September 2022 - diversity - mailman.ripe.net

Fwd: Impact analisys of the new Code of Conduct
by Hans Petter Holen 01 May '24

01 May '24

I have requested an impact analisys from the RIPE NCC as requested by the task force. -hph ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Hans Petter Holen <hph(a)oslo.net> Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2019 at 00:31 Subject: Impact analisys of the new Code of Conduct To: rna-exec(a)ripe.net Mailing List <rna-exec(a)ripe.net> Cc: Athina Fragkouli <athina.fragkouli(a)ripe.net> The diversity task force has published a draft of a new code of conduct (CoC). Before moving this forward I would like to request an impact assesment from the RIPE NCC for the community to understand if there is an impact on the RIPE NCC and if this impact can be accepted. https://www.ripe.net/participate/meetings/ripe-meetings/ripe-meeting-code-o… For the record, I would also like to point out that there is an existing code of conduct in place: https://www.ripe.net/participate/meetings/ripe-meetings/ripe-meeting-code-o… The new code of conduct does however specify how the Trusted Contacts (now Code of Conduct team) is appointed and outlines in more details what actions can be taken. It can be argued that all theese actions can be taken allready, by the Trusted Contacts, RIPE Chair, PC and RIPE NCC meeting organisers today, but the new CoC makes this explicit. Yours sincerely, Hans Petter Holen RIPE Chair -- -- Hans Petter Holen Mobile +47 45 06 60 54 | hph(a)oslo.net | http://hph.oslo.net -- -- Hans Petter Holen Mobile +47 45 06 60 54 | hph(a)oslo.net | http://hph.oslo.net

3 2

Re: [diversity] [ripe-list] Two Documents from the Code of Conduct Task Force
by Keith Mitchell 16 Sep '22

16 Sep '22

On 9/16/22 04:00, Kurtis Lindqvist wrote: > >> On 14 Sep 2022, at 20:43, Alex de Joode <alex(a)idgara.nl> wrote: >> Those depositions could than be used in court for damage claims >> (loss of employment, libel/defamation). You can sue RIPE, the event >> or (individual) members of the CoC. > What you are describing (I think) is a situation where the RIPE NCC > is considered the organiser and the legal home of any activity > covered by the CoC. In this case the officers implementing the CoC > would have to be appointed by the RIPE NCC and considered legally > employed (or covered) by the RIPE NCC and therefor their indemnity > insurance would cover it and it would be dealt with in the NL. Under the RIPE NCC Arbitration process, there is a means by which community volunteers (who are not NCC employees) are formally indemnified against potential legal blowback of any decisions they make. Parties to the arbitration are required to commit to this when entering into a dispute resolution. It does seem appropriate that a similar such indemnification measure should be in place for CoC volunteer officers, it that is not already envisaged. Keith

2 1

Re: [diversity] [ripe-list] Communities & Codes of Conduct
by Alex de Joode 16 Sep '22

16 Sep '22

Brian thanks for your contribution. I believe all see the need for a Code of Conduct. All see the need for a process to enforce the Code of Conduct. The issues are 'what is the intention of the CoC', 'how do we want to enforce the CoC' and 'what is the status of the CoC team'. It looks the CoC is more than a 'this is how one should behave during a RIPE event/mailinglist etc', it looks like to tool to actively create "more justice/diversity (Vesna)". These are two different goals. A proper and fair CoC process might lead to a more diverse participation, no need to skew this process. Is this an adversarial process whereby the role of the CoC team is neutral one, or is skewed towards complainers. For the majority of cases, as you stated, this will not be an issue. However we also need to think about the outliers, if this process is a 'guilty until proven innocent, but hey we do not like you so guilty as accused' that is not OK. No matter how much 'transformative justice' you want to deliver. The process should hold up in court, so it should be fair, you should know who is accusing you and you should be able to defend yourself. (may's are not must's in the proposal) Cheers, Alex-- IDGARA | Alex de Joode | alex(a)idgara.nl | +31651108221 On Fri, 16-09-2022 13h 20min, Brian Nisbet <brian.nisbet(a)heanet.ie> wrote: > Good Afternoon, > In the last few days there have been a few emails about the draft CoC documents and, without any hat on, I want to address a few things. > The RIPE community is special. It's amazing and wonderful and I love it… but also in so many ways, it is not special at all. It is not immune to the issues that have cropped up elsewhere and, importantly, also crop up in RIPE. This may be hard to hear but it's true. There are people who have left our community due to unwelcome attention, incidents of sexual harassment or repeatedly being told - through deeds if not words - that they are not welcome here. > Worse are the people who could contribute so much to the operation of the Internet who look at our community, talk with others about it, and simply shake their heads - "That's not a place for me." > These are the sad commonalities between communities, these are the ways in which RIPE is decidedly not special. > A suitably, carefully, fairly, enforced Code of Conduct is just one of the many ways of making things better. It sets out the norms of behaviour and, importantly, it says "If you come here and people act badly towards you – we want to know about it, we will care, and we will act." If you want, you can think of it like MANRS or similar. It says that as a community, we have thought about things, that we acknowledge the issues we have, and we are working to improve them. > This is not a court of law. It is a community driven effort, and so, like every other effort, we put our trust in those who we appoint, while maintaining the ability to course correct, knowing that there are checks and balances. In fact, I'm extremely happy for those that need to make reports that it isn't a court of law, as such courts, in countries around the world, have been seen to be adversarial towards those who seek justice for things like sexual assault. They put great hurt on the victims and have a truly awful record in bringing that justice. But again, this is not a court of law. > Nor is it a way to attack the correct (or whatever passes for correct) use of grammar. But it can be a way to improve communications. It can be a way for a community to clearly say "That isn't a good way to interact, especially if we want to be open." There are many, many ways to have robust technical discussion without giving people the impression that their opinions are not wanted, as has happened many times in the past. And we are getting better at this as a community, but a CoC will help us more. > As I have said repeatedly over many years, things happen at RIPE Meetings that the community does not, or should not, want to happen. The previous system gave the victims of those things someone to talk to, which is important, but little more than that. A CoC provides a means of recourse, which has been proven to work in communities around the world. > There will be a few growing pains, for sure. There will be people who prejudge all of this, who decide that this changes the community too much. It might even cause them to leave. In many cases that will be a great pity and I hope they stick around - but if this prevents others leaving because they feel unsafe, or from being subjected to behaviour that all of us agree is unacceptable, then, well, I know where I'm happier. > No process is perfect, we're humans, but this is a really, really good next step (and yes, I would say that, of course). I believe it will make a difference in who joins our community and for how long they stay. I believe it will, in some small way, improve the sector in which we all work. And thankfully my beliefs are backed up by what we've seen in other communities. > Importantly, we can do other things at the same time and I look forward to what other new things this community does, and what excellent initiatives it continues, which will make it better for all. > I know I will not convince everyone (this is not the first time I've had this discussion in a community, not even in the RIPE community), and I know that a lot of people in the community are convinced (or convinced enough) already, but I didn't want to stay silent on this thread. This is too important for the community right now, and for the future, for those of us here, and those of us we hope will join us. > > Thanks, > Brian > Brian Nisbet (he/him) Service Operations Manager HEAnet CLG, Ireland's National Education and Research Network 1st Floor, 5 George's Dock, IFSC, Dublin D01 X8N7, Ireland +35316609040 brian.nisbet(a)heanet.ie www.heanet.ie Registered in Ireland, No. 275301. CRA No. 20036270

2 1

Re: [diversity] [ripe-list] Two Documents from the Code of Conduct Task Force
by Leslie 16 Sep '22

16 Sep '22

On Fri, Sep 16, 2022 at 12:16 AM Gert Doering <gert(a)space.net> wrote: > > Hi, > > On Wed, Sep 14, 2022 at 07:03:29PM +0200, Vesna Manojlovic wrote: > > This is a process performed by volunteers, who have the benefit of the > > community at heart. Please consider volunteering, since you seem to be > > very passionate about justice and fairness. > > Nothing here ensures that the CoC enforcement team will continue to > be manned by positive and caring individuals. > > When this was presented first time, my thought was "this looks more > like a band seeking revenge", and I stated so (and was yelled at). > > I do feel very much at home in the RIPE community, but if we institute > a system without proper balances, I wouldn't feel comfortable anymore. > In essence, what Malcolm said. > > Look at the process through the eyes of someone intent on harming > someone else, through whatever means needed. Is it still good? > Right now, without the CoC, someone intent on harming someone else could harass the victim with no recourse. Is that good? > > - this kind of process is proven to work in many other communities. > > The "other communities need this" argument has never really rang true > for me. We're not "other communities", we're RIPE. > > > - within RIPE, we had a "lite" version for several years now, called > > "Trusted Contacts" (TC) , and I have been one of the people "appointed" > > to this role: difficult job, so I got a training; it's not perfect to be > > appointed, nor it is perfect that I have kind-of "conflict of interest" > > since I work for RIPE NCC. As TC, we were not "empowered" to take any > > action, partially because we were not selected by the community, > > partially because there was no CoC framework... as we have now. > > This is something I've liked and wholeheartly supported (and while > not *formally* empowered, you were trusted to do the right thing, and > the NCC had all the empowerment it needed to kick out someone from > a RIPE meeting if needed). > > Gert Doering > -- NetMaster > -- > have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? > > SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Michael Emmer > Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann > D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) > Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 > -- > > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, get a password reminder, or change your subscription options, please visit: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/ripe-list

1 0

Re: [diversity] what is the new CoC intended to fix?
by Vesna Manojlovic 16 Sep '22

16 Sep '22

Dear Jim, all, I might have come across as defensive, mistakenly assuming that what is needed is more education or clarification... Let me re-frame the discussion: "we" are at the stage where we are fine-tuning one of the tools (for increasing Diversity, Inclusion & Equity - and Justice), the tool that is "Code of Conduct" procedure. We are NOT at the stage where we discuss *if* we need CoC; nor are we at the stage where we talk about "do we have a problem". This has all been established long time ago: yes, RIPE Community (just like all other technical communities, just like society) has problems of inequality, injustice, un-examined privileges for some and marginalization, harassment and abuse for others... ... and it has been also established that "we" want to do something to solve that. (*) Solving it on the level of the society does NOT mean that we can stop trying to solve it on the levels of RIPE Community (and our place of employment , family, school...). We have to solve it on all levels. The *reasons* why we want is more justice/diversity are: because inclusive community will attract better contributions from more creative participants, and we will together build better (less harmful?) policies, tools, protocols, connections-and-education via IP networking... On 15/09/2022 23:21, Jim Reid wrote: > > >> On 14 Sep 2022, at 20:53, Vesna Manojlovic <BECHA(a)ripe.net> wrote: >> >> Many *women* leave tech industry because of abuse, or micro-aggressions. >> We are missing out on the contributions by persons of color, young people, "people with thin skin"... > > With respect Vesna, these problems *cannot* possibly hope to be fixed with RIPE's Code of Conduct. > I am both surprised and very disappointed that you (or the TF?) seem > to want to the CoC to fix these deep-seated and complex problems. > Which are for society in general, not RIPE IMO. As with other complex problems, there is not one single fix -- it will take a lot of other steps, as listed here(*), here(*) and here(*), to increase "diversity & inclusion" -- CoC is just one of the "tools". (*) 2016 https://labs.ripe.net/author/shane/measuring-gender-diversity-at-ripe-meeti… 2017 https://labs.ripe.net/author/agowland/diversity-discussions-at-ripe-74/ 2018 https://labs.ripe.net/author/agowland/reflecting-back-on-ripe-77-big-gains-… 2019 https://labs.ripe.net/author/agowland/do-good-at-ripe-78-sponsor-a-diversit… 2020 https://labs.ripe.net/author/hans_petter_holen/reporting-back-from-ripe-79/ 2021 https://labs.ripe.net/author/becha/diversity-matters-at-ripe-83/ 2022 https://labs.ripe.net/author/becha/spring-and-summer-events-season-2022/ > A better way for RIPE to make a difference here might be to require a more diverse and representative presence across the board: presenters, PC & TF membership, WG co-chairs, This is, indeed, a suggestion I agree with -- these positions are both the most visible, thus provide role-models -- and hold the (informal) power: therefore, increasing diversity there would lead to more inclusion & equity. > Maybe you disagree. But that's to be answered for both of us with an objective evidence-led approach rather than going by gut feel or best guesses. We do have evidence of the state of diversity within RIPE Community _without_ the CoC process, for the last 32 years. There is also evidence from other, similar communities, on the impact of CoC procedures on increasing inclusion: https://wiki.techinc.nl/Ladies_Night#Increasing_the_gender_diversity https://wiki.techinc.nl/Ladies_Night#Dealing_with_Harassment https://wiki.techinc.nl/Ladies_Night#Further_Reading_after_34c3 > The CoC is supposed to deal with bad behaviour* at RIPE meeting - no more, no less. There is nothing in the existing or proposed new CoC's remit which deals with the issues you mentioned. So I don't understand how or why they have somehow become topics for the CoC or the various task forces to address. Please explain. Since you asked nicely ("Please explain.") In short: if there is a procedure for "dealing bad behavior", it is reassuring & brings feelings of safety to the people who are (systematically) on the receiving end of "bad behavior". If they feel safe, that is *one of the prerequisites* for joining RIPE Community. The opposite - if there is no CoC (&enforcement), this is a "red flag" for vulnerable people. Longer explanation: I refer you to the literature listed in the links above, e.g.: - security & hackers conference: https://www.vice.com/en/article/8q8x3g/female-hackers-still-face-harassment… > Changes that can be made include reliable ways for women to report incidents, and an effective form of enforcement. > > "In my experience, the organizers of a con make a huge difference. If they make it clear they have zero tolerance for harassment or assault, and enforce this policy from the start, it's a big help," said one woman from the infosec industry. > > But beyond codes of conduct, it'll take more fundamental changes for harassment of women to really dissipate from hacking and security conferences. > > "I think what broadly needs to change is really the culture of the industry," Wang said. "The security industry has a little bit of a problem where it's not only male dominated, but it's dominated by a particular kind of personality." - anarchist & activists groups , implementing "Restorative and Transformative Justice" for a long time - and still struggling: https://crimethinc.com/2013/04/17/accounting-for-ourselves-breaking-the-imp… - science: https://www.wandering-scientist.com/2015/06/playing-game-rigged-against-you… - "google memo": Taking Male Entitlement Seriously, Aug. 7th, 2017: https://tim.dreamwidth.org/2035407.html - engineering / IETF: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc7776/ > If the new CoC's authors/supporters have other intentions or aspirations beyond dealing with bad behaviour at RIPE meetings, IMO they need to be far more transparent about those objectives. That would mean a radically different TF charter and a far clearer problem statement is needed. As I said, this has been dealt with from 2016 to 2022, within, indeed, another Task Force -- Diversity TF: https://www.ripe.net/participate/ripe/tf/ripe-diversity-task-force > * The correct word here is "behaviour", not "behaviours". Behaviour is a mass noun which does not get pluralised. So is the word "aggression". Or is this sort of language pedantry about to be classed as a CoC violation? As Gergana pointed out, this argument is falling within multiple logical fallacies ;-) I prefer this quote: > Fry’s point was that we should not get caught up in the minutia of language, correcting the grammatical glitches we see in public, in the use of our friends, online, etc. Rather, says Fry, we should exult in language, take delight in the feel of the words in our mouths. He even concludes that language is a native born right to all who speak and no one should tell them they have no right to use it, or that they should feel inferior because they “can’t spell broccoli or moccasins.” https://www.patheos.com/blogs/elflandletters/2019/07/05/the-magic-of-langua… > And for bonus points, the final output from the TF (or whatever) > needs to show how their work fixes that problem or problems. To reply in the same "spirit": How did this work for the DNS-wg? Are all of the DNS problems fixed now? Or, at least, DNSSEC? Is there a "final output"? But to get back to the substance of the argument: This sort of pedantry is not as such CoC violation, but is an example of the specific "atmosphere" & "culture". As a woman, and a not-native speaker, I got used to being target of such comments; but as older woman, I am not staying silent about it any more. https://wiki.techinc.nl/Ladies_Night#More_about_silencing Changing atmosphere & culture require _deeper_ changes than introducing CoC procedures -- CoC is only one of the basic tools. "Realists" tend to say that we have a $result that we deserve: https://labs.ripe.net/author/becha/ripe-community-resilience-every-society-… Deeper changes require empathy, reflexivity about privilege and power structures, striving for equity and not "fairness", questioning our personal biases and systematic intersectional oppression(s)... https://labs.ripe.net/author/becha/data-feminism-from-data-ethics-to-data-j… In solidarity, Vesna -- Senior Community Builder, RIPE NCC Working times: Monday-Thursday 10-16 CEST https://labs.ripe.net/author/becha/

1 0

Re: [diversity] [ripe-list] Two Documents from the Code of Conduct Task Force
by Alex de Joode 16 Sep '22

16 Sep '22

Hi Kurt, Tnx. I'm not privy to the way RIPE NCC organizes their events, but what you describe is what I meant yes. There will always be a nexus to RIPE NCC for official RIPE events. So both RIPE NCC and the individual CoC members could be held liable for the outcome of an inproper process. You are also correct they could be sued 'everywhere' (there has to be a nexus(event was held there, where an CoC member lives, where the 'person negatively impacted by the proces' lives or is employed etc.) but as RIPE NCC is based in NL, you will always have standing there. -- IDGARA | Alex de Joode | alex(a)idgara.nl | +31651108221 On Fri, 16-09-2022 10h 00min, Kurtis Lindqvist <kurtis(a)kurtis.pp.se> wrote: > > On 14 Sep 2022, at 20:43, Alex de Joode " target="_blank"><alex(a)idgara.nl> wrote: > > > > RIPE Legal can hopefully research what are the potential liabilities for RIPE, for the organizers of events and for members of the CoC itself. As I will assume that if an attendee is 'sanctioned' by the CoC, they might go to court if the impact is serious enough. They can do this either in NL or in the country that has hosted the event or even their own country if the impact is there. The outcome might not be very favorable for all of the above. > > > > So if a person gets sanctioned (banned from the event and maybe future events), and if he/she does not get to know what action got him/her banned, who complained etc. They could go to court in NL, request a 'voorlopig getuigenverhoor' where the CoC team members (and anyone they think has relevant information) have to answers questions (under oath, it's like a deposition). Those depositions could than be used in court for damage claims (loss of employment, libel/defamation). You can sue RIPE, the event or (individual) members of the CoC. Lawyers paradise and if you pick the jurisdictions correctly you might win the lottery several times over. We should ensure any process can standup scrutiny in court. That (unfortunately) means it has to be very 'court-like’. > > RIPE is not a legal entity. You would sue the persons that have made the consequential allegations, i.e the officers implementing the CoC. They would be personally liable for their actions. I am not a lawyer but I do not believe this law suit would have to be in NL as there is not thing special about NL in this regard. > > What you are describing (I think) is a situation where the RIPE NCC is considered the organiser and the legal home of any activity covered by the CoC. In this case the officers implementing the CoC would have to be appointed by the RIPE NCC and considered legally employed (or covered) by the RIPE NCC and therefor their indemnity insurance would cover it and it would be dealt with in the NL. > > I have no idea if this was considered by the CoC taks force but I just want to reiterate there is no RIPE legal entity. The officers implementing the CoC are doing this under their own risk and responsibility. > > I am happy to be corrected by a real lawyer…. > > - kurtis - > > >

1 0

Two Documents from the Code of Conduct Task Force
by Leo Vegoda 14 Sep '22

14 Sep '22

Dear RIPE community, Earlier today, the Code of Conduct TF published two documents for the community's review. We updated the document describing the Code of Conduct Team's operational procedures based on community input. We have also published a document describing a selection process for the Code of Conduct Team. You can find a blog post summarising the changes and linking to the drafts here: https://labs.ripe.net/author/leo_vegoda/two-documents-from-the-code-of-cond… Please review the documents and share feedback by the end of September. Comments on any aspects of either document are welcome. We're particularly keen to get feedback on the term length for the Code of Conduct Team. Kind regards, Leo Vegoda for the Code of Conduct TF

5 8

Re: [diversity] [ripe-list] Two Documents from the Code of Conduct Task Force
by JORDI PALET MARTINEZ 14 Sep '22

14 Sep '22

Extra points (clicked too fast send) ... very important ones in my opinion, regarding the appointment of CoC Team members. 1) Don't see the need to ask for one person from the community, and it is fair easy to fake (again same point regarding enforcement). 2) I don't agree that the Chair is the one to appoint CoC members. It should be the community (and this will solve 1 above). 3) I even less agree on "own discretion", it is prone o subjectivity, "my friends", etc., we have seen this happening already many times, here and in the IETF. Is not right, and it is discriminatory. Again, 2, solves this. 4) I'm not convinced there is an objective way to judge "emotional intelligence", and even if there is, I feel this is discriminatory, the same as considering age and gender. Again, 2 above, will solve this. Regards, Jordi @jordipalet El 14/9/22, 12:31, "diversity en nombre de JORDI PALET MARTINEZ" <diversity-bounces(a)ripe.net en nombre de jordi.palet(a)consulintel.es> escribió: Hi Leo, all, I've several inputs/questions related to both documents. 1) I understand that if actions on someone are applied, for example, leaving the meeting, and then the appeal is in his/her favor (there was a misunderstanding, false or wrong perception of witness, etc.), there are legal risks if not properly compensated and even publicly recognized the mistake. I think we should have some text on that. 2) I don't agree that the CoC Team, even being different persons, is the right way to take care of possible Appeals. 3) I don't think is right to "permanently" ban anyone. It is like long-term prison, and everyone can make a mistake and correct the situation or his behavior. I understand that this will happen only in expectational circumstances, however, I feel that just having "for a period of time" is a more prudent path. 4) Is not clear to me if someone removed from a f2f event will also be banned from the mailing lists. I understand that not? 5) I don't think it makes any sense to "remove" someone from a virtual event. I will agree in only disallowing him to speak up. 6) Same a 3 above, I don't think anyone can be removed permanently from a mailing list. In fact, if he/she want to keep participating, it is plain easy to create an alternative email and rejoin, even if not posting. Similarly, can happen 5 above. Should we be realistic in what we can enforce? Regards, Jordi @jordipalet El 14/9/22, 8:34, "ripe-list en nombre de Leo Vegoda" <ripe-list-bounces(a)ripe.net en nombre de leo(a)vegoda.org> escribió: Dear RIPE community, Earlier today, the Code of Conduct TF published two documents for the community's review. We updated the document describing the Code of Conduct Team's operational procedures based on community input. We have also published a document describing a selection process for the Code of Conduct Team. You can find a blog post summarising the changes and linking to the drafts here: https://labs.ripe.net/author/leo_vegoda/two-documents-from-the-code-of-cond… Please review the documents and share feedback by the end of September. Comments on any aspects of either document are welcome. We're particularly keen to get feedback on the term length for the Code of Conduct Team. Kind regards, Leo Vegoda for the Code of Conduct TF -- To unsubscribe from this mailing list, get a password reminder, or change your subscription options, please visit: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/ripe-list ********************************************** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.theipv6company.com The IPv6 Company This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it. _______________________________________________ diversity mailing list diversity(a)ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/diversity ********************************************** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.theipv6company.com The IPv6 Company This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it. ********************************************** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.theipv6company.com The IPv6 Company This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.

1 0