[ALAC] Selection Process for Bylaws IRP Standing Panel
ABDULKARIM AYOPO OLOYEDE
oloyede.aa at unilorin.edu.ng
Mon Jul 20 11:21:15 UTC 2020
HI,
I total agree with Justine.
Thanks
On Mon, Jul 20, 2020 at 11:58 AM Justine Chew <justine.chew.icann at gmail.com>
wrote:
> Right. David Olive said,
>
>
>
>
> *"We are also ready to support the community in forming a new, separate
> representative group to do this work. From the ICANN org side, we’re
> available to support the community to identify and get this representative
> group up and running so that the panel selection process can move forward –
> including identification of an expert to further support and coordinate the
> community work – in time to start work when the deadline for the submission
> of expressions interest to serve on the Standing Panel expires on 31 July."*
>
>
> I did raise a concern/perception of conflict of interest on the part of
> IRP-IOT members, but still think NomCom isn't the suitable body to
> establish the panel, so let's stick with "*forming a new, separate
> representative group to do this work*" then.
>
> All good.
>
> Justine
> ------
>
>
> On Mon, 20 Jul 2020 at 17:26, ABDULKARIM AYOPO OLOYEDE <
> oloyede.aa at unilorin.edu.ng> wrote:
>
>> Hi Maureen,
>> You are a genius.
>> Or should I say sometimes a genius. Lol.
>> AK
>>
>> On Mon, 20 Jul 2020, 08:00 Maureen Hilyard, <maureen.hilyard at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Interesting discussion.
>>>
>>> This was a response I gave to the SO-AC Chairs following David's initial
>>> request in May. It was based on consultation with people who are far more
>>> knowledgeable about the topic than myself. And Alan has pointed out, that
>>> it might aid the current discussion.
>>>
>>> Hi All,
>>>
>>> Given that I had not been heavily involved in the CCWG Accountability or
>>> the IRP activities, I took the opportunity to consult with the past ALAC
>>> Chairs, Cheryl Langdon-Orr, Olivier Crépin-Leblond and Alan Greenberg.
>>>
>>> I agree with Keith that the current IOT is likely to be fully occupied
>>> but more importantly is not constituted to represent the AC/SOs which are
>>> Bylaw-mandated to select the Standing Panel. Although David said that the
>>> AC/SOs “helped populate” the current IOT, we could find no actual record of
>>> whether any of the IOT members were formally endorsed by any AC or SO.
>>> Certainly the ALAC did not do so.
>>>
>>> Moreover, as I recall, there was pushback at the time that the IOT was
>>> reconstituted in that the selection was done by the Board itself (or a
>>> delegated committee).
>>>
>>> Lastly, based on the Statements of Interest of the IOT members, it is
>>> heavily skewed in favour of particular constituencies which again makes it
>>> a poor choice for selecting a judicial panel when its own constituencies
>>> may be participants in future IRPs.
>>>
>>> I believe that the only choice is that a new group be constituted to
>>> address the various steps called for in the Bylaws. It should be populated
>>> with formally appointed representatives from the AC/SOs that wish to
>>> participate so that they can act on behalf of the AC/SOs in compliance with
>>> the Bylaws.
>>>
>>> To ensure coverage but still have a lean group. I would suggest that
>>> each AC/SO have no more than 2 seats on this group. Those appointed to the
>>> group must have a strong understanding of the IRP and the role of the
>>> standing panel, but cannot be expected to have the skills or contacts to
>>> populate the panel. The group must be supported by an external recruitment
>>> organization that can provide the needed skill in identifying and
>>> recruiting potential qualified judicial experts who are interested in
>>> acquiring the requisite technical knowledge for the panel.
>>>
>>> There will also be a need to periodically fill vacancies on the panel
>>> and repopulate based on the five-year terms. The Bylaws are silent on how
>>> this will be done, but I suggest that this not be a focus of the current
>>> group but that their experience in populating the initial Standing Panel be
>>> factored in when specifying the ongoing repopulation procedure. That being
>>> said, consideration of the terms of all panelists expiring simultaneously
>>> should be given to ensure always having a functioning and skilled panel.
>>>
>>> Maureen
>>> .
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sun, Jul 19, 2020 at 8:29 PM ABDULKARIM AYOPO OLOYEDE <
>>> oloyede.aa at unilorin.edu.ng> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Justine,
>>>> I think we agree on most of the issues.
>>>> However there is a bit of a mix up. Yes the evaluation panel does not
>>>> need to be lawyers, but they must understand the profession. That is what
>>>> I mean in my previous email. I was referring to the standing committee and
>>>> the required experience for the committee.
>>>> I also agree it does not have to be NOMCOM but the evaluation panel
>>>> requires better diversity than the current IRP-IOT.
>>>> I think we can now have a proposal back to David Olive.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks
>>>> AK
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Jul 20, 2020 at 12:21 AM Justine Chew <
>>>> justine.chew.icann at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> AK.
>>>>>
>>>>> I am now a bit confused with your latest reply. I don't think anyone
>>>>> is arguing against the desirability for diversity. But as you pointed out:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *if you look at the skills required for this role, one has to be a
>>>>> lawyer with significant experience or some with significant experience in
>>>>> arbitration to be able to meet up with the criteria. for anyone to judge
>>>>> those criteria tehy need to understand it.*
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> And I agree with you! That's what I was saying before and I will say
>>>>> it again:
>>>>>
>>>>> To facilitate the best peer review for establishing an IRP panel, we
>>>>> need experienced arbitrators/counsels who understand what it takes to do
>>>>> the job. The job is not a generalized one and I don't think NomCom
>>>>> necessarily has what it takes because NomCom isn't mandated to have
>>>>> lawyers, let alone experienced arbitrators/counsels, make up its full
>>>>> membership.
>>>>>
>>>>> Participation in the IRP-IOT on the other hand is predicated on one
>>>>> having professional litigation/arbitration/mediation experience, folks who
>>>>> practise as litigators, arbitrators, mediators, and thus understand the job
>>>>> involved. So unlike NomCom, we know that the IRP-IOT is constituted only
>>>>> with litigators, arbitrators, mediators, and that's why -- between a
>>>>> limited choice of NomCom and the IRP-IOT -- I think the IRP-IOT is a better
>>>>> fit than NomCom.
>>>>>
>>>>> As to the 'lack of diversity' in the IRP-IOT membership, well that's
>>>>> subject to whichever litigators, arbitrators, mediators who responded to
>>>>> the open call for members.
>>>>>
>>>>> Perhaps we need to consider the possibility of expanding the choice of
>>>>> bodies, one with diversity -- I don't know if there is an appetite for yet
>>>>> another body -- but for now, NomCom simply isn't a good option.
>>>>>
>>>>> Justine
>>>>> ------
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, 19 Jul 2020 at 21:13, ABDULKARIM AYOPO OLOYEDE <
>>>>> oloyede.aa at unilorin.edu.ng> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> HI,
>>>>>> But I think the experience is there with NOMCOM. They have been doing
>>>>>> it year in year out for all aspect of ICANN. In terms of skills, the
>>>>>> skills would be in the diversity fo the group because they would need to
>>>>>> pick people not based on what they have done in ICANN but in their
>>>>>> professional life as a Lawyer or a Judge and you need to understand how to
>>>>>> gauge that based on diversity.
>>>>>> For example, It takes someone from the UK to understand what it takes
>>>>>> to be a Queen's Counsel (QC) likewise You need to be from West Africa
>>>>>> (English speaker) to understand what it takes to be a Senior Advocate of
>>>>>> Nigeria (SAN). Another example is the jury system, I don't understand it
>>>>>> cos we don't use it but someone from the US would understand it. If you
>>>>>> look at the skills required for this role, one has to be a lawyer with
>>>>>> significant experience or some with significant experience in arbitration
>>>>>> to be able to meet up with the criteria. for anyone to judge those
>>>>>> criteria tehy need to understand it
>>>>>> That why I think the key skills required is diversity and
>>>>>> understanding
>>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>>
>>>>>> AK
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sun, Jul 19, 2020 at 5:38 AM Holly Raiche <
>>>>>> h.raiche at internode.on.net> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I have to agree with Justine on this issue. While one would clearly
>>>>>>> hope for diversity in membership, the bottom line has to be a minimum level
>>>>>>> of skill and experience in such panels.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Holly
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Jul 18, 2020, at 11:16 PM, Justine Chew <
>>>>>>> justine.chew.icann at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I have less faith in NomCom being the right body simply because
>>>>>>> its members are not expected to have the requisite professional
>>>>>>> qualifications and experience to undertake the task of establishing a
>>>>>>> standing panel for the IRP. So we may just have to agree to disagree.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Justine
>>>>>>> ------
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Sat, 18 Jul 2020 at 17:41, ABDULKARIM AYOPO OLOYEDE <
>>>>>>> oloyede.aa at unilorin.edu.ng> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hi
>>>>>>>> Thank you Justine. Yes it's like a judicial committee and they must
>>>>>>>> not be affiliated to any group in ICANN therefore they would not be know my
>>>>>>>> anyone in iCAnn.
>>>>>>>> However, the legal system or hierarchy varries from one country to
>>>>>>>> the other and it required a diverse team to be able to dissect things.
>>>>>>>> The current composition of IRP-IOT to me is not diverse enough but
>>>>>>>> it's not too bad. It has 18 members and from my initial glance it has one
>>>>>>>> person from Africa and one from Latin America. I do not know where the
>>>>>>>> applications would come from but it requires diversity to appriciaiate some
>>>>>>>> applications. Therefore I would suggest that a more diverse group should
>>>>>>>> be set up I still think NOMCOM can do it if they are properly guided as to
>>>>>>>> what to expect and do..
>>>>>>>> Thanks.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Sat, 18 Jul 2020, 09:56 Justine Chew, <
>>>>>>>> justine.chew.icann at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> See:
>>>>>>>>> https://community.icann.org/display/IRPIOTI/Independent+Review+Process+-+Implementation+Oversight+Team+%28IRP-IOT%29+Home
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> - SOIs of members are found in a sub-page
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On the one hand, I am not confident that NomCom is the right group
>>>>>>>>> to undertake selection because IRP panellists are required to have a
>>>>>>>>> specific skill-set which we cannot expect NomCom members to appreciate --
>>>>>>>>> think of it like a judicial selection committee which is tasked to
>>>>>>>>> recommend appointment of judges. On the other hand, the IRP-IOT has members
>>>>>>>>> who have acted or are acting as advocates for aggrieved parties, so we
>>>>>>>>> would need to consider any perceptions of conflict of interest.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Justine
>>>>>>>>> ------
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 18 Jul 2020 at 16:43, ABDULKARIM AYOPO OLOYEDE <
>>>>>>>>> oloyede.aa at unilorin.edu.ng> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Hi All,
>>>>>>>>>> Yes, it might be a good idea for IRP-IOT to carry out this task
>>>>>>>>>> but I think we need to see the full current composition (list of members)
>>>>>>>>>> of IRP-IOT.
>>>>>>>>>> I have tried looking for the membership online ut can't find it.
>>>>>>>>>> Maybe Greg can also help with that.
>>>>>>>>>> If the current IRP-IOT team is diverse enough, I would support
>>>>>>>>>> it if not my suggestion would be to have a diverse team (new team or
>>>>>>>>>> maybe a team like the NOMCOM) to do the job of selecting the
>>>>>>>>>> candidate depending on the applications received.
>>>>>>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> AK
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 11:20 PM Maureen Hilyard <
>>>>>>>>>> maureen.hilyard at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Dear all
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> In May, David sent the following request to SO-AC Chairs which I
>>>>>>>>>>> forwarded to this ALAC group seeking some opinion and/or advice on how
>>>>>>>>>>> ICANN might best proceed with establishing this standing panel.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Greg currently represents the ALAC on the IRP-IOT which is being
>>>>>>>>>>> recommended as one group that could be additionally assigned this role.
>>>>>>>>>>> Perhaps Greg could comment and make a recommendation based on his knowledge
>>>>>>>>>>> of the requirements of this new panel and what is being done on the current
>>>>>>>>>>> IRP-IOT.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Maureen
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Dear SO/AC Chairs :
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I am reaching out to see how we can best help you with forming
>>>>>>>>>>> this representative group. Understanding the level of work already
>>>>>>>>>>> underway in the community, we are suggesting that one way
>>>>>>>>>>> forward might be to leverage an existing community group.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> As you may know, one of the features of the updated Independent
>>>>>>>>>>> Review Process (IRP) under the new Bylaws is the establishment
>>>>>>>>>>> of a standing panel from which panelists shall be selected to
>>>>>>>>>>> preside over each IRP dispute. The Bylaws specify that “ICANN
>>>>>>>>>>> shall, in consultation with the Supporting Organizations [SOs] and Advisory
>>>>>>>>>>> Committees [ACs], initiate a four-step process to establish the
>>>>>>>>>>> Standing Panel…” (Bylaws, Art. 4, Sec. 4.3(j).) Notably, the
>>>>>>>>>>> SOs and ACs must collectively agree on a single proposed
>>>>>>>>>>> standing panel slate to be submitted to the ICANN Board for
>>>>>>>>>>> approval as part of the four-step process.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> We’ve received feedback from many SOs and ACs
>>>>>>>>>>> [secure-web.cisco.com]
>>>>>>>>>>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__secure-2Dweb.cisco.com_13MkW56PyY3AtpkuEL4mekdX5fm-2DxumjmV8R-2DS7WJdH0buT9xXC1UdHBT5i6shITDhVBmfHOBmUpK30O0n8WqMEgH5Xta-2DAKyErJxtGiwni263ne0GMRCGQTGUQpfm6hVtG69pRORpjtjLcxji1en0zAgvix1o630IgERRv0TUB9TthpTbr8ptOtWcGhUoP0xtlGK5EehlVZcv3EbNdY9yrzv1CblRetRcyEGlpbYZYu60sFdMbdl4Tbw73Yqa2CgUk1L-5FETrlu9gO5o2Tsc9fA_https-253A-252F-252Fcommunity.icann.org-252Fdisplay-252FESPFIRP-252FRelevant-252BDocuments-253Fpreview-253D-252F95095469-252F126431359-252FCommunityFeedbackEstablishingStandingPanel-5F31March2020.pdf&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=h7ObVMPGpAcLv72avqZ3syNYxeg9Akd-D4l9_q4cPOQ&m=zTW8J_DZpbmbmPajmSBAKzADp73kxi5QxALVkKUg8gE&s=7Tm4rLUkqNCYzmd2XDuVqU-X6XGtsArP2TrPnNh-ibc&e=> as
>>>>>>>>>>> to how they envision this work getting done, and published a summary
>>>>>>>>>>> and next steps [secure-web.cisco.com]
>>>>>>>>>>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__secure-2Dweb.cisco.com_13MkW56PyY3AtpkuEL4mekdX5fm-2DxumjmV8R-2DS7WJdH0buT9xXC1UdHBT5i6shITDhVBmfHOBmUpK30O0n8WqMEgH5Xta-2DAKyErJxtGiwni263ne0GMRCGQTGUQpfm6hVtG69pRORpjtjLcxji1en0zAgvix1o630IgERRv0TUB9TthpTbr8ptOtWcGhUoP0xtlGK5EehlVZcv3EbNdY9yrzv1CblRetRcyEGlpbYZYu60sFdMbdl4Tbw73Yqa2CgUk1L-5FETrlu9gO5o2Tsc9fA_https-253A-252F-252Fcommunity.icann.org-252Fdisplay-252FESPFIRP-252FRelevant-252BDocuments-253Fpreview-253D-252F95095469-252F126431359-252FCommunityFeedbackEstablishingStandingPanel-5F31March2020.pdf&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=h7ObVMPGpAcLv72avqZ3syNYxeg9Akd-D4l9_q4cPOQ&m=zTW8J_DZpbmbmPajmSBAKzADp73kxi5QxALVkKUg8gE&s=7Tm4rLUkqNCYzmd2XDuVqU-X6XGtsArP2TrPnNh-ibc&e=>. There
>>>>>>>>>>> is strong support for the SOs and ACs to further their selection effort
>>>>>>>>>>> of the Standing Panel through a small representative group, and
>>>>>>>>>>> ICANN org sees this as an important component to getting the
>>>>>>>>>>> Standing Panel established.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> *In looking at the groups that are already active,
>>>>>>>>>>> one potential way to proceed is to leverage the existence of
>>>>>>>>>>> the IRP Implementation Oversight Team (IRP-IOT). *
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The IRP-IOT, which you helped repopulate, is already comprised
>>>>>>>>>>> of people that are well qualified in issues relating to ICANN,
>>>>>>>>>>> international arbitration and dispute resolution and who are likely to have
>>>>>>>>>>> the skill sets that would be needed to lead the community work on
>>>>>>>>>>> this important endeavor. If this is a potential way forward, we could
>>>>>>>>>>> quickly work with you to explore how to appropriately do this
>>>>>>>>>>> work along with the other work underway in the IRP-IOT.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> *We are also ready to support the community in forming a new,
>>>>>>>>>>> separate representative group to do this work.*
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> From the ICANN org side, we’re available to support the
>>>>>>>>>>> community to identify and get this representative group up and
>>>>>>>>>>> running so that the panel selection process can move forward –
>>>>>>>>>>> including identification of an expert to further support and coordinate the
>>>>>>>>>>> community work – in time to start work when the deadline for
>>>>>>>>>>> the submission of expressions interest to serve on the Standing
>>>>>>>>>>> Panel expires on 31 July.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Let us know how we can help you move this work along.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> David
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> David A. Olive
>>>>>>>>>>> Senior Vice President
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Policy Development Support
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>> ALAC mailing list
>>>>>>>>>>> ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>>>>>>>>>>> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org
>>>>>>>>>>> ALAC Working Wiki:
>>>>>>>>>>> https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)
>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>> By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing
>>>>>>>>>>> of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list
>>>>>>>>>>> accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (
>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of
>>>>>>>>>>> Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the
>>>>>>>>>>> Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration,
>>>>>>>>>>> including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling
>>>>>>>>>>> delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Website <http://www.unilorin.edu.ng/>, Weekly Bulletin
>>>>>>>>>> <http://www.unilorin.edu.ng/index.php/bulletin> UGPortal
>>>>>>>>>> <http://uilugportal.unilorin.edu.ng/> PGPortal
>>>>>>>>>> <https://uilpgportal.unilorin.edu.ng/>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>> ALAC mailing list
>>>>>>>>>> ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>>>>>>>>>> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org
>>>>>>>>>> ALAC Working Wiki:
>>>>>>>>>> https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)
>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>> By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing
>>>>>>>>>> of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list
>>>>>>>>>> accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (
>>>>>>>>>> https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of
>>>>>>>>>> Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the
>>>>>>>>>> Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration,
>>>>>>>>>> including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling
>>>>>>>>>> delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Website <http://www.unilorin.edu.ng/>, Weekly Bulletin
>>>>>>>> <http://www.unilorin.edu.ng/index.php/bulletin> UGPortal
>>>>>>>> <http://uilugportal.unilorin.edu.ng/> PGPortal
>>>>>>>> <https://uilpgportal.unilorin.edu.ng/>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> ALAC mailing list
>>>>>>> ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>>>>>>> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org
>>>>>>> ALAC Working Wiki:
>>>>>>> https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of
>>>>>>> your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list
>>>>>>> accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (
>>>>>>> https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of
>>>>>>> Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the
>>>>>>> Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration,
>>>>>>> including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling
>>>>>>> delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Website <http://www.unilorin.edu.ng>, Weekly Bulletin
>>>>>> <http://www.unilorin.edu.ng/index.php/bulletin> UGPortal
>>>>>> <http://uilugportal.unilorin.edu.ng/> PGPortal
>>>>>> <https://uilpgportal.unilorin.edu.ng/>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>> Website <http://www.unilorin.edu.ng>, Weekly Bulletin
>>>> <http://www.unilorin.edu.ng/index.php/bulletin> UGPortal
>>>> <http://uilugportal.unilorin.edu.ng/> PGPortal
>>>> <https://uilpgportal.unilorin.edu.ng/>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> ALAC mailing list
>>>> ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>>>> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
>>>>
>>>> At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org
>>>> ALAC Working Wiki:
>>>> https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your
>>>> personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance
>>>> with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy)
>>>> and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos).
>>>> You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or
>>>> configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or
>>>> disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
>>>
>>>
>> Website <http://www.unilorin.edu.ng>, Weekly Bulletin
>> <http://www.unilorin.edu.ng/index.php/bulletin> UGPortal
>> <http://uilugportal.unilorin.edu.ng/> PGPortal
>> <https://uilpgportal.unilorin.edu.ng/>
>>
>>
--
Website <http://www.unilorin.edu.ng>, Weekly Bulletin
<http://www.unilorin.edu.ng/index.php/bulletin> UGPortal
<http://uilugportal.unilorin.edu.ng/> PGPortal
<https://uilpgportal.unilorin.edu.ng/>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/alac/attachments/20200720/8e5c6753/attachment.html>
More information about the ALAC
mailing list