<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<p><font face="Verdana">Sorry, forgot to mention that although it
appears that there is no further opportunity for formal public
inputs into the process, civil society members of WGEC should be
happy to take to the WGEC all specific institutional models that
people may want to propose, individually, on an organisation's
behalf, or as groups or coalitions. The next WGEC meeting in May
2017 will be discussing specific recommendations of this kind,
possible stacked in a few categories. <br>
</font></p>
<p><font face="Verdana">I proposed 4 categories in my below email.
But the secretariat put the specific recommendations related inputs
that were received in 7 categories as below, which would most
likely be the way the discussions in the Sept meeting will
proceed.</font></p>
<p>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</p>
<p>
<title></title>
<meta name="generator" content="LibreOffice 4.2.8.2 (Linux)">
<style type="text/css">
<!--
@page { margin: 2cm }
p { margin-bottom: 0.25cm; line-height: 120% }
-->
</style>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 100%">I. PROPOSALS OF
RECOMMENDATIONS ADDRESSING SPECIFIC EXISTENT
INSTITUTIONS/PROCESSES/FORA</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 100%">II.
RECOMMENDATIONS
ON THE FOLLOW-UP TO THE PREVIOUS WGEC WORKING GROUP</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 100%">III.
RECOMMENDATIONS
OF PRIORITY OF FOCUS AREAS FOR FUTURE WORK</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 100%">IV.
RECOMMENDATIONS
ADDRESSING ON COORDINATION ASPECTS</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 100%">V.
RECOMMENDATIONS
ADDRESSED TO NATIONAL GOVERNMENTS</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 100%">VI.
RECOMMENDATIONS
ON THE CREATION OF NEW INSTITUTIONAL MECHANISMS/INSTRUMENTS</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 100%">VII. SUGGESTIONS
REGARDING CHARACTERISTICS OF RECOMMENDATIONS</p>
</p>
<p><font face="Verdana"><br>
</font></p>
<p><font face="Verdana">Among the above, 1, 4 and 6 correspond to
categories 2, 3 and 4 that I suggested below, which I think are
the really important ones.</font></p>
<p>parminder <br>
</p>
<p><font face="Verdana"></font><br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On Monday 30 January 2017 10:51 PM,
parminder wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:7698d4ee-0f42-6958-bce2-915d27efbf41@itforchange.net"
type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<p><font face="Verdana">In the first meeting of the WGEC, in Sept
2016, the group simply came up with two questions, one was
about what are the high level characteristics of "enhanced
cooperation" and second asking what kind of recommendations
the group can come up with. The second meeting last week
looked into the responses and discussed them. <br>
</font></p>
<p><font face="Verdana">The responses about the kind of
recommendations that WGEC can come up with ranged from (1)
seeking a new UN based mechanism/ body for developing Internet
related public policies, to (2) hinting on some looser
coordination mechanisms among many agencies that deal with
some Internet related public policies issues, to (3) arguing
that all that is needed is to develop some required qualities,
like transparency, accountability, etc for bodies which
already do various kinds of policy work in this area. <br>
</font></p>
<p><font face="Verdana">Hopefully, as argued in my previous email,
if we can indeed pull ourselves out of many age old confusions
and inappropriate conflations in this area, this above takes
us to the core of the issue. I understand that there a few
possible positions different actors can take on this matter,
but one should if possible commit to one or the other, and
come out with clear institutional mechanism corresponding to
that position (unless of course none is intended, which should
be clearly stated). We have spent too much time in this
morass, and going forward with greater clarity and
responsibility would be highly desirable. We owe it to the
world, which is being deeply impacted by the Internet
phenomenon, which keep raising important and urgent public
policy issues that beg to be addressed. <br>
</font></p>
<p><font face="Verdana">I see the following possible positions in
this matter.</font></p>
<p><font face="Verdana">1. No international Internet related
public policies are required.</font></p>
<p><font face="Verdana">2. Even if they are required, different
global bodies are already dealing with then adequately. In
this regard either nothing more needs to be done, or, the WGEC
can simply develop a series of desirable qualities or
characteristics that all such institution/ processes must
posses. Those holding such a view should, at this stage, come
up with a precise method or mechanism they will like to follow
to ensure that existing mechanisms/ processes do show such
desired qualities, or at least how to persuade them to move in
such a direction. <br>
</font></p>
<p><font face="Verdana">3. What is needed is some kind of a
relatively loose coordination mechanism among the existing
bodies etc dealing with Internet related international public
policies. Those with such a view should come up with the
precise mechanism that they have in mind for such coordination
-- how does it work, where is it located, and so on. <br>
</font></p>
<p><font face="Verdana">4. A new committed institutional mechanism
- in form of a new body/ agency - is needed for international
internet-related public policies. Those with this view should
give clear and precise proposals in this regard, where would
such body be located, would it be a new one or a modified
existing one, what would be its processes of taking in public
inputs/ advices etc, what would be its relationship with the
IGF, and so on.</font></p>
<p><font face="Verdana">What I am tying to stress is that we need
to be clear that this stage about what kind of global IG
institutional architecture we want to see, especially in terms
of international public policy processes, and come up with
clear and precise institutional recommendations in this
regard, with all the needed details. <br>
</font></p>
<p><font face="Verdana">The above are some general categories with
regard to possible positions on EC (enhanced cooperation). But
we have seen some more specific proposals, or more
appropriately hints or outlines of them. I would encourage
those who have mentioned them to detail out what exactly is
that they have in mind, how would it work etc. for instance,
many have said here that an EC mechanism could be an extension
of, under the umbrella of, or laterally conjoined with, the
IGF process, taking place along with it. It will be useful to
make a fully develop proposal ut of it, complete with the
essential details. Some others hinted on the possibility of an
EC mechanism under the Commission on Science and Technology
for Development (CSTD). Similar elaboration would be useful in
this case. Those who want a whole new relatively independent
mechanism should similarly detail it out, as for instance my
organisation has been doing for quite some time now. We again
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://unctad.org/meetings/en/Contribution/WGEC2016_m2_c15_en.pdf">submitted
it</a> to the WGEC in response to the questionnaire. <br>
</font></p>
<p><font face="Verdana">parminder <br>
</font></p>
<p><br>
</p>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On Monday 30 January 2017 10:16 PM,
parminder wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:885d58c9-a888-20aa-6ad1-3c91bc64b10f@itforchange.net"
type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
<p><font face="Verdana">Hi All</font></p>
<p><font face="Verdana">Let me share my views and assessment
about the WG on Enhanced Cooperation, of which I was
nominated by civil society to be a member.</font></p>
<p><font face="Verdana">First of all, the central issue of what
has been called as "enhanced cooperation" in Tunis Agenda is
the need for developing international Internet related
public policies. The central issue is not cooperation among
whom - only governments, or across stakeholders' this is a
secondary and a follow-up issue.</font></p>
<p><font face="Verdana">What we therefore need to agree first is
whether or not there is a need for developing international
Internet-related public policies; in the same way that WHO
does for health, UNESCO for education, UNEP for environment,
UNDP for development, and so on. <br>
</font></p>
<p><font face="Verdana">Do note that these UN agencies do not
"control" the respective sectors worldwide, just because
they are UN agencies tasked with dealing with these sectors
internationally. I say this because the bogie of "control"
of the Internet gets raised immediately as one proposes a
similar UN body for looking into international public policy
aspects for the Internet. For instance, education is almost
as sensitive a sector, politically and culturally, as the
Internet, but UNESCO is universally acknowledged to have
done very good and useful work internationally in this
sector - especially for developing countries - without
"controlling" education. <br>
</font></p>
<p>Now, if we agree that international Internet related public
policies indeed need to be developed -- then we can come to
question of who should do so. <br>
</p>
<p>Public policy is a specific political construct. Every policy
is not public policy - for instance, technical policies as
developed by technical bodies is not public policy unless they
are so designated by an authorised public body.<br>
</p>
<p>Public policies are definitionally developed by government,
or those who represent people or groups of people -- however
imperfect be the process of such representation. <br>
</p>
<p> The first para of the Wikipedia entry on "public policy"
defines it as</p>
<blockquote>
<p>"<b>Public policy</b> is the principled guide to action
taken by the administrative <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_%28government%29"
title="Executive (government)">executive branches</a> of
the <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_%28polity%29"
title="State (polity)">state</a> with regard to a class of
issues, in a manner consistent with <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law" title="Law">law</a>
and <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institution"
title="Institution">institutional customs</a>."</p>
</blockquote>
<p>and the second para as;</p>
<blockquote>
<p>"Other scholars define public policy as a system of
"courses of action, <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation"
title="Regulation">regulatory</a> measures, <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law" title="Law">laws</a>,
and <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Funding"
title="Funding">funding</a> priorities concerning a given
topic promulgated by a governmental entity or its
representatives."</p>
</blockquote>
<p>I hope we do not mean to redefine what is public policy. To
get to the core of this issue; corporations cannot sit with
governments on an equal footing to make public policy, which
is what many people actually advocate here. We need to make
our position clear on this one central issue, as civil society
actors associated with IG. It is time we come out clean on
this, and leave obfuscations behind. If we can agree on this
one issue I am sure we can agree on all. <br>
</p>
<p>Participation in public policy making, as inputting,
advising, developing its initial discourse (as with the IGF)
is an entirely different matter. That comes AFTER there comes
into existence a mechanism for public policy making. For
instance, there would be absolutely no point in developing an
extensive public consultation, inputting, policy discussions,
etc around health policies in a country if there existed no
actual mechanism for making any such policy. <br>
</p>
<p>That is the situation at the global level on Internet issues.
We have well-developed mechanism for public policy dialogue on
Internet issues in the form of the IGF, but have no place to
actually develop such public policies. This renders the policy
dialogue space itself increasingly less and less useful, as
has been happening with the IGF. <br>
</p>
<p>It was the express intent of Tunis Agenda to create a
multistakeholder policy dialogue space (the IGF) and a
governmental policy making space (the proposed new mechanism
for "enhanced cooperation") as two distinct but conjoined
institutional mechanisms. Any mis-conception in this regard
was cleared by subsequent UN resolutions that expressly said
that the IGF and "enhanced cooperation" were distinct but
complementing spaces. The intended institutional design could
not be clearer -- although I do admit that exactly how
governments should develop International Internet-related
public policies remain a contested issue. <br>
</p>
<p>But this contestation is made much worse by actors who - for
whatever reasons - keep confusing and conflating (1) pre-
public policy development processes of inputs, advice,
dialogue, etc, and (2) actual public policy development
processes (where, as said, one certainly can not have
corporations sit on equal footing with govs to make public
policy).</p>
<p>One earnestly hopes that it is time that we get out of this
confusion/ conflation which has no basis in democratic
political theory. Public policy has a specific political
meaning and we cannot afford to use this term loosely. It is
the very basis of democratic thinking, in that public policy
can only be made by representatives of people, and groups of
people. Corporations certainly have no vote here. <br>
</p>
<p>On the other hand, everyone must be consulted, given a chance
to input and participate in pre public policy dialogues, which
happens at the IGF..<br>
</p>
<p>If we indeed agree to come out of this very problematic
confusion/ conflation, we can then actually discuss what would
be the best means to develop international Internet-related
public policies, the real and in fact the only pertinent
question under the "enhanced cooperation" related discussions.
And this alone is the subject matter for the consideration of
the WG on Enhanced Cooperation. <br>
</p>
<p>Having given the needed background, I will describe what is
happening at the WGEC in another email, in a short while. <br>
</p>
<p>parminder</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On Monday 30 January 2017 09:07 PM,
WANGARI KABIRU wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:1409939853.27071400.1485790654481@mail.yahoo.com"
type="cite">
<div style="color:#000; background-color:#fff;
font-family:garamond, new york, times, serif;font-size:16px">
<div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1485764974240_179369"><span
id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1485764974240_179371"><font
id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1485764974240_179494" size="5">Many
thanks Anriette for the brief and the references are
clarifying!</font></span></div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1485764974240_179369"><span><font
size="5"><br>
</font></span></div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1485764974240_179369"><span
style="font-size: x-large;"
id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1485764974240_179591">Be blessed.</span><br>
</div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1485764974240_179379"><span><font
size="5"><br>
</font></span></div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1485764974240_179382"><span
id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1485764974240_179381"><font
id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1485764974240_179498" size="5">Regards/Wangari</font></span></div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1485764974240_179385"> </div>
<div class="signature"
id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1485764974240_179593">---<br>
<font style="font-weight:bold;font-family:verdana,
helvetica, sans-serif;" size="2"><span
style="color:rgb(127, 0, 63);">Pray God Bless.
2013Wangari circa - </span><span
style="color:rgb(127, 0, 63);">"Being of the Light, We
are Restored Through Faith in Mind, Body and Spirit;
We Manifest The Kingdom of God on Earth".</span></font><br>
</div>
<div class="qtdSeparateBR"><br>
<br>
</div>
<div class="yahoo_quoted" style="display: block;">
<div style="font-family: garamond, new york, times, serif;
font-size: 16px;">
<div style="font-family: HelveticaNeue, Helvetica Neue,
Helvetica, Arial, Lucida Grande, Sans-Serif;
font-size: 16px;">
<div dir="ltr"><font face="Arial" size="2"> On Monday,
30 January 2017, 16:16, Anriette Esterhuysen <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:anriette@apc.org"><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:anriette@apc.org"><anriette@apc.org></a></a>
wrote:<br>
</font></div>
<br>
<br>
<div class="y_msg_container">Dear Wangari<br
clear="none">
<br clear="none">
Apologies for delay in responding.<br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
It is an interesting question, and it goes to the
heart of the enhanced<br clear="none">
cooperation debate, which in many ways is at the
heart of the internet<br clear="none">
governance debate that has been ongoing since 2003.<br
clear="none">
<br clear="none">
The term was first used in 2005 - and it means
different things to<br clear="none">
different people, and the text in the Tunis Agenda
where it is first<br clear="none">
references in a formal UN agreement, can also be
interpreted in<br clear="none">
different ways.<br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
For the last decade it has been used as a political
football.. in one of<br clear="none">
those matches in which it is not clear if anyone
actually scores any<br clear="none">
goals. In fact, for some of the players, the
objective of the match has<br clear="none">
been to avoid anyone scoring any goals :)<br
clear="none">
<br clear="none">
This is a good recent piece by David Souter:<br
clear="none">
<a moz-do-not-send="true" shape="rect"
href="https://www.apc.org/en/blog/inside-information-society-enhanced-cooperation-en"
target="_blank">https://www.apc.org/en/blog/inside-information-society-enhanced-cooperation-en</a><br
clear="none">
<br clear="none">
I quote from it:<br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
"‘Enhanced cooperation’, like the Internet
Governance Forum (IGF), was<br clear="none">
part of the compromise on the future of the Internet
at WSIS in 2005.<br clear="none">
Agreement could not be reached on the governance of
critical Internet<br clear="none">
resources, including the domain name system. ICANN
(the Internet<br clear="none">
Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers), for
some governments, was<br clear="none">
little more than an adjunct of the United States.
Some wanted the<br clear="none">
Internet brought within the ambit of an
intergovernmental (or<br clear="none">
multilateral) agency such as the International
Telecommunication Union<br clear="none">
(ITU). Others were, as they remain, determined to
keep the Internet free<br clear="none">
from intergovernmental oversight. As well as
dividing governments, this<br clear="none">
was (and is) therefore a tussle between multilateral
and<br clear="none">
multistakeholder approaches to the Internet.<br
clear="none">
<br clear="none">
The term worked at the time because of its creative
ambiguity: like many<br clear="none">
UN outcomes it meant different things to different
folks. But the<br clear="none">
contests that it overlay were, and still are,
unresolved. Several UN<br clear="none">
initiatives and working groups have failed to reach
consensus on it<br clear="none">
since the Summit. Some governments (and civil
society activists) claim<br clear="none">
that nothing’s changed since WSIS: that governments,
particularly<br clear="none">
developing country governments, can’t play a
substantive role in<br clear="none">
Internet decisions because there is no proper
intergovernmental forum.<br clear="none">
Others suggest that diverse multistakeholder
initiatives represent a lot<br clear="none">
of ‘enhanced cooperation’ that’s already taking
place."<br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
So in response to your question, it is not a new
thing that for several<br clear="none">
governments, the meaning of enhanced cooperation is
"cooperation between<br clear="none">
governments". And the term 'equal footing' means
that all governments<br clear="none">
should have equal access and voice in these
processes.<br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
They generally quote paragraph 69 of the Tunis
Agenda:<br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
"69. We further recognize the need for enhanced
cooperation in the<br clear="none">
future, to enable governments, on an equal footing,
to carry out their<br clear="none">
roles and responsibilities, in international public
policy issues<br clear="none">
pertaining to the Internet, but not in the
day-to-day technical and<br clear="none">
operational matters, that do not impact on
international public policy<br clear="none">
issues."<br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
And their position is that the IGF has nothing to do
with this type of<br clear="none">
cooperation.<br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
Personally, I think this is misinterpreting the
Tunis Agenda. If you<br clear="none">
read the two previous paragraphs, 67 and 68, there
is a clear reference<br clear="none">
to the IGF (referred to in the Tunis Agenda as "the
forum for<br clear="none">
multi-stakeholder policy dialogue". I quote:<br
clear="none">
<br clear="none">
"67. We agree, inter alia, to invite the UN
Secretary-General to convene<br clear="none">
a new forum for multi-stakeholder policy dialogue.<br
clear="none">
<br clear="none">
68. We recognize that all governments should have an
equal role and<br clear="none">
responsibility for international Internet governance
and for ensuring<br clear="none">
the stability, security and continuity of the
Internet. We also<br clear="none">
recognize the need for development of public policy
by governments in<br clear="none">
consultation with all stakeholders.<br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
69. We further recognize the need for enhanced
cooperation in the<br clear="none">
future, to enable governments, on an equal footing,
to carry out their<br clear="none">
roles and responsibilities, in international public
policy issues<br clear="none">
pertaining to the Internet, but not in the
day-to-day technical and<br clear="none">
operational matters, that do not impact on
international public policy<br clear="none">
issues."<br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
My interpretation would be that these paragraphs
talks about the forum,<br clear="none">
about involvement of all stakeholders, and about the
need for<br clear="none">
governments to be able to play their role in
international public policy.<br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
These area all important and legitimate and they
don't need to be<br clear="none">
mutually exclusive.<br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
But there are different views, and there was a
General Assembly<br clear="none">
resolution in 2011 or 2012 which stated that the IGF
and enhanced<br clear="none">
cooperation are two separate processes.<br
clear="none">
<br clear="none">
I do think governments have a legitimate point in
saying that they need<br clear="none">
a space where they can talk about 'cross cutting'
internet-related<br clear="none">
public policy issues. Specific issues are being
addressed in places like<br clear="none">
the Human Rights Council (for internet and human
rights issues) or in<br clear="none">
WIPO (for copyright related issues, for example).<br
clear="none">
<br clear="none">
And I also think that developing countries are not
sufficiently<br clear="none">
empowered or influential in most internet-related
policy discussions.<br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
I just don't believe that setting up a new
intergovernmental mechanism<br clear="none">
is the right solution to this problem. And it is one
that is high risk<br clear="none">
for civil society.<br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
But others in the WGEC have different views.<br
clear="none">
<br clear="none">
Warm greetings and thanks for following the meeting!<br
clear="none">
<br clear="none">
Anriette<br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
<div class="yqt2301429610" id="yqtfd28248"><br
clear="none">
On 27/01/2017 19:38, WANGARI KABIRU wrote:<br
clear="none">
> Warm greetings Anriette,<br clear="none">
> <br clear="none">
> In the morning there was reference in the
semblance that enhanced<br clear="none">
> cooperation is a government area not for the
IGF...MAG.<br clear="none">
> Would you kindly shed light. <br
clear="none">
> <br clear="none">
> <br clear="none">
> The comments;<br clear="none">
> - that statistics in developing countries
are a result of tradeoffs and<br clear="none">
> thus not (necessarily) reliable<br
clear="none">
> - how an entity is considered
multi-stakeholder in one forum and in<br
clear="none">
> other spheres not viewed as such. Taking into
account<br clear="none">
> multi-stakholderism is a key tenet in
Internet Governance<br clear="none">
> <br clear="none">
> Many thanks for the briefs.<br clear="none">
> <br clear="none">
> Be blessed.<br clear="none">
> <br clear="none">
> Regards/Wangari<br clear="none">
> <br clear="none">
> ---<br clear="none">
> Pray God Bless. 2013Wangari circa - "Being of
the Light, We are Restored<br clear="none">
> Through Faith in Mind, Body and Spirit; We
Manifest The Kingdom of God<br clear="none">
> on Earth".<br clear="none">
> <br clear="none">
> <br clear="none">
> <br clear="none">
-- <br clear="none">
-----------------------------------------<br
clear="none">
Anriette Esterhuysen<br clear="none">
Executive Director<br clear="none">
Association for Progressive Communications<br
clear="none">
<a moz-do-not-send="true" shape="rect"
ymailto="mailto:anriette@apc.org"
href="mailto:anriette@apc.org">anriette@apc.org</a><br
clear="none">
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="http://www.apc.org">www.apc.org</a><br
clear="none">
IM: ae_apc<br clear="none">
</div>
<br>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:bestbits@lists.bestbits.net">bestbits@lists.bestbits.net</a>.
To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits">http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits</a></pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a>
To be removed from the list, visit:
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing">http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing</a>
For all other list information and functions, see:
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance">http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance</a>
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.igcaucus.org/">http://www.igcaucus.org/</a>
Translate this email: <a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<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>