
>>>> --
>>>> 
>>>> @Techno_CAT_r http://Twitter.com/Techno_CAT_r
>>>> <http://twitter.com/Techno_CAT_r>
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> ------------------------------
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________ 
>>>> I-coordination mailing list I-coordination at nro.net
>>>> <mailto:I-coordination at nro.net> 
>>>> https://nro.net/mailman/listinfo/i-coordination
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> End of I-coordination Digest, Vol 3, Issue 68 
>>>> *********************************************
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________ I-coordination
>> mailing list I-coordination at nro.net
>> <mailto:I-coordination at nro.net> 
>> https://nro.net/mailman/listinfo/i-coordination
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________ I-coordination
> mailing list I-coordination at nro.net 
> https://nro.net/mailman/listinfo/i-coordination
> 


- -- 
Grigori Saghyan
PGP Key ID: 0x48E4D5DC
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.21 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJSq05gAAoJEBp2GIFI5NXcjJgH/0WxD0K/uVEP5RYKyUUGuxe4
7XdRBiPxZDjposACaFdXuRNzPwrhufgdLZmROvVdkYqYUbuZDedv9zQWQrm8avGq
7tUGqXi0YcGOHxplkoN9t/vHpoCw9jl8hX/Wura7kRdDu1AWMjffzs1BSkMcmg/8
bT17JqbiGIfr9MEMu75Kyiqs7owVBtnttxj9a7J/zzDFlgVM/1a5vt4UFJrtKCXQ
FMRao4DDZHFyAPIHJXiDvKg08v73PFIKtk2WKhvShjemcQonIYlx+gXLNTRD+my6
Tr9ot4eiyKjVYvbIgmdCXH47nicI30RdYgWubjDPiINNG7l06vrmJPm/UhxxK9o=
=c1tF
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----



More information about the I-coordination mailing list