My reliabe time is between 1700-2200 GMT. (CET (+1 GMT))
About banlist, I don't think that England deserves a ban, as said by Grotsnot the ability to get free melee unit upon conquest is removed, so no steamrolling anymore similar as what Ichabod did in PBEM 3. However depending map type ban might needed.
The problem of Sumeria's War Cart: it can be built from turn 1 and it is diffcult (or practically impossible if fielded by very determined player) to counter till opponent got swordman, horseman or walls (spearman are useless against War Cart since it lack weakness against spears
).
In order to prevent a cheese start which one of Sumeria's neighbors is eliminated around turn 25 already by two War Carts, I always opt to ban them as long War Cart don't get much needed nerf.
I want add two more things to ban list if everyone argees: no taking Defender of Faith or Crusade beliefs. 10 strength swing by picking those beliefs is simply too strong and creates a diffcult to beat army for opponent. I speak from my experenice at PBEM 5 against Pinidcator.
Map type don't matter for me, though Pangaea is probably most ideal map. Continents mean separate islands which three players for example can't do anything if someone becomes a runaway at other island.
Ultimately control over seas is important at Continents map and that is why England is banned there: half cost harbor mean spamming it and monopolizing Great Admirals which make it diffcult to beat (in PBEM 4 oledavy countered TheArchduke's England with now banned Venetian Arsenal). So if playing with Pangaea map (or another landbased map), then England don't need ban.
I don't mind which method to pick civilizations.
I did mention a variant to have zero city states, my reasoning behind it is that lately in MP most ideal way to grow quicker is to capture city states which are basically free cities and don't count towards settler cost.
Here luck plays too much a role whether a player start next one or more city states. Also not to mention first contact bonus.
By removing city states, it becomes sort of civ 4 (city states are critical component of civilization 6!) where map is largely empty except starting player's settlers and warriors. Also it mean that luck factor is further lowered and how your empire grows is more depending upon how well player manages it instead getting quick bonuses or easy quick captures of cities that are manned by AI which often put poor resistance against players. Also no stupid district placements anymore form AI to work with when you capture city state.
Downsides of no city states: start for everyone is slower due lack of bonuses and missing out inspirations and no city state boost for campuses, theaters etc. Also missing out some fun suzerain bonuses and battles for suzerainship.
More empty lands mean more room for settle, but also more barb camp spawns.
Also most importantly it removes a possible rubberband mechanic which allows weaker players, civs or players with poor start to catch up with leader through bonuses or capturing city states. It results in Rome becoming too powerful since free monuments ensures its domination even more in no city states: no cultural city state for others to catch up Rome's free monuments, no religious city states to speed up faith for Pantheons that give culture (by getting code of laws first, Rome even got good shot to get first Pantheon!) and etc. So if we accept no city states variant, then Rome needs to be banned too. Other one need to be removed from list of choices is Pericles, due getting crippled by lack of city states since his power is 5% culture for every suzerain. Greece is still playable with Gorgo. Aztecs is pending case since slower start also mean longer duration where Eagle Warriors are very dominant.
Just a idea to play with this variant but I don't mind play with city states on.
. Really surprised that it's implemented now. 
