[Chapter-delegates] Message from Internet Society Audit Committee Chair

Sun Nov 8 08:14:48 PST 2020

On Sun, Nov 8, 2020 at 9:42 PM sivasubramanian muthusamy <
6.internet at gmail.com> wrote:

>
> ( I don't fully understand the immediate context or trigger for this issue
> of a perceived conflict of interest in the BoT. Nevertheless sharing some
> observations, addressed to Andrew)
>
> Dear Andrew,
>
> There is a focus on conflict of interest arising when a serving Chapter
> President offers to serve the ISOC BoT, on the rationale that the Chapter
> (not the individual who has the role of the serving President) has received
> 2 or 3000 a year for funding which is used for projects which in effect
> further the positive interests of the Internet Society.  This conflict of
> interest, if any, is dwarfed by the conflict of interest in the BoT which
> from time to time includes representatives from Business Organizations
> whose financial contributions to the IETF or to ISOC or to ISOC initiatives
> is in the order of millions of dollars, and whose businesses stand to make
> significant financial gains or losses from the directions that the ISOC
> public policy takes.
>
> As for the Chapter Officers conflict of interest, if there is a provision
> that allows a serving Chapter President to serve the BoT with conventions
> of recusing from Chapter funding decisions it would suffice. If ISOC is
> more insistent of perfection, the elected member, after confirmation of
> election, or before he or she opts to serve the BoT, could be presented
> with an option to pass on his or her role as Chapter President.
>
>
( and the same policy of recusing / choice of one role or another could
apply to BoT members elected by organizations, with a view not to deny the
opportunity to serve ISOC to those who are truly committed to the work of
ISOC)

> Sivasubramanian M
>
>
> On Sun, Nov 8, 2020 at 9:37 PM Veni Markovski via Chapter-delegates <
> chapter-delegates at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
>
>> Thanks from me, too.
>> I agree with Richard’s observations and also would like to see the legal
>> advice (if such exist) that became the driving force behind this strange
>> CoI policy, which gives chapter leaders two choices:
>> — run for the BoT of ISOC and give up the work they do in their own
>> countries
>> — never run foe the BoT, and keep work with their chapters foe the good
>> of the national Internet.
>>
>> In the latter case, ISOC BoT is voluntarily getting rid of good
>> candidates, national chapter leaders. In the former, the ISOC BoT is taking
>> the leaders, and telling the chapter, what effectively would be, “We don’t
>> cate about your needs”.
>>
>> None of these is good.
>>
>> On Sun, Nov 8, 2020 at 10:39 Olga Cavalli via Chapter-delegates <
>> chapter-delegates at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Dear Richard,
>>>
>>> many thanks for the detailed analysis of the various comments shared in
>>> this email thread. Very interesting and useful.
>>>
>>> Please note that the Governance Reform Working group of the ISOC Board
>>> of Trustees will start its activities very soon.
>>>
>>> I will be charing this group and Mike Goodwin will be the vice chair.
>>>
>>> Comments and ideas from you and other colleagues will be an excellent
>>> input for the working group.
>>>
>>> Please stay tuned for the access details to the working group, which
>>> will be shared soon with the community.
>>>
>>> Best regards
>>> Olga
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ppoint Chair and Vice Chair of Governance Reform Working Group
>>> RESOLVED, that the ISOC Board appoints Olga Cavalli as Chair, and Mike
>>> Godwin as Vice Chair of the Governance Reform Working Group.
>>>
>>> El dom., 8 nov. 2020 a las 12:04, Richard Hill via Chapter-delegates (<
>>> chapter-delegates at elists.isoc.org>) escribió:
>>>
>>>> I will comment here on several messages that are part of this thread.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 5 November, 18h50, Andrew wrote:
>>>> -----------------------------------
>>>>
>>>> >Chapters are, legally speaking, separate organizations from the
>>>> Internet Society (i.e. the corporation incorporated
>>>> > in the District of Columbia in the US).  The US Internal Revenue
>>>> Service requires that Trustees disclose,
>>>> > in the annual 990s we file with them, any case where they have an
>>>> interest in another organization
>>>> > that receives money from the Internet Society.  In principle, any
>>>> Chapter can be in receipt of money
>>>> > from ISOC because of the admin fund, because of the money that flows
>>>> through the Internet Society for Beyond
>>>> > the Net, and because of the Chapterthon.  If an officer of a Chapter
>>>> were to be in a Chapter that receives
>>>> > any of that money, then we would have to report it to the IRS and
>>>> undergo a bunch of additional investigation
>>>> > and audits and so on (because, as an officer of such a Chapter they
>>>> have a fiduciary relationship
>>>> ? to the Chapter and so are deemed to have an interest).  It would be a
>>>> risk to the organization
>>>> >and our 501(c)(3) status.  That is why it is important that nobody in
>>>> a Chapter leader position be a
>>>> > Trustee at the same time.
>>>>
>>>> US tax laws are notoriously complicated and difficult to understand.
>>>> Here is how the IRS itself explains the matter:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/form-1023-purpose-of-conflict-of-interest-policy
>>>>
>>>> It seems to me that the key bit is: "A conflict of interest occurs
>>>> where individuals’ obligation to further the organization’s charitable
>>>> purposes is at odds with their own financial interests."
>>>>
>>>> I stress "THEIR OWN FINANCIAL INTERESTS".
>>>>
>>>> Most Chapters are non-profit associations, whose officers are not paid
>>>> and don't benefit financially from any funds that ISOC might provide to the
>>>> Chapters.
>>>>
>>>> So it seems to me that, in general, Chapter officers would not be in
>>>> conflict of interest according to what the IRS says above.
>>>>
>>>> However, as I already said, US tax law is complicated. More detail
>>>> applying for tax-exempt status are at:
>>>>
>>>>  https://www.irs.gov/instructions/i1023
>>>>
>>>> I presume that ISOC has obtained expert legal advice on why having
>>>> Chapter officers on the Board would violate US tax law. If that is the
>>>> case, could the legal advice be posted to this list?
>>>>
>>>> >That is not to say, of course, that people who have been leaders in a
>>>> Chapter should be excluded from selection
>>>> > as a Trustee.  We often have people who become Trustees while they
>>>> are Chapter leaders.  They simply have
>>>> >to give one up or the other.
>>>>
>>>> I do not understand that. Some individuals have as much influence on a
>>>> Chapter as members as they did when they were officers.
>>>>
>>>> So I don't see how excluding Chapter officers actually changes anything.
>>>>
>>>> On 5 November, 21h26, Andrew wrote
>>>> ---------------------------
>>>>
>>>> >The old CoI policy is still available at
>>>> https://www.internetsociety.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/conflictofinterest-trustees.pdf
>>>> .
>>>>
>>>> >My understanding is that, at least when I started as CEO, there was
>>>> general agreement that serving as both a
>>>> > Chapter officer and a Trustee at the same time created a violation
>>>> due to an Affiliated Entity under section
>>>> > II.A and possibly II.B of that policy,
>>>>
>>>> Here is what those sections said:
>>>>
>>>> "An Affiliated Entity is any corporation of business of which the
>>>> Interested Party is a director, officer, partner,
>>>> owner, or otherwise has business interest.
>>>>
>>>> "A. Financial Interests - A conflict may exist where an Interested
>>>> Party or a Relative or Affiliated
>>>> Entity directly or indirectly benefits or profits as a result of an
>>>> action, policy, or transaction made
>>>> by ISOC (referred to as a “financial interest”). A financial interest
>>>> is not necessarily a conflict of
>>>> interest. A conflict of interest exists only when the Board, the Chair
>>>> of the Board, or the
>>>> Interested Party decides the Interested Party has a conflict of
>>>> interest, or the appearance of a
>>>> conflict of interest.
>>>>
>>>> "B. Other Interests - A conflict also may exist where an Interested
>>>> Party or a Relative or
>>>> Affiliated Entity obtains a non-financial benefit or advantage that he
>>>> or she would not have
>>>> obtained absent his or her relationship with ISOC. A conflict of
>>>> interest exists only when the
>>>> Board, the Chair of the Board, or the Interested Party decides the
>>>> Interested Party has a conflict
>>>> of interest or the appearance of a conflict of interest."
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So, as I understand the above, if a Chapter officer is a Trustee
>>>> (Interested Party), then the Chapter is an Affiliated Entity. Since
>>>> Chapters receive financial aid and/or non-financial benefits from ISOC,
>>>> there is financial interest.
>>>>
>>>> But that is not necessarily a conflict of interest. It is a conflict of
>>>> interest only if the Board, Chair of the Board, or Chapter Officer decides
>>>> that there is a conflict of interest.
>>>>
>>>> That is, there was no absolute prohibition on Chapter Officers being
>>>> Trustees.
>>>>
>>>> >and that it would require that such a Trustee would be necessarily
>>>> conflicted
>>>>
>>>> No, not "necessarily", see above.
>>>>
>>>> > on all matters related to the ISOC budget and possibly anything to do
>>>> with Chapters, and so the only plausible remedy under section IV of that
>>>> policy would be option (d) (i.e. resignation or removal).
>>>>
>>>> No, section IV provides that the Trustee could "Physically excuse
>>>> himself or herself from participation in any discussions regarding the
>>>> transaction or activity, except as requested by the Chair."
>>>>
>>>> On 6 November, Heather wrote:
>>>> -----------------------------
>>>>
>>>> >The Conflict of Interest policy (CoI policy) is a Board policy that
>>>> governs the members of the Board of Trustees,
>>>> > not the chapters or other communities.
>>>>
>>>> Sorry, the new CoI policy explicitly prevents Chapter officers from
>>>> being Trustees, so it does affect the chapters. Therefore, in my view, the
>>>> Chapters should have been consulted.  Furthermore, as I've said before, I
>>>> think that the constituent bodies (Chapters, Organizational Members, IETF)
>>>> should systematically be consulted for everything.
>>>>
>>>> >There are a number of reasons to have a CoI policy - both simply
>>>> because it’s an important aspect
>>>> > of board governance, but also because the IRS asks about the
>>>> existence of, and process of, a CoI policy
>>>>
>>>> True, but what was the driver for the recent changes? The IRS? Or
>>>> somebody's idea of good governance? As noted above, it is not clear to me
>>>> that the IRS requires the changes that were made, but I'm happy to stand
>>>> corrected by a an expert on US tax law.
>>>>
>>>> > as I understand it, clarifications to the 2011 policy were needed
>>>>
>>>> What was the driver for those clarifications? Specific situations? A
>>>> general feeling that they were needed?
>>>>
>>>> >In the case of current discussion, there was some disagreement amongst
>>>> Trustees as to how to interpret
>>>> > the current policy -
>>>>
>>>> By "current policy", do you mean the old policy, or the new one that
>>>> has just come into force?
>>>>
>>>> >That is not ideal. We can clarify based on learnings from those
>>>> discussions.
>>>> >We wanted to draw the community's attention to this while we work out
>>>> what clarifications
>>>> > to the policy might be needed.
>>>>
>>>> Does this mean that the new policy is open for comment and revision? If
>>>> so, what is the process that will be used to allow comment and revision?
>>>>
>>>> >As I understand it, the CoI policy is intended to ensure that Trustees
>>>> can participate in any number
>>>> > of organizations or related activities - we want to be able to draw
>>>> Trustees from a wide pool (of course,
>>>> > as elected by members of the community). However, if a Trustee is
>>>> part of the direct policymaking or
>>>> > governance of multiple organizations, then that can create a conflict
>>>> of interest
>>>>
>>>> How can being a Chapter officer create a conflict of interest, given
>>>> that (1) Chapters are bound to adhere to ISOC policies and (2) most
>>>> Chapters are membership organizations in which decisions are made by the
>>>> members, not the officers? (As I noted above, an individual member might be
>>>> more influential than an officer).
>>>>
>>>> > As I understand it, advising other organizations is not a conflict of
>>>> interest, but determining policy
>>>> > for an organization in the same areas of engagement as ISOC creates
>>>> the potential for problems
>>>> > (regardless of whether they are formally on a leadership team for
>>>> that organization).
>>>>
>>>> To be clear, I have no objection to Heather being a Trustee. On the
>>>> contrary, I think that we should have people who have backgrounds and roles
>>>> similar to hers. Her profile is at:
>>>>
>>>>  https://www.internetsociety.org/author/west/
>>>>
>>>> As you will see "At Mozilla, maker of the Firefox browser, Heather
>>>> leads policy work for the Americas, with a global focus on data governance."
>>>>
>>>> So Heather is precisely a person who determines policy for an
>>>> organization (Mozilla) in the same area of engagement as ISOC, regardless
>>>> of whether she is formally on a leadership team for Mozilla.
>>>>
>>>> So there is something wrong with the policy, because it appears to be
>>>> intended to exclude people like Heather from the Board, whereas it should
>>>> be intended to facilitate bringing people like Heather into the Board.
>>>>
>>>> Note that other Board members have similar roles:
>>>>
>>>> Richard Barnes is Chief Security Architect for Collaboration at Cisco.
>>>>
>>>> Gonzalo Camarillo is the head of Data/IT standardization at Ericsson.
>>>>
>>>> Ted Hardie is Vice President in the Global Technical Standards team
>>>> within Cisco's Emerging Technology and Incubation group (according to
>>>> LinkedIn, which is not consistent with the profile published by ISOC,
>>>> according to which he works for Google).
>>>>
>>>> John Levine is President of CAUCE North America (http://www.cauce.org),
>>>> the leading grass roots anti-online-abuse organization.
>>>>
>>>> Robert Pepper helps lead Facebook’s connectivity and technology policy
>>>> activities focusing on new technology development, deployment and adoption
>>>> including being involved in Internet Governance issues.
>>>>
>>>> Laura Thomson is VP of Engineering at Fastly.
>>>>
>>>> Again, I don't have any problem with any of the above people being on
>>>> the ISOC Board. My problem is that Heather's explanation of the intent of
>>>> the new policy would appear to apply to them.
>>>>
>>>> > But it has been noted that the MAG Chair appears to make policy for
>>>> the IGF.
>>>>
>>>> I'm not an expert on the IGF but, as I understand matter, the IGF does
>>>> not make policy, the MAG does not make policy, and the MAG Chair does not
>>>> have any authority to decide anything. But I'm happy to stand corrected by
>>>> people who know more about the IGF.
>>>>
>>>> >Corporations generally do not have formal policy development bodies
>>>> the way volunteer organizations do
>>>>
>>>> True, in corporations policies are usually made by management, on the
>>>> advice of lower-level employees.  So what? A senior advisor to a
>>>> corporation probably has more influence on the corporation's policies than
>>>> does an officer in most Chapters.
>>>>
>>>> >it is important not to have a conflict between any Trustee’s position
>>>> with ISOC and their formal role within
>>>> > another organization.
>>>>
>>>> Again, what sort of "conflict" are we talking about? Financial?
>>>> Policy?  And why restrict to "formal role"? As noted above, people who
>>>> don't have a formal role can have significant influence on policies. And
>>>> people without a formal role might be receiving money (e.g. as consulting
>>>> fees).
>>>>
>>>> It seems to me that the policy should not specify general categories,
>>>> such as Chapter officers, but should instead focus on what individuals have
>>>> to be careful about, for example not accepting salaries, fees, etc that are
>>>> paid pursuant to grants from ISOC.
>>>>
>>>> >Trustees do declare their potential conflicts on a regular basis,
>>>> using a standard form;
>>>>
>>>> Good.
>>>>
>>>> > as Chair of the Audit Committee, I collect and monitor them. This is
>>>> another thing that the IRS asks about
>>>> > from a process perspective. There have been discussions about whether
>>>> to post these publicly,
>>>> > there has not been agreement about whether this is always possible.
>>>>
>>>> Surely it is possible. Whether it would be advisable is a different
>>>> question. Personally, I would encourage the Board to decide to make all the
>>>> forms public.
>>>>
>>>> >There is a very narrow set of circumstances wherein the conflict is
>>>> structural in nature;
>>>>
>>>> Sorry, but the new policy contains a very broad set of circumstances:
>>>> being a Chapter officer.
>>>>
>>>> >in this case, the policy instead requires the person to choose between
>>>> their role on the Board or within
>>>> > the other organization, as recusal would not adequately protect ISOC.
>>>>
>>>> As noted above, I disagree that recusal would not be sufficient for
>>>> Chapter officers.
>>>>
>>>> >The goal is to make these circumstances as rare as possible while
>>>> remaining responsible, as Trustees, to ISOC.
>>>>
>>>> In my view, the new policy totally fails to meet its goal.
>>>>
>>>> On 6 November, 15h00, Andrew wrote:
>>>> -----------------------------------
>>>>
>>>> >Organizational Members are not Chapters, though.  Chapters are
>>>> independent organizations that have
>>>> > a direct affiliation with the Internet Society, which is why Chapters
>>>> are eligible for financial support
>>>> > and certain programs, can use a derivative logo, and so on.
>>>> Organizational Members can't do any of that.
>>>>
>>>> True. But I don't see how any of that requires that Trustees cannot be
>>>> Chapter officers.
>>>>
>>>> On 7 November, Andrew wrote:
>>>> ----------------------------
>>>>
>>>> >One might want to make an argument that ISOC shouldn't have been
>>>> organized under US law, but it's too late
>>>> > to do very much about that: we already are.
>>>>
>>>> As I understand it, there will be (hopefully soon) a forum to discuss
>>>> potential changes to ISOC's governance. Would a move outside the US be an
>>>> acceptable topic to discuss? Or is that off-limits?
>>>>
>>>> >But I am aware that there are some who feel that either the Trustees
>>>> or the staff or both are too exclusive
>>>> > of the community.  I will continue to do what I can to counter that
>>>> drift while still pursuing the Mission
>>>> > as directed by the Board.
>>>>
>>>> I'm sure that the staff is doing what the Board tells it to do.
>>>> However, I think that the staff can make suggestions to the Board.
>>>>
>>>> In this particular case, I think that the staff could have advised the
>>>> Board to consult the community, in particular the Chapters, before changing
>>>> the policy.
>>>>
>>>> It would have been a good example of bottom-up, as opposed to top-down,
>>>> governance.
>>>>
>>>> Best,
>>>> Richard
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> > -----Original Message-----
>>>> > From: Chapter-delegates [mailto:
>>>> chapter-delegates-bounces at elists.isoc.org] On
>>>> > Behalf Of Andrew Sullivan via Chapter-delegates
>>>> > Sent: Saturday, 7 November, 2020 15:34
>>>> > To: chapter-delegates at elists.isoc.org
>>>> > Subject: Re: [Chapter-delegates] Message from Internet Society Audit
>>>> Committee
>>>> > Chair
>>>> >
>>>> > Hi,
>>>> >
>>>> > Several of the items in your mail are about bigger governance changes
>>>> > than I could do anything about, so I'm just eliding those from my
>>>> > response.  This isn't because I don't think they're worthy of
>>>> > discussion, but because I'm the wrong person to talk to them about!
>>>> > The Board has to adopt Bylaws changes.
>>>> >
>>>> > On Fri, Nov 06, 2020 at 06:02:44PM +0000, Christian de Larrinaga
>>>> wrote:
>>>> > >
>>>> > >For instance Chapters elect ISOC Trustees.
>>>> >
>>>> > Well, 1/3 of them, yes.
>>>> >
>>>> > >Firstly if  ISOC determines how a chapter is governed then that
>>>> potentially
>>>> > can
>>>> > >influence how ISOC is governed via influencing (corruptly) the
>>>> chapter
>>>> > electoral role.
>>>> >
>>>> > To be clear, though, the Internet Society does not in fact determine
>>>> > how Chapters are governed, right?  There definitely are minimum
>>>> > requirements for governance, of course, but those were (1) worked out
>>>> > with the Chapters and the ChAC and (2) are really the minumum we can
>>>> > get away with under US law.  One might want to make an argument that
>>>> > ISOC shouldn't have been organized under US law, but it's too late to
>>>> > do very much about that: we already are.
>>>> >
>>>> > >Secondly ISOC pays money to Chapters. A perceived conflict could
>>>> occur if
>>>> > >it could be  inferred ISOC or some part in ISOC was using that to
>>>> > >influence Chapter candidate selection / voting for the board. (for
>>>> example)
>>>> > […]
>>>> > >There are other potential things to look out for. For instance if an
>>>> > >ISOC staff member or board member or contractor or other benefactor
>>>> > >takes on a senior chapter roll and uses the chapter processes to
>>>> > >influence ISOC in a way that falls outside community consensus.
>>>> >
>>>> > Yes, which is _precisely_ why the Board has this as a hard conflict.
>>>> > You can serve in one capacity or another, but you can't serve in both.
>>>> > We don't allow chapter leadership to be ISOC staff or Trustees to
>>>> > avoid this kind of problem.  Upthread some seemed to be suggesting we
>>>> > should relax this stance, but I think you have argued pretty
>>>> > persuasively that we need to be on our guard here.
>>>> >
>>>> > >Mostly grants to chapters are for services to the community.
>>>> >
>>>> > Some are administrative funds, but yes.  And there are substantial
>>>> > funds set aside every year reserved exclusively to Chapters so that
>>>> > they can achieve those things.  Historically, we seem to have had
>>>> > difficulty getting enough Chapters to apply for those funds, but we
>>>> > continue to reserve them in any case.
>>>> >
>>>> > >Organizational members in my experience depend on an inside ISOC
>>>> > >champion but ISOC has never managed to extend that support in those
>>>> > >organizations to include their brand values with ISOC's core values
>>>> nor
>>>> > >encourage direct engagement by them directly with chapters around
>>>> the world
>>>> > in
>>>> > >areas they are  doing  business or charitable activities. Some very
>>>> > >simple things could be  done to join these dots and turn every $1
>>>> into
>>>> > >$10.
>>>> >
>>>> > I think you are right about this, and it is one of the areas of high
>>>> > priority work in the coming year.  I feel our disconnect with
>>>> > Organizational Members acutely.
>>>> >
>>>> > >I've introduced several orgs to ISOC and some have joined and
>>>> > >subsequently left because they "don't see the point". i.e, the
>>>> "benefit".
>>>> >
>>>> > Correct, that is the central point.
>>>> >
>>>> > >It has too often been a case of "us" and "them" when it comes to ISOC
>>>> > >and its chapters and organisational communities.
>>>> >
>>>> > Speaking for myself, I don't think there is even a possibility of "us"
>>>> > and "them" as regards the Internet Society and its Chapters or
>>>> > Organizational Members, because I believe both of those are part of
>>>> > the Internet Society.  But I am aware that there are some who feel
>>>> > that either the Trustees or the staff or both are too exclusive of the
>>>> > community.  I will continue to do what I can to counter that drift
>>>> > while still pursuing the Mission as directed by the Board.
>>>> >
>>>> > >Incidentally we've  had a very tough year. Let's be kind in
>>>> realisation
>>>> > >people here are here to further the open Internet. It's pretty
>>>> amazing
>>>> > >really. Despite everything being thrown at it the Internet can still
>>>> be for
>>>> > Everyone.
>>>> >
>>>> > In this I think we are in complete agreement.
>>>> >
>>>> > Best regards,
>>>> > A
>>>> >
>>>> > --
>>>> > Andrew Sullivan
>>>> > President & CEO, Internet Society
>>>> > sullivan at isoc.org
>>>> > +1 416 731 1261
>>>> > _______________________________________________
>>>> > As an Internet Society Chapter Officer you are automatically
>>>> subscribed
>>>> > to this list, which is regularly synchronized with the Internet
>>>> Society
>>>> > Chapter Portal (AMS):
>>>> > https://admin.internetsociety.org/622619/User/Login
>>>> > View the Internet Society Code of Conduct:
>>>> > https://www.internetsociety.org/become-a-member/code-of-conduct/
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> As an Internet Society Chapter Officer you are automatically subscribed
>>>> to this list, which is regularly synchronized with the Internet Society
>>>> Chapter Portal (AMS):
>>>> https://admin.internetsociety.org/622619/User/Login
>>>> View the Internet Society Code of Conduct:
>>>> https://www.internetsociety.org/become-a-member/code-of-conduct/
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> As an Internet Society Chapter Officer you are automatically subscribed
>>> to this list, which is regularly synchronized with the Internet Society
>>> Chapter Portal (AMS):
>>> https://admin.internetsociety.org/622619/User/Login
>>> View the Internet Society Code of Conduct:
>>> https://www.internetsociety.org/become-a-member/code-of-conduct/
>>>
>> --
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Veni Markovski
>> http://www.veni.com
>> pgp: 5BA1366E veni at veni.com
>> <http://www.veni.com/>
>>
>> The opinions expressed above are those of the author,
>> not of any organizations, associated with or related to
>> the author in any given way.
>> _______________________________________________
>> As an Internet Society Chapter Officer you are automatically subscribed
>> to this list, which is regularly synchronized with the Internet Society
>> Chapter Portal (AMS):
>> https://admin.internetsociety.org/622619/User/Login
>> View the Internet Society Code of Conduct:
>> https://www.internetsociety.org/become-a-member/code-of-conduct/
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/private/chapter-delegates/attachments/20201108/f1b3661b/attachment.htm>