Glad to see Niels focusing the discussion back on policy issues and where our Council members stand on them.
I see this not as a grilling or confrontation with Ed, but is a really valuable opportunity for a dialogue.
Having read Ed's transcript I was surprised at how much of his statement I agreed with. Many of us share the concern that the UN system has engaged in "rights inflation" and that core free expression and privacy rights could be smothered by broader interpretations of other conflicting rights.
However we did succeed in getting a strong statement in the mission that Icann shall not engage in content regulation and the whole point of the WS2 HR framework of interpretation was to ensure that the meaning of HR in ICANN would stay within bounds.
So it seems there was some lack of coordination or communication between at least this one councilmember, and the NCSG members who were working on the human rights segment of the accountability reforms.
Milton L Mueller
Professor, School of Public Policy
Georgia Institute of Technology
> On Aug 31, 2016, at 05:55, Niels ten Oever <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> Dear all,
>
>
>
> With another week passing by I am afraid my point is being proven: there
> is a lack of accountability a councilor and a candidate in our election.
> Ed Morris has made a _very_ strong position in Marrakesh on Human Rights
> (attached, page 39-41 or search for
> North Korea') which has not been discussed on this list with the
> community, as ordained in the charter and as I asked Ed in a policy
> meeting as well as here on the list, both before and after he made the
> statement.
>
>
>
> This means that both as a councilor and as a candidate, Ed is in breach
> of the NCSG charter, as previously quoted:
>
>
>
> "Each NCSG GNSO Council Representative shall represent, within the GNSO
>
> Council, ICANN and its activities, the goals and priorities of the NCSG
>
> to the best of his/her ability and in accordance with the principle of
>
> consensus building."
>
>
>
> and:
>
>
>
> "Council Representatives will, however, be expected to understand the
>
> varied positions in the NCSG and to explain to the membership how their
>
> votes are in support of noncommercial interests. NCSG GNSO Councilors
>
> should work with the NCSG‑PC to develop NCSG policy positions. NCSG GNSO
>
> Council Representatives are expected to keep the NCSG membership
>
> informed of policy issues before the GNSO Council, to seek input from
>
> the NCSG membership and to be responsive to member requests for
>
> information on matters pending before the Council."
>
>
>
> I have asked Ed to respond several times in person and on this list, he
> chose not to respond.
>
>
>
> This leaves me no other choice than to ask the NCSG EC to take a
> position on this.
>
>
>
> Best,
>
>
>
> Niels
>
>> On 08/26/2016 01:01 PM, Niels ten Oever wrote:
>> Dear Ed,
>>
>> Another week has gone by. These questions have been open for quite a
>> while now, just like the elections. I would like to ask you again to
>> answer these questions, because I think this is part of your obligations
>> as a councilor as well as a candidate.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Niels
>>
>>> On 08/22/2016 06:53 PM, Niels ten Oever wrote:
>>> Dear Ed,
>>>
>>> I sympathize, but this is not the first time this question has been
>>> brought up. And since the voting has started, I hope you can treat this
>>> as a matter of priority.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>>
>>> Niels
>>>
>>>> On 08/21/2016 07:46 PM, Edward Morris wrote:
>>>> Hi James and Paul
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for your messages and for your enthusiasm!
>>>>
>>>> I need to apologize – this is the busiest time of the year for me
>>>> workwise. Our academics here, students and professors, often disappear
>>>> from the lists for a few weeks around exam time. It’s crunch time for
>>>> them. The last few weeks in August is the equivalent in the music
>>>> industry in the UK and US. My jobs usually have great flexibility,
>>>> that’s why I’m one of the few non academics able to volunteer here:
>>>> except at this time of year. I just got through with a three day
>>>> festival in the rain and mud, living in tents in the South of England,
>>>> will be doing the same for four days at the Leeds and Reading Festivals
>>>> next weekend (hopefully without the rain!) and am working clubs every
>>>> night this week. I also have six ICANN calls in the next four days that
>>>> I've factored into my schedule..
>>>>
>>>> The answers are coming and I can only apologize for the delay. I hope to
>>>> have the first set up Monday and then will do the best I can. Apologies
>>>> to everyone. We’re all volunteers here, most of us are not paid for this
>>>> work (I certainly am not!), so I hope folks can relate.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for your understanding – and post midnight greetings from a rest
>>>> area off a highway somewhere in the South of England,
>>>>
>>>> Best,
>>>>
>>>> Ed
>>>>
>>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> *From*: "Paul Rosenzweig" <[log in to unmask]>
>>>> *Sent*: Sunday, August 21, 2016 5:40 PM
>>>> *To*: [log in to unmask]
>>>> *Subject*: Re: Views on Adding Human Rights to the Bylaws
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> James
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It is the weekend. Some people have lives outside of this list. I
>>>> suspect that we will hear from the other candidates in due course.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> P
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Paul Rosenzweig
>>>>
>>>> [log in to unmask]
>>>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>>>>
>>>> O: +1 (202) 547-0660
>>>>
>>>> M: +1 (202) 329-9650
>>>>
>>>> VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739
>>>>
>>>> www.redbranchconsulting.com <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/>
>>>>
>>>> My PGP Key: http://redbranchconsulting.com/who-we-are/public-pgp-key/
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *From:*NCSG-Discuss [mailto:[log in to unmask]] *On Behalf Of
>>>> *James Gannon
>>>> *Sent:* Sunday, August 21, 2016 7:14 AM
>>>> *To:* [log in to unmask]
>>>> *Subject:* Re: Views on Adding Human Rights to the Bylaws
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Just following up on this, we have a number of candidates being asked
>>>> questions on various topics by a few NCSG members, but I have only seen
>>>> Stephanie responding, this to me is quite disappointing and doesn’t
>>>> reflect well.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I would appreciate those asking for our votes to respond.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -James
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *From: *NCSG-Discuss <[log in to unmask]
>>>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> on behalf of Tatiana Tropina
>>>> <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
>>>> *Reply-To: *Tatiana Tropina <[log in to unmask]
>>>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
>>>> *Date: *Saturday 20 August 2016 at 09:35
>>>> *To: *"[log in to unmask]
>>>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>" <[log in to unmask]
>>>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
>>>> *Subject: *Re: Views on Adding Human Rights to the Bylaws
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> HI Bill, hi all,
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for making three different threads - very much appreciated that
>>>> these important questions will not get lost.
>>>>
>>>> I think Niels's questions are broader than just addition of the human
>>>> rights obligation into the bylaws. I am puzzled, too and would really
>>>> like to get answers.
>>>>
>>>> Warm regards
>>>>
>>>> Tatiana
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 20 August 2016 at 09:55, William Drake <[log in to unmask]
>>>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> (was: A Few Take-Aways from Meet the Candidates Call re: Council
>>>> Transparency and Coordination)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hi
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> How about we discuss the human rights issue issue under this subject
>>>> line?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I have to admit I that I too was puzzled by what happened in
>>>> Marrakech on this, both in real time and after reading the
>>>> transcript. It would be good to understand everyones’ views on this
>>>> crucial issue.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thanks
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Bill
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Aug 19, 2016, at 20:52, Niels ten Oever
>>>> <[log in to unmask]
>>>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Dear all,
>>>>
>>>> I think Bill and Milton raised very important questions
>>>> concerning the
>>>> work of the GNSO. I would like to ask two more questions based
>>>> on what
>>>> Milton has already asked.
>>>>
>>>> I read in Ed’s statement about his strong commitment to freedom of
>>>> expression. I would like to ask again – after asking this in
>>>> person, in
>>>> a session and in the +1 thread here, because I believe it is
>>>> important
>>>> for us to know: Why did Ed vote, as the only GNSO councilor,
>>>> against the
>>>> addition of a commitment for ICANN to respect human rights to
>>>> ICANN bylaws?
>>>> This is not just about NCSG GNSO councilors, but Ed was only one
>>>> of ALL
>>>> GNSO councilors to vote against the commitment to human rights.
>>>>
>>>> And furthermore, why did Ed not discuss this openly, before the
>>>> vote, on
>>>> the NCSG list. Because I think the concerns Ed had were not shared
>>>> widely within the NCSG, except for Heritage and himself.
>>>>
>>>> I find it a problem of accountability how Ed continuously seem
>>>> to not
>>>> want to discuss this openly within our constituency, but does
>>>> vote on
>>>> behalf of it. Here I would like to quote the charter again:
>>>>
>>>> "Each NCSG GNSO Council Representative shall represent, within
>>>> the GNSO
>>>> Council, ICANN and its activities, the goals and priorities of
>>>> the NCSG
>>>> to the best of his/her ability and in accordance with the
>>>> principle of
>>>> consensus building."
>>>>
>>>> and:
>>>>
>>>> "Council Representatives will, however, be expected to
>>>> understand the
>>>> varied positions in the NCSG and to explain to the membership
>>>> how their
>>>> votes are in support of noncommercial interests. NCSG GNSO
>>>> Councilors
>>>> should work with the NCSG-PC to develop NCSG policy positions.
>>>> NCSG GNSO
>>>> Council Representatives are expected to keep the NCSG membership
>>>> informed of policy issues before the GNSO Council, to seek input
>>>> from
>>>> the NCSG membership and to be responsive to member requests for
>>>> information on matters pending before the Council."
>>>>
>>>> Last but not least. If you look at the voting history in the
>>>> GNSO, it is
>>>> clear that there is a pattern of Ed structurally making other
>>>> choices
>>>> than the other NCSG GNSO councilors. I do not think this is
>>>> necessarily
>>>> bad, but I do not see any explanation for this reflected in Ed’s
>>>> statement.
>>>>
>>>> Best,
>>>>
>>>> Niels
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 08/19/2016 12:57 PM, Mueller, Milton L wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I would like to raise an issue that was completely avoided
>>>> in our
>>>> discussions yesterday.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Probably the biggest issue facing the whole ICANN
>>>> environment right now
>>>> is the IANA transition – the end of US Govt control of the
>>>> DNS root
>>>> zone, and the completion of ICANN’s movement toward
>>>> self-governance.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> My sense is that the overwhelming majority of us in this
>>>> Stakeholder
>>>> Group (NCSG) are in favor of the transition and the
>>>> accountability
>>>> reforms associated with it. None of us thinks they are
>>>> perfect, of
>>>> course, but almost all of us believe that we are better off
>>>> making those
>>>> changes than sticking with the status quo.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> There are a few exceptions. It is clear that the Heritage
>>>> Foundation,
>>>> one of our (eligible!) member organization, is working very
>>>> hard in
>>>> Washington to raise obstacles to the transition. It appears
>>>> to me that
>>>> one of our Council members, Ed Morris, has aligned himself
>>>> with the
>>>> Heritage folks in opposing completion of the transition at
>>>> this time,
>>>> though I could be wrong about that.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I think it is perfectly acceptable for there to be different
>>>> views
>>>> within the NCSG. However, it’s also critical for our members
>>>> to know
>>>> what they are voting for, and to have that debate openly. To
>>>> my mind, a
>>>> Council member who actively works against the completion of the
>>>> transition has a dramatically different vision of the nature
>>>> of ICANN
>>>> and its long term future than one who wants to move ahead
>>>> with the
>>>> accountability reforms and IANA transition.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Therefore it’s critical for our members to know how all
>>>> Councilors stand
>>>> on this question.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So I’d like to see the candidates answer these questions;
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 1. Do you think that if the U.S. Congress blocks the
>>>> transition in
>>>> the next 6 weeks that it will be a disaster for the
>>>> multistakeholder
>>>> model of Internet governance? Why or why not?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 2. Are you actively supporting the Heritage
>>>> Foundation’s (and
>>>> other rightwing groups’) efforts to mobilize Congressional
>>>> Republicans
>>>> to block the transition?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 3. How do you think we as a SG should respond if the
>>>> transition is
>>>> blocked by the U.S. Congress?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I look forward to discussion of these questions by the
>>>> candidates.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Dr. Milton L. Mueller
>>>>
>>>> Professor, School of Public Policy
>>>>
>>>> Georgia Institute of Technology
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *From:*NCSG-Discuss [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
>>>> *On Behalf Of
>>>> *William Drake
>>>> *Sent:* Friday, August 19, 2016 6:04 AM
>>>> *To:* [log in to unmask]
>>>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>>>> *Subject:* A Few Take-Aways from Meet the Candidates Call
>>>> re: Council
>>>> Transparency and Coordination
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hi
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yesterday’s call provided a useful opportunity for dialogue
>>>> on the
>>>> candidates’ views and priorities and also turned out to
>>>> offer some folks
>>>> a chance to start clearing the air, however uncomfortably,
>>>> regarding
>>>> issues that arose within our Council contingent the last
>>>> cycle. I’d
>>>> like to suggest a couple take-aways in hopes that we can
>>>> re-set that
>>>> which needs to be and move forward on a firmer footing.
>>>> Purely my own
>>>> views, which I guess some folks will disagree with, in which
>>>> case fine,
>>>> let’s talk it out.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 1. Differences of perspective among Councilors are fine but
>>>> these
>>>> should be openly shared in order to preserve trust. It might
>>>> make sense
>>>> for the interested parties to find some congenial space in
>>>> which to
>>>> privately work through past bits of friction that arose re: e.g.
>>>> Marrakech, the GNSO chair selection, and whatever else. It
>>>> doesn’t make
>>>> sense to leave misunderstandings unresolved and entrenched
>>>> as it can
>>>> impact on the effectiveness of the team effort going
>>>> forward. Hyderabad
>>>> obviously offers F2F options, which are likely to be the
>>>> most productive
>>>> in coming to resolutions, but it might make sense not to
>>>> wait entirely
>>>> on this.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 2. It would be helpful if Councilors could be sure to attend
>>>> the monthly
>>>> NCSG calls and proactively share their thinking about
>>>> upcoming Council
>>>> meetings and votes with each other and the wider
>>>> membership. In ancient
>>>> times when I was on Council we regarded these as fairly
>>>> mandatory and
>>>> tried to miss only exceptionally and with notification, but more
>>>> recently participation seems to have be spottier at times (I
>>>> believe the
>>>> NCSG chair has attendance records?). Yes we’re all
>>>> volunteers with day
>>>> jobs and travels so things can happen, but it shouldn’t be
>>>> the case that
>>>> people miss more than a couple per annual cycle.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 3. In parallel, it’d be good to have greater open discussion
>>>> of pending
>>>> votes and positions on the NCSG PC mail list. I’ve been on
>>>> that list
>>>> since we set it up in 2011 (first as a Councilor, then as an
>>>> observer)
>>>> and think it’s under-utilized resource that should work in
>>>> synch with
>>>> our monthly calls and those of the Council. Of course,
>>>> issues should
>>>> not always be sorted purely on an internal PC basis;
>>>> important policy
>>>> choices at least should also be vetted on ncsg-discuss so
>>>> the PC is well
>>>> informed by a feel for general member sentiment, even if
>>>> it’s divided.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Either way, between the monthly calls and the PC, we
>>>> shouldn’t have
>>>> cases where members of the team don’t know until they arrive
>>>> at a
>>>> Council meeting how their colleagues will vote, or what
>>>> contacts and
>>>> representations of the group’s shared positions are being
>>>> made to other
>>>> stakeholder groups, etc. You can’t have a team effort if
>>>> people are
>>>> unaware of each others’ doings.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 4. Part of the PC’s challenge has always been to ensure
>>>> effective
>>>> chairing, including tracking of progress on open projects,
>>>> herding cats,
>>>> etc. We’ve always appointed Councilors to chair but the
>>>> results have
>>>> been variable as people are already maxed out. On
>>>> yesterday’s call Ed
>>>> made a suggestion that merits consideration: having a
>>>> non-Council member
>>>> as chair, and allocating one of the NCSG travel slots to
>>>> this person so
>>>> as to promote their continuous coordination of the process.
>>>> It’d be
>>>> interesting to hear views on this.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 5. After-meeting reporting to the membership of the issues
>>>> and votes
>>>> should be routinized. This doesn’t have involve demanding
>>>> magnum opus
>>>> treatments, a couple paragraphs one a month should be
>>>> sufficient and
>>>> doable. I’d suggested (below) that the six Councilors could
>>>> rotate the
>>>> responsibility, as was briefly attempted in 2009-2010.
>>>> Stephanie
>>>> counter-proposed on the call that reporting be done by
>>>> non-Councilors,
>>>> in part as a way of on-boarding ‘new blood’ and helping to
>>>> prepare folks
>>>> to stand for Council in a future election. This could work too,
>>>> although it may involve some extra coordination to ensure every
>>>> Councilors’ votes and views are reflected to taste. Worth a
>>>> try…
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If we could do at least some of this, I think it’d increase
>>>> our team’s
>>>> solidarity and our general members’ understanding of what their
>>>> representative are up to, what’s in play in the GNSO, and
>>>> what the
>>>> opportunities for engaging in working groups and such are.
>>>> It’d also
>>>> make our votes in elections more well informed.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thoughts?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Bill
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Aug 17, 2016, at 10:39, William Drake
>>>> <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>>>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hi
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Aug 16, 2016, at 23:38, Robin Gross
>>>> <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>>>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Agreed. It is important for members to become more
>>>> acquainted
>>>> with our representatives and resumes are extremely
>>>> helpful for that.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Sharing candidates’ resumes is not a bad idea. But I’d
>>>> like to
>>>> suggest we go beyond this. Two issue we might want to
>>>> consider on
>>>> tomorrow’s call:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> When I joined Council in 2009, we discussed the need for
>>>> better
>>>> reporting to members as to what their reps were actually
>>>> doing in
>>>> Council. We launched an attempt to deal with this by having
>>>> Councilors take turns doing brief reports about Council
>>>> meetings.
>>>> Alas it didn’t get far, after a couple times the sense of
>>>> urgency
>>>> faded, people told themselves “well, members can always
>>>> look at the
>>>> Council archive to see what’s happening," and the effort
>>>> drifted
>>>> off. But of course it’s actually not easy for a member
>>>> to dive
>>>> through the Council archive and try to reconstruct what’s
>>>> happening,
>>>> and it’s not so hard to compose a one or two paragraph
>>>> summary of a
>>>> monthly Council meeting indicating how our reps voted on
>>>> which
>>>> issues, especially if the workload is rotated among six
>>>> Councilors,
>>>> making it just a few times per year each. So while it’s
>>>> a bit
>>>> uncomfortable suggesting work to be done by others, I’d
>>>> like to put
>>>> this idea back on the table ahead of our Meet the
>>>> Candidates call
>>>> tomorrow. It need not be an one onerous thing, and after
>>>> all we
>>>> exist to participate in the GNSO, so surely we should be
>>>> able to
>>>> know how our reps are representing us in the GNSO.
>>>> Especially when
>>>> we’re being asked to vote them into ‘office’ (for
>>>> incumbents) on the
>>>> basis of past performance.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> More generally, we have long debated the matter of
>>>> coordination
>>>> among Council reps. Unlike most if not all other parts
>>>> of the GNSO,
>>>> NCSG by charter doesn’t normally do ‘directed voting,’
>>>> where the
>>>> members are bound to vote in conformity with a rough
>>>> consensus
>>>> position. We have a charter provision to do this in
>>>> exceptional
>>>> cases, but I don’t recall it ever being invoked. We’ve
>>>> always been
>>>> content to operate on the notion that the Councilor does
>>>> what s/he
>>>> thinks is in the best interest of civil society @ GNSO,
>>>> and if
>>>> members don’t approve of anyone’s action they can vote
>>>> them out in
>>>> the next cycle. But as that has not really happened,
>>>> it’s sort of a
>>>> meaningless check and balance. And this is not without
>>>> consequence,
>>>> as we’ve sometimes had internal differences within our
>>>> contingent
>>>> that have arguably undermined our effectiveness and
>>>> credibility in
>>>> the eyes of the community and staff, and can even allow
>>>> our various
>>>> business stakeholder group counterparts to exploit the
>>>> differences
>>>> in order to push through what they want in opposition to
>>>> our common
>>>> baseline views. So at a minimum, we need to do better
>>>> somehow at
>>>> team coordination and make sure all our Councilors know
>>>> what each
>>>> other is doing and why and so there’s no real time surprises,
>>>> especially during meetings with high stakes votes.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thoughts?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Best
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Bill
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Niels ten Oever
>>>> Head of Digital
>>>>
>>>> Article 19
>>>> www.article19.org <http://www.article19.org>
>>>>
>>>> PGP fingerprint 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4
>>>> 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *************************************************************
>>>> William J. Drake
>>>> International Fellow & Lecturer
>>>> Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ
>>>> University of Zurich, Switzerland
>>>> [log in to unmask]
>>>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]> (direct), [log in to unmask]
>>>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]> (lists),
>>>> www.williamdrake.org <http://www.williamdrake.org>
>>>> /The Working Group on Internet Governance - 10th
>>>> Anniversary Reflections/
>>>> New book at http://amzn.to/22hWZxC
>>>> *************************************************************
>
> --
> Niels ten Oever
> Head of Digital
>
> Article 19
> www.article19.org
>
> PGP fingerprint 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4
> 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9
> <transcript-gnso-council-09mar16-en.pdf>
|
