<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On Wednesday 22 October 2014 11:07 PM,
Niels ten Oever wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:5447EB40.3060500@digitaldissidents.org"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512
Dear Parminder,
I am a bit amazed that you first make a point on how we should
substantively discuss issues, whereas you post this polemic directly
after.</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
Dear Niels<br>
<br>
Rather than just dismissing it as a polemic I will encourage you to
attentively read Chehadi's presentation of the global IG model that
the dominant forces are pushing, and put forward some real arguments
as to how the positions that many civil society groups are taking,
including through the referred bestbits statement, do not simply
further that particular IG model. I am happy to do a focussed
discussion on this subject, <br>
<blockquote cite="mid:5447EB40.3060500@digitaldissidents.org"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
It's perhaps slightly ironic that some of the people that you accuse
of pushing the neo-liberal model were exactly the ones at ICANN51 in
LA pushing for a human rights mechanism within ICANN.</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
What mechanism is that? And does it include cultural rights of
people whereby generic words of any language, like 'book' and
'beauty' cannot be privatised through closed generics class of
domain name allocations. Again, happy to further explore this issue.<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:5447EB40.3060500@digitaldissidents.org"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
I am surprised that you see discussing issues of content and privacy
at the ITU a part of evolving democratic governance. The ITU is not
nearly transparent enough for this to be an appropriate venue to
discuss this. </pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
Ok, I think you perhaps came into this discussion late. This has
been going on for years now. Let me tell you, I myself convinced
the delegates of a very good number of developing countries that
instead of taking all these issues to the ITU, it is in their
interest to seek a rather open, transparent and participative new UN
based body for these purposes, which takes from the best global
models available in this area. And this model was OECD's Internet
policy making body, plus an organic connection to the UN IGF... I am
speaking of India's UN - Committee on Internet-related Policies
(CIRP) proposal (which was developed from an earlier public proposal
made by my organisation) . I did a lot of work in this area, to
develop latent support among many developing country delegated who
were otherwise intent to sticking to the ITU... (In fact I even met
Toure about it!) But then, what reception did that open and
participative model of UN CIRP get from this same civil society,
which now wants openness and participative- ness. Let me not begin
on that, but you perhaps know.... So, now after rejecting more
open, transparent and participative models, to blame ITU for not
being these all things, and argue that *therefore* it should not do
Internet policy is , excuse me to say, more than a bit disingenuous.
<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:5447EB40.3060500@digitaldissidents.org"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Surveillance is not just an attack on infrastructure, it
is a serious interference with the human right to privacy. </pre>
</blockquote>
Yes, absolutely... And more than that, mass surveillance is a new
means of pervasive social, economic, political and cultural control,
in ways which have still not even been fully conceptualised yet. And
precisely for these reasons, something needs to be done urgently
about it. I dont see anything less that a treaty that can reign in -
at least normatively - the conduct of states being adequate to the
purpose. Of course this in addition to other solutions. And we need
the solutions NOW... You are raising a concern, but that means
nothing unless you are ready to propose a plausible solution going
forward. What is your proposal? Let US gov and companies rule the
Internet? If not, what can put brakes on their power? These are the
real issue. Just to be always saying, No, I dont like this
institution and also I dont like that one, takes us nowhere (but the
status quo). I am happy for civil society to seek new forums and new
institutions (of course, not those who would give google the same
right as governments) but if these are not forthcoming, I will work
with the possibilities we have, and the ITU comes nearest to
possibility we have at hand. <br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:5447EB40.3060500@digitaldissidents.org"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">The ITU has
not got sufficient competence when it comes to human rights.</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
All UN bodies are bound by human rights. But then we also have
specific sectoral bodies with sectoral competencies... Can WTO,
WIPO, even UNESCO , UNDP, UNEP, be called human rights experts, in
the way in which the HR Council is .....<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:5447EB40.3060500@digitaldissidents.org"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
Discussing privacy violations and surveillance should start with the
UN Human Rights Council.</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
Niels, HRC is a human rights remedial mechanisms... All our
countries have it. Such HR mechanisms are immensely important, but
they do not replace sectoral policy bodies... Cyber security, IP
based communication paradigm, and so on, need sectoral competence
and focus... HR Councils cannot run the world... But they are
remedial (and HR formulating) mechanisms which come into play when
they need to. Lets not mix things. Sectoral norms, principles and
policy making is a different thing than HR, while , definitionally,
all policies have to be informed by HR (as contitutional principles
of a polity)<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:5447EB40.3060500@digitaldissidents.org"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
Saying that the ITU is not the right platform to discuss this is not
at all the same thing as saying that this issue should be left to the
market or the US government (or five/nine-eyes for that matter).</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
If it isnt, then please tell me who is going to reign in these
biggest powers on the global Internet today... I am ready to work
with your solution, as far as there is something plausible on the
table. I am serious, please put forward your proposals. And I have
been asking this from many CS players for years. Of course, if there
are no positive proposals, one would be justified in concluding that
one is *largely* content with the status quo.. Or at least considers
the cost of suggesting real changes more than of staying with the
status quo. That is what I mean by being content with the status
quo. <br>
<br>
Again, if you are not for leaving things to the market and US gov,
then who? Please be explicit, with as much detail as possible. <br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:5447EB40.3060500@digitaldissidents.org"
type="cite">
<pre wrap=""> And I
would even say that it is an deliberate misrepresentation that does
not help the substantive discussion,</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
Since you accuse me of deliberate mis- representation, let me speak
freely as well . I think it is dis-honest to say no, *not this*
whenever a real proposal comes on the table (CIRP, ITU...) but still
insist that no I am not for status quo... Further, it is
hypocritical to work with for instance policy making mechanisms of
OECD, CoE, etc and then call any proposal that are similarly
structured but involves all governments as belonging to the side of
the dark forces out to control the Internet. <br>
<blockquote cite="mid:5447EB40.3060500@digitaldissidents.org"
type="cite">
<pre wrap=""> and the deep thinking that is
indeed needed, any further.</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
Over the last 10 years we have been 'thinking' and discussing, the
global Internet has moved from a relatively innocent and egalitarian
artefact to something completely different, and people are really
really worried about the directions it is moving in. At some point,
we need to 'do something' as well'. Now is that time.<br>
<br>
parminder <br>
<blockquote cite="mid:5447EB40.3060500@digitaldissidents.org"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
Best,
Niels
Niels ten Oever
Head of Digital
Article 19
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.article19.org">www.article19.org</a>
PGP fingerprint = 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9
On 10/22/2014 07:19 PM, parminder wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
And if there indeed is real ignorance and people want to know what
a neo-liberal model of global Internet governance looks like just
read the below interview of the CEO of ICANN. He lays it all out
rather well
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/10/07/internet-operations-chief-snowden-disclosures-make-my-job-easier/">http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/10/07/internet-operations-chief-snowden-disclosures-make-my-job-easier/</a>
It is this model that the Best Bits statement helps push forward.
There can simply be no doubt in it.
And people will need to choose which side they would want to be at
this crucial juncture - on the side of slow ( perhaps even
painfully slow) evolving democratic governance of our collective
global affairs including the Internet, or shifting over to
neoliberal governance by the elite.. And if they side with this
structural shift to neolib governance today, it will be for keeps.
We are in a real danger of loosing our democratic traditions. At
the very least, this requires deep thinking on the part of all of
us.
parminder
parminder
On Wednesday 22 October 2014 07:17 PM, michael gurstein wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
Further to Parminder’s comments below.
I recently published a blogpost
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2014/10/19/democracy-or-multi-stakeholderism-competing-models-of-governance/"><http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2014/10/19/democracy-or-multi-stakeholderism-competing-models-of-governance/></a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">(also please not the comments) where I argued that the democratic
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">model of “governance by and for the people” is in direct
conflict/competition with the multi-stakeholder model of
“governance by and for stakeholders”.
I am fully aware that presenting these contrasting positions in
such a way is highly simplistic but I also think that there is a
value in simplicity particularly where it removes the obfuscation
that often masks fundamental positions and values.
I think that the division within Civil Society and I would argue
more broadly in the larger world between those who believe in a
democratic approach to governance including in areas as central
to our experience, well-being and future as the Internet and
those who would give this governance over to decision making by
those with specific “interests/stakes” in the outcome (and where
the broad public interest if represented at all would be only one
among many such competing “stakes”) is a fundamental one.
It is extremely disappointing to see such broad swathes of
“civil society” and others opting for a position that does not
support democracy and democratic governance however and in what
manner that might be achieved.
M
*From:*IRP
[<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:irp-bounces@lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org">mailto:irp-bounces@lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org</a>] *On
Behalf Of *parminder *Sent:* Tuesday, October 21, 2014 9:06 PM
*To:* Anne Jellema; <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:rhill@hill-a.ch">rhill@hill-a.ch</a> *Cc:*
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:bestbits@lists.bestbits.net">bestbits@lists.bestbits.net</a>; IRP; <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a>;
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:forum@justnetcoalition.org">forum@justnetcoalition.org</a> *Subject:* Re: [IRPCoalition] [JNC -
Forum] [bestbits] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU
Plenipot joint recommendations
On Tuesday 21 October 2014 09:28 PM, Anne Jellema wrote:
Thank you, Parminder for the thoughtful criticisms. We're aware
that different parts of civil society have well-founded reasons
for holding different opinions on the role of the ITU, and we
fully respect these. I was very pleased to see that JustNet has
expressed its point of view in its own proposals for the
Plenipot, which I found interesting and valuable.
In that spirit, I would like to respond to a couple of your
criticisms of our statement that I think don't reflect an
entirely accurate reading of its content:
- I think your claim that we are advocating unregulated free
markets is unfair, since we state twice: "Each country should
retain individual authority to regulate IP interconnection rates
where necessary and advisable in order to ensure universal
service and promote robust competition." The drafters include
organisations that have been on the forefront of the fight for
stronger net neutrality regulation at national and regional (EU)
level.
- I don't agree that our statement fails to identify who should
take responsibility for resolving key IG challenges; proposes
the "withdrawal of all internet policy related agenda from the
global governance stage"; or fails to acknowledge any important
role for the ITU. We repeatedly stress the need for coordination
and collaboration among UN agencies (including the ITU) and
multistakeholder bodies; and refer several times to what we
think are the ITU's critical roles in addressing the huge
challenges ahead.
That said, we agree that the reference to "ITU mission creep"
was poorly judged, and the entire para should be deleted as
proposed by Jeanette.
I sincerely hope that a respectful and informed exchange of views
can continue among CSOs, along with the equally important effort
to find the common ground between differing positions.
Dear Anne
Thanks for your response and engagement. I mean to further engage
on this discussion. But my present email will only make one
point, about the mutual respectfulness of any discussion, which
your email mentions. I am not saying that you meant it in that
manner, but I do often find a hyper sensitivity to political
criticism in these circles and personalisation of it, here I mean
personalisation in receiving political criticism. We must
recognise that civil society work is a work of strong conviction
and submersion in that conviction... People have a vision of the
world they'd like to see, and there are forces that block the
realisation of that vision. Obviously therefore, for anyone who
really cares, the feelings involved are strong... And I mean, on
all sides of what could become a political divide. And such a
political divide is as possible, even likely, in the civil
society space, as in the conventional political space. However,
for instance in India, which has a rather high level of
professional in traditional political space, at least at the
national level, political personalities are able to be scathing
and unsparing in terms of their political positions and counter
positions without it being taken as being inappropriately uncivil
or any such thing.
I probably should not be so defensive, but I say all this
because many people here are simply too touchy. (I know that you
come from a core political civil society background, and so I an
really not talking about you.) I also say it because I and people
that I work with feel that the present position that is being
proposed on the BestBits platform a major political statement
that we find extremely problematic and something that sets a
solid tone for a neoliberal paradigm for the emerging
Internet-mediated society. In that respect its impact on the
world, especially in terms of democracy, equity and social
justice is going to be far reaching, and these are the corner
stone canons of our work. And therefore we will strongly contest
it, with all means at our disposal.
I will separately respond to some substantive points in your
above email.
best regards parminder
Best
Anne
On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 12:49 PM, Richard Hill <<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:rhill@hill-a.ch">rhill@hill-a.ch</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:rhill@hill-a.ch"><mailto:rhill@hill-a.ch></a>> wrote:
I fully agree with Parminder's analysis and strongly support his
comments.
Best,
Richard
-----Original Message----- *From:* Forum
[<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:forum-bounces@justnetcoalition.org">mailto:forum-bounces@justnetcoalition.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:forum-bounces@justnetcoalition.org"><mailto:forum-bounces@justnetcoalition.org></a>]*On Behalf Of
*parminder *Sent:* mardi, 21. octobre 2014 12:47 *To:*
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:bestbits@lists.bestbits.net">bestbits@lists.bestbits.net</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:bestbits@lists.bestbits.net"><mailto:bestbits@lists.bestbits.net></a>;
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org"><mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org></a>;
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:forum@justnetcoalition.org">forum@justnetcoalition.org</a> <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:forum@justnetcoalition.org"><mailto:forum@justnetcoalition.org></a>;
IRP *Subject:* Re: [JNC - Forum] [bestbits] Time-sensitive: 24
hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations
I have not had the chance to go into the long statement in
detail. However, what I see as its main refrain is bothersome. It
says yes there are many very important global Internet policy
issues, and then says that the ITU should not take them up, but
tells us nothing about who should take them up. This becomes a
recipe for, or at least, towards a political governance free
world, the kind one nowadays read about frequently in the
documents of the World Economic Forum (read for instance its
Global Redesign Initiative).
I am agnostic about whether ITU takes up at least some important
Internet policy issues at the global level or some other
democratic global body takes them up. However, it is not tenable
that they be just left hanging out there, which only allows
those who have the greatest default power on the Internet, mostly
the US based economic and political establishment, to carry on
consolidating their power. This statement for me is simply an
expression of support for the Internet power status quo, and
therefore I strongly oppose it.
To take a few examples (a more detailed critique will follow);
Perhaps the most disturbing part of the statement, from
developing countries viewpoint, is tha which sanctifies
unregulated global market models for global Internet
inter-connectivity.... This is a major reversal from the stand of
all developing countries and all progressive civil society at the
WSIS, where unfair global interconnection regimes was one of the
main 'development issues'. This statement seems to close that
issue by declaring that such things be best left to free markets,
with no regulatory framework, or even a normative/ principles
framework. In any case, it is not clear how even working on the
interconnection issue, an express mandate for ITU from the WSIS
is a 'mission creep' for the ITU. It appears that there is not
one thing that ITU can do in 2014 which will not be called a
mission creep. In the circumstances one thinks that the
proponents of the statement should be bold and just ask for the
closing down of the ITU.
Further, the statement says that the ITU should not work towards
a treaty on cyber- security, an issue that has shaken the world
post Snowden. Just today I read an interview with Snowden's
colleague Laura Poitras about how little has really changed on
the ground as far as mass surveillance by the five eyes is
concerned. What other than a treaty that reigns in the conduct of
the states in this regard can be a solution? Or have we simply
given up and are ready to allow the powerful to do what they may?
Alternatively, is there any other solution being thought of?
Civil society must answer these questions.
The statement seems to suggest that the first committee of the
UN Gen Assembly should keep doing the work on cyber security.
That is quite surprising becuase by all means, the first
committee’s work is much less participative (of other
stakeholders) than even of the ITU. So, what is the rationale
here, other than just to say ITU should not do it (we will see
when we have to stop even the first committee from doing it, but
right now the imperative is.... ). I am fine with the first
committee doing it, but remember that any effort towards a cyber
security treaty will require the expertise of ITU which is the
agency that has hitherto dealt with this issue. Such an simply
obstructionist attitude to global governance bespeaks of a
movement towards a very unequal, unfair and unjust world.
Progressive civil society must take note rather than blindly
signing on this rather dangerous statement.
The statement says, we should not begin working on a cyber
security treaty because there is no consensus on basic concepts
and principles in the area.... Is there a greater consensus on
the area of climate change, and so many other areas. Do we just
give up in these areas? if not, why in the area of Internet
governance? Consensus on concepts and principles emerge as a part
of a process towards development of global principles and
agreements and not a as a pre condition of them. This is
universally known. One can understand why US wants to protect the
status quo, but why civil society?
Again, this is simply a statement for maintaining the Internet
power status quo... Dont do it at the ITU, but we wont tell you
where to do either.... Supporting this statement in my view will
simply be to support the global Internet status quo....
Yes, we need to reform the ITU, but seeking simple withdrawal of
all Internet policy related agenda from global governance stage
is very problematic. As this agenda is withdrawn from the global
stage, the dominant political and economic forces get a free
reign, and the little policy that needs to be made is made at
plurilateral forums like the OECD, or the Trans-Pacific
Partnership or TPP (see for instance, just the day before's
news, <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://infojustice.org/archives/33428">http://infojustice.org/archives/33428</a>, on how TPP seeks to
regulate global IP TV transmissions).
Such statements as this one simply clear the way for such rule
of the economically and politically powerful...
parminder
On Tuesday 21 October 2014 02:08 AM, Anne Jellema wrote:
Dear colleagues
As you know, a fluid working group was formed after the IGF to
try to come up with joint recommendations for the ITU Plenipot.
We produced the open letter on transparency and participation in
the Plenipot process itself, which many of you signed (thank
you!). Our second and harder task was to develop positions on
some of the most important substantive issues before the
conference. The output of this second phase of our work is a 7
page lobby document that is now available for endorsement for the
next 24 hours at:
*<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://bestbits.net/itu-plenipot-notes*">http://bestbits.net/itu-plenipot-notes*</a>
The fluid working group struggled to obtain the conference
proposals on which to base our analysis and recommendations, both
because of the ITU's restrictions on document access and because
many Member States submitted their proposals quite late in the
day. As a result, our drafting process has taken us hard up
against the start of the Plenipot itself.
It is now very urgent to get this text in front of delegations,
so we are opening it for endorsements rather than comment. If
however someone has a red flag, "absolutely can't live with it"
issue that prevents them from signing on, they should email me
personally in the next 24 hours to propose an edit(s) to resolve
this issue, and I will consult the other members of the ITU fluid
working group on whether to accept this edit.
Due to the lack of time for comment and consensus, we are not
presenting these recommendations in the name of Best Bits or on
behalf of civil society in general but only on behalf of the
specific organisations endorsing.
If you would like your organisation to be listed, please send
your logo to Carolina Rossini (<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:crossini@publicknowledge.org">crossini@publicknowledge.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:crossini@publicknowledge.org"><mailto:crossini@publicknowledge.org></a>) by 22:30 CET (16:30 EST)
tomorrow, 21 Oct.
Best wishes
Anne
-- Anne Jellema
CEO
+27 061 36 9352 (ZA)
+1 202 684 6885 (US)
@afjellema
*World Wide Web Foundation | 1110 Vermont Ave NW, Suite 500,
Washington DC, 20005, USA | <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.webfoundation.org">www.webfoundation.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://www.webfoundation.org/"><http://www.webfoundation.org/></a> | Twitter: @webfoundation*
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:bestbits@lists.bestbits.net">bestbits@lists.bestbits.net</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:bestbits@lists.bestbits.net"><mailto:bestbits@lists.bestbits.net></a>.
To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits">http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits</a>
_______________________________________________ Forum mailing
list <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Forum@justnetcoalition.org">Forum@justnetcoalition.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:Forum@justnetcoalition.org"><mailto:Forum@justnetcoalition.org></a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://justnetcoalition.org/mailman/listinfo/forum_justnetcoalition.org">http://justnetcoalition.org/mailman/listinfo/forum_justnetcoalition.org</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">- --
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
Anne Jellema
CEO
+27 061 36 9352 (ZA)
+1 202 684 6885 (US)
@afjellema
*World Wide Web Foundation | 1110 Vermont Ave NW, Suite 500,
Washington DC, 20005, USA | <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.webfoundation.org">www.webfoundation.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://www.webfoundation.org/"><http://www.webfoundation.org/></a> | Twitter: @webfoundation*
_______________________________________________ IRP mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:IRP@lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org">IRP@lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:IRP@lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org"><mailto:IRP@lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org></a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/mailman/listinfo/irp">https://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/mailman/listinfo/irp</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
____________________________________________________________ You
received this message as a subscriber on the list:
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:bestbits@lists.bestbits.net">bestbits@lists.bestbits.net</a>. To unsubscribe or change your
settings, visit: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits">http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)
iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJUR+s/AAoJEAi1oPJjbWjpBSMH/0PR5KgEQ1rHeUZTUO7b3YWi
kvYktLQp3oIwMwepxgahmNLZww8vWE3P70z/gLyNc7ZG0JlO2o0W6hgyRlpZzkWk
4t9u1ryOZ/CXWYLd53zQ13bPZuDeqAud3hheGIsozCdGkbXZpvMuznc1d+S2mTBC
fwnqggGTUfpRmcIti5gR+rUmwtqFnKALz1+GfPyqBxvt8IeqvZGTRzT5kg/qxj0e
wmuYgMBqicTfb42b2McAT5SCsm12JXhyM9EpHLZefcgClbh8VsVA/LqOwnbMLVgy
1jLTLGeGxDwmWrerYKVlbNhaeTYZdM7DA7Rp3miKirMoe7kBbTDexEkM2Mw2KWM=
=b/3V
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
</pre>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:bestbits@lists.bestbits.net">bestbits@lists.bestbits.net</a>.
To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits">http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits</a></pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>