February 2015 - cooperation-wg

FYI: From the European Commission: human rights guidance for 3 business sectors
by Patrik Fältström 19 Jul '19

19 Jul '19

Hi, As you can see below European Commission just released human rights guidance for 3 business sectors. I have helped COM and specifically IHRB with their piece of the work, and I know others on this list have also helped. Everything from more formal support to extremely good comments that have helped making the documents what they finally ended up being. Patrik Fältström Head of Research and Development Netnod Begin forwarded message: > From: <entr-csr(a)ec.europa.eu> > Subject: From the European Commission: human rights guidance for 3 business sectors > Date: 17 juni 2013 18:23:09 CEST > To: <entr-csr(a)ec.europa.eu> > > We are pleased to announce the publication of the European Commission Sector Guides on Implementing the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. > > > Download the Guides here: http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/newsroom/cf/itemdetail.cfm?item_id=6711&lang… > > The Guides – for employment and recruitment agencies, ICT companies, and oil and gas companies – were developed over the past 18 months by Shift and IHRB through extensive research and multistakeholder consultation with representatives from the three industries as well as governments, trade unions, civil society, academia and other experts. Read more about the Guides’ development here. > > Each Guide offers practical advice on how to implement the corporate responsibility to respect human rights in day-to-day business operations in each industry through step-by-step guidance. At each step, they summarise what the UN Guiding Principles expect, offer a range of approaches and examples for how to put them into practice, and link users to additional resources that can support their work. They are intended to help companies “translate” respect for human rights into their own systems and cultures. > > Many thanks to all those who have contributed to this process. > > Best regards, > > > CSR Team > > European Commission > Enterprise and Industry Directorate-General > Unit ENTR.D.1 >

6 12

IANA Stewardship and ICANN Accountability Dominate ICANN 52 Discussions
by Chris Buckridge 23 Feb '15

23 Feb '15

Dear colleagues, The 52nd ICANN meeting was held in Singapore from 8-12 February, attracting around 1800 participants on-site, as well as numerous remote participants. The issues surrounding the transition of IANA stewardship and ICANN accountability were again at the top of the agenda, and RIPE community members and RIPE NCC staff contributed to these discussions. Discussion of the CRISP Team Proposal As discussed in the RIPE Cooperation Working Group and elsewhere, the Internet numbers community submitted its proposal for future stewardship of the number-related IANA functions to the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group. This proposal, and the counterpart proposal regarding the IANA protocol parameter registries developed within the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), were discussed in various ICANN 52 sessions, with representatives of the CRISP team, including Izumi Okutani (CRISP team Chair), Alan Barrett (CRISP team Vice-chair) and Nurani Nimpuno (RIPE CRISP team representative) contributing to discussions and ensuring all aspects of the numbers community IANA stewardship proposal were correctly understood. The meeting provided opportunities for the RIR senior staff, CRISP team members, members of the ICG, ICANN staff, NTIA staff and representatives of the other IANA affected communities to discuss implementation and operational questions arising from the community proposals already delivered. It also provided an opportunity for initial discussions between legal personnel from the RIRs and ICANN regarding development of the Service Level Agreement covering operation of the IANA Numbering Services (as defined in the numbers community IANA proposal). Links to all of the sessions dealing with IANA stewardship transition are available at: https://ripe.net/iana-discussions ICANN Accountability The Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG-Accountability) met numerous times during the week to continue its work identifying and developing solutions to accountability concerns, with a particular focus on those issues which the group identifies as critical ahead of the IANA stewardship transition. The link between these accountability solutions and a successful transition of the IANA stewardship was again emphasised by participants including Lawrence Strickling, the Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information and Administrator with the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA). RIPE NCC’s Athina Fragkouli is participating in the CCWG-Accountability as an ASO representative (alongside Izumi Okutani, Fiona Asonga and Jorge Villa), and will seek feedback from the RIPE community and provide updates as the group’s work progresses. Progress on the Naming Community Proposal Discussions during the week also focused heavily on the proposal currently under development by the Cross-Community Working Group to Develop an IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal on Naming Related Functions (commonly referred to as the CWG-Stewardship). The CWG-Stewardship’s recent announcement regarding a revised timeline that would see its proposal delivered to the ICG in June 2015 was of particular interest. There were also discussions on the substantive concerns about whether ICANN itself or a new, external contracting company would hold the stewardship of the names-related IANA functions. The Chairs of the CWG-Stewardship have released a statement summarising developments coming out of ICANN 52: https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-4-2015-02-12-en In addition, the ICANN Board issued a statement clarifying that it will promptly forward the proposals received from the ICG and the CCWG-Accountability to the NTIA, without modification: https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-3-2015-02-12-en Best regards, Chris Buckridge Senior External Relations Officer RIPE NCC

1 0

Fwd: [NRO-IANAXFER] The CRISP Team Response to "Process concern regarding the RIR proposal development process "
by Nurani Nimpuno 07 Feb '15

07 Feb '15

Dear colleagues, Please find below the email sent by the CRISP chair Izumi Okutani to the global ianaxfer(a)nro.net mailing list. The mail addresses concerns raised by some members of the list after the submission of the CRISP proposal to the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG). We very much welcome your input in this discussion, as some of the points raised concerns the amount of community support this proposal holds. Kind regards, Nurani Nimpuno on behalf of the CRISP RIPE team Begin forwarded message: > From: Izumi Okutani <izumi(a)nic.ad.jp> > Subject: [NRO-IANAXFER] Fwd: The CRISP Team Response to "Process concern regarding the RIR proposal development process " > Date: 4 februari 2015 20:54:59 CET > To: "ianaxfer(a)nro.net" <ianaxfer(a)nro.net> > > Dear all, > > > This is the CRISP Team Response to "Process concern regarding the RIR > proposal development process ", which is another post to icg-forum. > > Again, I welcome your comments and feedback about our reponse which is > likely to be a reference to the ICG. > > Explicit expressing support would be extremely helpful as well. > > > > Regards, > Izumi > > > -------- Forwarded Message -------- > Subject: The CRISP Team Response to "Process concern regarding the RIR > proposal development process " > Date: Thu, 05 Feb 2015 04:43:25 +0900 > From: Izumi Okutani <izumi(a)nic.ad.jp> > To: icg-forum(a)icann.org > CC: crisp(a)nro.net <crisp(a)nro.net> > > Dear ICG members, > > > On 20 January 2015 Richard Hill wrote to the icg-forum list with a > number of concerns about the CRISP team process. > > http://forum.icann.org/lists/icg-forum/msg00020.html > > The concerns expressed by Mr Hill were considered in depth during the > CRISP team proposal development process and had been discussed on the > ianaxfer mailing list with Mr Hill as well as other community members. > > The positions taken by the CRISP team was based on the consensus > position of the community. > > > Richard Hill wrote: > >> Certain legal questions were raised in discussions on the CRISP > mailing list >> (NRO IANAXFER), in particular regarding jurisdiction and dispute > resolution. >> The CRISP team apparently did not include anybody who had appropriate > legal >> expertise and it chose not to request outside legal expertise, see: >> https://www.nro.net/pipermail/ianaxfer/2015-January/000322.html > > Mr Hill’s objections to the position adopted by the CRISP team were well > documented in his emails to the ianaxfer mailing list, and were > discussed at length on the CRISP teleconferences (notes and audio > archives of these calls are available at https://nro.net/crisp-team). > Additionally, they were included in the CRISP team’s matrix of community > comments and concerns posted at: > https://www.nro.net/crisp-iana-xfer-summary-discussion-08012015 > > The CRISP team’s final position is effectively summarised in the text of > our response to the ICG RFP: > > “The RIRs, as the contractual party of this agreement, will draft the > specific language of this agreement. During the drafting process, the > RIRs are expected to consult their respective RIR communities, and that > the drafting process will be guided by the principles listed below.” > [Response to the ICG RFP on the IANA from the Internet Number Community, > p11] > > The RFP response then lists 11 IANA Service Level Agreement Principles. > This was based on taking into account of feedback on the ianaxfer > mailing list, to bring the proposal back to describing high level > principles. > > The CRISP team’s position took into account the concerns raised by Mr > Hill, and addressed some points he has raised, such as describing in the > proposal that RIRs are expected to consult their respective RIR > communities, as quoted earlier. > > The CRISP Team was also informed by other feedback received via the > ianaxfer mailing list, particularly those mails which explicitly > supported the approach of delegating contract authorship to the RIR > legal teams. Posts by Hans Petter Holen (7 Jan,10 Jan) Seun Ojedeji (7 > Jan) Gerard Ross (11 January), Jim Reid (12 January), Andrew Dul (12 > January) and Dmitry Burkov (13 January) specifically endorsed this view. > All of these mails can be read at: > https://www.nro.net/pipermail/ianaxfer/2015-January/date.html > > A further concern noted by Mr Hill: >> That is, how can NTIA be expected to approve a proposal when important >> details are left open and have not been reviewed or endorsed by the global >> multi-stakeholder community? > > The CRISP team has crafted a proposal that reflects the value that the > community places on the number-related IANA functions. This is reflected > in the proposal to safeguard the RIR communities’ stewardship over these > functions via a contractual relationship. It is the responsibility of > the parties to a contract to negotiate a contract. The CRISP team > believes that by directing the RIRs to consult with their communities > and by laying down the principles mentioned above, we have established a > framework within which the RIR legal staff can effectively negotiate in > the best interests of the community. > > Finally, Mr Hill has expressed that "there was limited input and the > outcome was largely influenced by the CRISP team and the RIR staff”. As > noted above, there were numerous posts to the ianaxfer mailing list, > many of which touched specifically on the issues discussed by Mr Hill. > From 17 October 2014 to 29 January 2015 there were 372 mails to the > ianaxfer list and 134 subscribers - information on the list is available > at: https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/ianaxfer > > I hope that this is a useful explanation of the CRISP team’s position in > regard to the issues raised by Mr Hill. I am of course happy to discuss > any of these issues in greater depth if this would be helpful. > > > Yours sincerely, > > Izumi Okutani > Chair, the CRISP Team > > > > > _______________________________________________ > ianaxfer mailing list > ianaxfer(a)nro.net > https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/ianaxfer

5 4

Fwd: [NRO-IANAXFER] IANA stewardship transition session at ICANN52 Singapore (2/8 & 2/9)
by Nurani Nimpuno 06 Feb '15

06 Feb '15

FYI. Nurani Begin forwarded message: > From: Izumi Okutani <izumi(a)nic.ad.jp> > Date: 6 februari 2015 14:00:55 CET > To: "ianaxfer(a)nro.net" <ianaxfer(a)nro.net> > Subject: [NRO-IANAXFER] IANA stewardship transition session at ICANN52 Singapore (2/8 & 2/9) > > Colleaugues, > > > There will be two sessions at ICANN32 Singapore Meeting that cover the > IANA stewardship transition. > > You can join both sessions remotely. > > The seond session will be sharing overview of proposals/situation of all > three operational communities of the IANA function, and have discussions > with the participants. There will be presentation on the CRISP Team's > work for the number resources. > > > * Sunday, 8 February 2015 17:30 to 19:00 SGT > - IANA Stewardship Transition/Enhancing ICANN Accountability > Information Session > - > http://singapore52.icann.org/en/schedule/sun-iana-stewardship-accountability > > * Monday, 9 February 2015 10:15 to 13:00 SGT > - Responses to the ICG RFP Regarding the IANA Stewardship Transition > - http://singapore52.icann.org/en/schedule?date=2015-02-09 > > > Regards, > Izumi > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > ianaxfer mailing list > ianaxfer(a)nro.net > https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/ianaxfer

1 0

Fwd: [NRO-IANAXFER] The CRISP Team Response to "CRISP - Process Concerns"
by Nurani Nimpuno 06 Feb '15

06 Feb '15

Dear colleagues, Please find below another email sent by the CRISP chair Izumi Okutani to the global ianaxfer(a)nro.net mailing list. As stated in my previous mail, we very much welcome the RIPE community's continued input in this discussion on the ianaxfer(a)nro.net mailing list. Kind regards, Nurani Nimpuno on behalf of the CRISP RIPE team Begin forwarded message: > From: Izumi Okutani <izumi(a)nic.ad.jp> > Subject: [NRO-IANAXFER] Fwd: The CRISP Team Response to "CRISP - Process Concerns" > Date: 4 februari 2015 20:53:49 CET > To: "ianaxfer(a)nro.net" <ianaxfer(a)nro.net> > > Dear all, > > > I would like to share the CRISP Team Response to "CRISP - Process > Concerns", which has been posted to icg-forum. > > I welcome your comments and feedback about our reponse which is likely > to be a reference to the ICG. > > Explicit expressing support would be extremely helpful as well. > > > > Regards, > Izumi > > > -------- Forwarded Message -------- > Subject: The CRISP Team Response to "CRISP - Process Concerns" > Date: Thu, 05 Feb 2015 04:37:01 +0900 > From: Izumi Okutani <izumi(a)nic.ad.jp> > To: icg-forum(a)icann.org > > Dear ICG members, > > > On 22 January 2015 Guru Acharya wrote to the icg-forum list with a > number of concerns about the CRISP team process. > > http://forum.icann.org/lists/icg-forum/msg00024.html > > The CRISP Team was not able to confirm concrete evidence/facts on these > concerns, as explained below. > > We also note that while present as an observer on a number of CRISP > teleconferences, we did not observe Guru Archaya raising any of these > concerns on ianaxfer(a)nro.net mailing list or on any of the regional > community lists on which the CRISP process was being discussed. > > > Guru Acharya writes: > >> I would like to highlight the following concerns about the process > adopted >> by CRISP, which disqualify it from satisfying the criteria of following a >> bottom-up multi-stakeholder process as mandated by the NTIA. >> >> 1) Top-down composition and selection of CRISP team: The CRISP team was a >> closed group selected by the RIR executive committee by way of an > interview >> process. Interested participants were excluded from the working group if >> they did not successfully qualify for the interviews conducted by the RIR >> executive committee. The selection criteria for the candidates was > not made >> public by the RIR executive committee. This is important given that >> non-CRISP participants were excluded from the decision-making process. > > > Before setting up the CRISP Team, RIRs published the process for > producing a single proposal from the global IP addressing community to > the NTIA, and there was an opportunity for discussions on the public > <ianaxfer(a)nro.net> mailing list as below: > > On 16 October the five RIRs published a process for producing a single > proposal from the global IP addressing community to the NTIA. > https://www.nro.net/news/iana-stewardship-consolidated-rir-iana-stewardship… > > According to this process the CRISP team would consist of 15 members, > two appointees from each RIR region who are not RIR staff, and one RIR > staff member from each region, who shall assist with the submission > development effort. Each RIR was to appoint their CRISP team members by > a method of its own choosing by 15 November 2014. There was some > discussion on the public <ianaxfer(a)nro.net> mailing list on 21 October > about standardising a CRISP team selection process across all five RIR > regions, but no broader community support was expressed for this change. > See: > https://www.nro.net/pipermail/ianaxfer/2014-October/000016.html > > Following this announcement each of the five RIRs announced an open call > for participants, to which any one could express their interest, as well > as the process according to which the selection of the CRISP members > would be conducted. The process and relevant announcements of each RIR > are described in the Internet Number Community Response to the ICG RFP > (sections VI.B.1-VI.B.5 on "Community Process"). > > In most cases the RIR executive committees made the final selection of > CRISP representatives from community volunteers. At no point in the > process were any explicit objections raised to any of the CRISP team > members, nor were any appeals made by volunteers not selected to join > the CRISP team. > >> >> 2) Top-down decision-making by the CRISP team: While the general > public was >> invited to provide comments for the draft proposals prepared by > CRISP, they >> were excluded from the decision-making process. Commenters were merely >> informed that their input had either been accepted or rejected by the > CRISP >> team after due consideration. Notably, non-CRISP participants were not >> allowed to contribute to CRISP's tele-conferences or CRISP's internal >> mailing list, where the actual decision-making took place. Mere >> consultation of the general public without their involvement in the >> decision-making process does not constitute a bottom-up multi-stakeholder >> process. > > > Each of the RIR communities had conducted discussions on the IANA > stewardship transition for the IANA Numbering Services and the role of > the CRISP Team is to consolidate it as a single global proposal. > > https://www.nro.net/nro-and-internet-governance/iana-oversight/consolidated… > > The proposal to establish a CRISP team was distributed to all of the RIR > communities and the <ianaxfer(a)nro.net> mailing list established on 16 > October 2015. The first CRISP team teleconference was held on 9 December > 2015. This provided the community with nearly two months during which > they could comment on or object to any elements of the proposal to set > up the CRISP team (as noted above, there was some discussion around 21 > October relating to CRISP team selection processes, but there was not > community support for changing the proposed process). > > The CRISP team members agreed with the arrangements laid out in the > proposal (while developing some additional mechanisms, including the > internal CRISP mailing list and a working definition of quorum for the > group). CRISP team members also understood a key part of their role to > be facilitating input from the regional communities, and this was > evident throughout the process - teleconference notes from the third > teleconference onwards record various CRISP team members conveying input > from their regional mailing lists. > > Invitations to join the CRISP Team Teleconferences as observers were > sent to <ianaxfer(a)nro.net> mailing list, which were forwarded to mailing > lists of RIR regions by the CRISP Team members. > > Subscription to <ianaxfer(a)nro.net> mailing list was open to anyone, and > there was no restrictions on posting comments to the list, including > making comments about the CRISP Team discussions at any of the CRISP > Team Teleconferences. > > A concrete record of all the concerns raised by the community on various > mailing lists was prepared by the CRISP team and made available at: > https://www.nro.net/wp-content/uploads/NRODiscussionList_20150116.pdf > > This spreadsheet indicated the issue, the initial mail in which the > issue was raised, the CRISP team's discussion of the issue and the > current CRISP team position. This clearly demonstrates that the process > of community participation facilitated by the CRISP team worked smoothly > to address a wide range of community input throughout the process. > >> >> 3) Lack of information and transparency: The CRISP team had two mailing >> lists. The mailing list used internally by the CRISP team was a closed >> mailing list that was not publicly archived till after the proposal was >> finalised. This resulted in community evaluation of the process and >> proposal in the absence of requisite information about the reasons > for any >> decisions. > > As noted in the initial CRISP team proposal and charter, "The CRISP team > shall also work through a public mailing list and the archive of such > mailing list will be publicly available. The name of the mailing list > will be <ianaxfer(a)nro.net>. > > At its initial teleconference, CRISP team members suggested that a > separate mailing list for use by CRISP team members only would be useful > in the interest of efficiency and to allow quick editing iterations on > the proposed response. > https://www.nro.net/wp-content/uploads/CRISP-December-9-meeting-DRAFT-NOTES… > > While there was general agreement, concerns about transparency were also > noted, resulting in a commitment to publish archives of the internal > list at the time of publishing the first draft (19 December 2014). The > archive was publicly available from this point and some CRISP team > members shared a link to the archive with their communities directly. A > direct link to this mailing list archive was posted to the ianaxfer > mailing list and on the NRO CRISP webpage after 8 January 2015 due to an > oversight, while the archives were publicly made available when the > first draft of the proposal was published on 19 December. > > The archive of the internal mailing list is available at: > https://www.nro.net/pipermail/crisp/ > > It is possible to confirm from our announcements that links to the > archives of the CRISP team mailing list was intended to be shared from > publication of the first draft proposal: > > "Details of all the CRISP team's work to date, including recordings, > minutes and agendas of all CRISP teleconferences and a public archive > of the internal CRISP team mailing list, are available at: > https://nro.net/crisp-team" > > https://www.nro.net/news/first-draft-proposal-of-the-internet-number-commun… > > https://www.nro.net/news/internet-number-community-iana-stewardship-proposa… > > >> >> 4) Refusal to deal with essential aspects of the proposal: The CRISP team >> refused to deal with essential aspects of proposal such as the contract >> renewal process, contract duration, jurisdiction, arbitration process, >> review process, high level details of the contract, intellectual property >> rights, charter of the review team and service levels. The CRISP team > cited >> these essential aspects as outside the scope of the CRISP mandate. If the >> CRISP mandate is indeed so limited, then its incomplete proposal > should be >> returned to the RIR community with the suggestion of expanding the > mandate >> of the CRISP team. Note that the charter of the CRISP team, which was >> prepared by the NRO EC in a top-down manner, does not suggest that such >> essential aspects should be excluded from the proposal. This limited >> interpretation of the agenda and issues by the CRISP team is against the >> ethos of a bottom-up multi-stakeholder process. > > As noted above, a concrete record of all the concerns raised by the > community on various mailing lists was prepared by the CRISP team and > made available at: > https://www.nro.net/crisp-iana-xfer-summary-discussion-08012015 > > This spreadsheet, the records and notes from CRISP teleconferences and > the archived mails on both the internal and public mailing lists > demonstrate that the CRISP team closely considered all issues, concerns > or suggestions raised by the community via ianaxfer(a)nro.net or the > regional discussion lists. Where specific suggestions were not reflected > in the proposal, detailed justification was provided to the community > via the ianaxfer mailing list. > > While the CRISP team did note certain constraints on its remit, as it > understood that remit, the issues noted by Guru Acharya were addressed > specifically in the following mails to the public <ianaxfer(a)nro.net> > mailing list: > > Contract details in general, including renewal process, duration: > https://www.nro.net/pipermail/ianaxfer/2015-January/000213.html > https://www.nro.net/pipermail/ianaxfer/2014-December/000135.html > https://www.nro.net/pipermail/ianaxfer/2014-December/000143.html > > Jurisdiction: > https://www.nro.net/pipermail/ianaxfer/2015-January/000331.html > > Arbitration process: > https://www.nro.net/pipermail/ianaxfer/2015-January/000331.html > > Review process: > https://www.nro.net/pipermail/ianaxfer/2014-December/000134.html > https://www.nro.net/pipermail/ianaxfer/2015-January/000172.html > > Intellectual property rights: > https://www.nro.net/pipermail/ianaxfer/2014-December/000145.html > https://www.nro.net/pipermail/ianaxfer/2014-December/000127.html > https://www.nro.net/pipermail/ianaxfer/2015-January/000342.html > https://www.nro.net/pipermail/ianaxfer/2015-January/000173.html > > Charter of the review team: > https://www.nro.net/pipermail/ianaxfer/2015-January/000320.html > > While developing the proposal, the CRISP team was conscious about its > remit and responsibility. In the process of addressing issues and the > elements of the proposal the team felt that it was important to identify > the critical components and implementation requirements, rather than > work out the actual implementation details. Our position was that the > latter should be developed by qualified RIR legal teams following the > best practices in this field. As stated in the response to the ICG "The > RIRs, as the contractual party of this agreement, will draft the > specific language of this agreement. During the drafting process, the > RIRs are expected to consult their respective RIR communities, and that > the drafting process will be guided by the principles listed below." > [Response to the ICG RFP on the IANA from the Internet Number Community, > p11] > > We believe that the proposal submitted to the ICG meets the expectations > of the numbers community, while not extending into areas beyond the > authority or expertise of the CRISP team. > > I hope that this effectively addresses the issues raised in this email, > and I would be happy to expand further on any issues you feel could > benefit from more explanation. > > > Yours sincerely, > Izumi Okutani > Chair, the CRISP Team > > > > _______________________________________________ > ianaxfer mailing list > ianaxfer(a)nro.net > https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/ianaxfer

3 2

Fwd: [NRO-IANAXFER] Webex Invitation CRISP Team Teleconference Thursday February 5th 2015 at 13:00 UTC
by Nurani Nimpuno 05 Feb '15

05 Feb '15

FYI. (Apologies for the lateness of this mail.) Begin forwarded message: > From: German Valdez <german(a)nro.net> > Subject: [NRO-IANAXFER] Webex Invitation CRISP Team Teleconference Thursday February 5th 2015 at 13:00 UTC > Date: 4 februari 2015 16:38:13 CET > To: <ianaxfer(a)nro.net> > > Hi > > Please find below webex information for CRISP Team Teleconference to be held on Thursday February 5th 2015 at 13:00 UTC > > Regards > > German Valdez > NRO > > > > > CRISP Team 15th Meeting > Thursday, February 5, 2015 > 1:00 pm | UTC | 1 hr > > Join WebEx meeting > Meeting number: 704 052 432 > Meeting password: crisp > > Join by phone > 0800-051-3810 Call-in toll-free number (UK) > +44-203-478-5289 Call-in toll number (UK) > Access code: 704 052 432 > Global call-in numbers | Toll-free calling restrictions > > _______________________________________________ > ianaxfer mailing list > ianaxfer(a)nro.net > https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/ianaxfer

1 0