<HTML><BODY style="word-wrap: break-word; -khtml-nbsp-mode: space; -khtml-line-break: after-white-space; ">hi,<DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV>i am fine with either formulation. I tend to agree with the notion of Internet access and resources as a public good - recognizing that this is a normative statement.</DIV><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV>In a, I am not sure, though, what you mean by global citizens: do you mean the citizens of the country who live outside the country (e.g. the Indian surgeon in London) or do you mean anyone who has an interest or affinity for that country (e.g Svenkaphiles and Francophiles).</DIV><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV>if it is the first it might be better to say 'and of its citizens living abroad'</DIV><DIV>if it is the second i would recommend 'others'</DIV><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV>i am not sure that there is a well developed notion of global citizenry (if there is, where can i get a passport?)</DIV><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV>a.</DIV><DIV><BR><DIV><DIV>On 3 dec 2005, at 11.05, Izumi AIZU wrote:</DIV><BR class="Apple-interchange-newline"><BLOCKQUOTE type="cite"> Let me try:<BR><BR> (A)<BR> With regards to para 63, Civil Society believes that a country code Top Level Domain (ccTLD) is a public good of both people of the concerned country/economy and of global citizens who have various interests to the country/economy. As such, we recognize the importance of role of the respective governments to protect the ccTLD under their jurisdiction, it should be exercised in a manner that respects human rights as expressed in existing international treaties through a democratic, transparent and inclusive process with full involvement of all stakeholders at the national level." <BR><BR> If we have problem with the first sentence, that could be the case,<BR><BR> (B)<BR> With regards to para 63, Civil Society recognizes the importance of role of the governments to protect the ccTLD under their jurisdiction, it should be exercised in a manner that respects human rights as expressed in existing international treaties through a democratic, transparent and inclusive process with full involvement of all stakeholders, inter alia, the Civil Society, at the national level." <BR><BR> Just a try...<BR><BR> izumi sitting in Vancouver ICANN meeting<BR><BR> <BR> At 10:41 05/12/03 -0800, Avri Doria wrote:<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">Hi,<BR><BR> I am not totally comfortable with the paragraph. As I have pointed out often on this list and other is that I beleive we make a mistake when we accept the notion of Governments having sovereignty over ccTLD. Yes, I believe they need to be operated in the countries' interests, but do not beleive that should be automatically construed as translating to sovereignty.<BR><BR> It is certainly their right to assert such a claim, but I see no reason for us to acquiesce to it, for in doing so, we help to make it so.<BR> <BR> I would prefer that we use language that indicates a county's responsibilities as steward of a ccTLd to protect human rights, privacy rights and equality of access.<BR><BR> <BR> a.<BR><BR> <BR> On 3 dec 2005, at 10.14, Parminder wrote:<BR><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE type="cite"><FONT face="courier new" size="2"> <BR> </FONT><BR> <FONT face="courier new" size="2"> <BR> </FONT><BR> <FONT face="courier new" size="2">Bill, thanks for rounding up the outcomes from the discussions. <BR> </FONT><BR> <FONT face="courier new" size="2"> <BR> </FONT><BR> <FONT face="courier new" size="2">One last point. I think, the ccTLD point is important and the global CS needs to take a position on how the enhanced role of governments recognized in the point 63 should be exercised. <BR> </FONT><BR> <FONT face="courier new" size="2"> <BR> </FONT><BR> <FONT face="courier new" size="2">The words contributed by Wolfgang, and the additions provided by me almost constitutes clear language on this issue, and unless anyone on this list objects to it, I will request Ralf to consider its inclusion - exercising his judgment about its placement in the text on IG. <BR> </FONT><BR> <FONT face="courier new" size="2"> <BR> </FONT><BR> <FONT face="courier new" size="2">I quote from Bill's mail below the discussions on this issue for others people's comments, if any. <BR> </FONT><BR> <FONT face="courier new" size="2"> <BR> </FONT><BR> <FONT face="courier new" size="2">>>>Wolfgang raised a concern about the Tunis Agenda's para 63 on ccTLDs,<BR> </FONT><BR> <FONT face="courier new" size="2">stating, "We should say very clear, that the recognition of the<BR> </FONT><BR> <FONT face="courier new" size="2">sovereignty of countries / governments over their ccTD space is embedded<BR> </FONT><BR> <FONT face="courier new" size="2">into a framework of general principles which includes all human rights,<BR> </FONT><BR> <FONT face="courier new" size="2">non-discrimination, equal access etc. " He did not suggest language. <BR> </FONT><BR> <FONT face="courier new" size="2">Parminder agreed, stating that national sovereignty over ccTLDs "should be<BR> </FONT><BR> <FONT face="courier new" size="2">exercised in a manner that respects human rights as expressed in various<BR> </FONT><BR> <FONT face="courier new" size="2">international treaties, and through a process that takes in diverse inputs<BR> </FONT><BR> <FONT face="courier new" size="2">from the civil society at the national level." Personally, I would favor<BR> </FONT><BR> <FONT face="courier new" size="2">expressing these concerns, but as nobody has suggested language or said<BR> </FONT><BR> <FONT face="courier new" size="2">where it should go in the IG section. As time is running out, I doubt we'd<BR> </FONT><BR> <FONT face="courier new" size="2">manage to reach a determination even if someone proposed text now, but if<BR> </FONT><BR> <FONT face="courier new" size="2">someone wants to try, great. Otherwise, I guess it'll have to be your<BR> </FONT><BR> <FONT face="courier new" size="2">editorial judgment call as to the addition of a sentence or two on this.>>><BR> </FONT><BR> <FONT face="courier new" size="2"> <BR> </FONT><BR> <FONT face="courier new" size="2">parminder <BR> </FONT><BR> <FONT face="courier new" size="2"> <BR> </FONT><BR> <FONT face="courier new" size="2"> <BR> </FONT><BR> <FONT face="courier new" size="2"> ________________________________________________<BR> </FONT><BR> <FONT face="courier new" size="2">Parminder Jeet Singh<BR> </FONT><BR> <FONT face="courier new" size="2">IT for Change<BR> </FONT><BR> <FONT face="courier new" size="2">Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities <BR> </FONT><BR> <FONT face="courier new" size="2">91-80-26654134<BR> </FONT><BR> <FONT face="courier new" size="2"> <A href="http://www.ITforChange.net" eudora="autourl"> www.ITforChange.net</A> <BR> </FONT><BR> <FONT face="courier new" size="2"> <BR> </FONT><BR> <FONT face="courier new" size="2">-----Original Message-----<BR> From: <A href="mailto:governance-bounces@lists.cpsr.org">governance-bounces@lists.cpsr.org</A> [<A href="mailto:governance-bounces@lists.cpsr.org"> mailto:governance-bounces@lists.cpsr.org</A>] On Behalf Of William Drake<BR> Sent: Saturday, December 03, 2005 3:20 PM<BR> To: <A href="mailto:bendrath@zedat.fu-berlin.de"> bendrath@zedat.fu-berlin.de</A><BR> Cc: Governance<BR> Subject: [governance] Finalizing the IG Section of the CS Statement on Tunis<BR> </FONT><BR> <FONT face="courier new" size="2"> <BR> </FONT><BR> <FONT face="courier new" size="2">Hi Ralf, (and all)<BR> </FONT><BR> <FONT face="courier new" size="2"> <BR> </FONT><BR> <FONT face="courier new" size="2">I guess time is running out to make changes to the IG section of the CS<BR> </FONT><BR> <FONT face="courier new" size="2">statement. The last I heard you wanted to finalize Sunday afternoon and<BR> </FONT><BR> <FONT face="courier new" size="2">were urging the caucus to urgently get it together on inputs. So, in<BR> </FONT><BR> <FONT face="courier new" size="2">accordance with my instructions from Lee, let's see if we can track the<BR> </FONT><BR> <FONT face="courier new" size="2">debate and move toward closure for you.<BR> </FONT><BR> <FONT face="courier new" size="2"> <BR> </FONT><BR> <FONT face="courier new" size="2">The last version of IG stuff I saw that you had incorporated into the<BR> </FONT><BR> <FONT face="courier new" size="2">draft statement was from Wednesday the 30th. It reflected suggestions I<BR> </FONT><BR> <FONT face="courier new" size="2">made on the 28th and subsequent discussions and modifications by the group<BR> </FONT><BR> <FONT face="courier new" size="2">in which multiple people weighed in and nobody said, no I can't accept<BR> </FONT><BR> <FONT face="courier new" size="2">this. In the absence of other, more effective procedures it seemed<BR> </FONT><BR> <FONT face="courier new" size="2">reasonable to treat that text as agreed. Since that time, to my knowledge<BR> </FONT><BR> <FONT face="courier new" size="2">there have been a couple of additional suggestions that have been<BR> </FONT><BR> <FONT face="courier new" size="2">variously (hi Avri;-) supported, so presumably the same 'nobody objected'<BR> </FONT><BR> <FONT face="courier new" size="2">principle would apply. Some other points are still very much in the air.<BR> </FONT><BR> <FONT face="courier new" size="2"> <BR> </FONT><BR> <FONT face="courier new" size="2">1. I suggested on Wed. 30th that IG be included in your first page<BR> </FONT><BR> <FONT face="courier new" size="2">listing of CS objectives going into the Tunis phase, since affecting the<BR> </FONT><BR> <FONT face="courier new" size="2">IG process and decisions were in fact main objectives, certainly equal to<BR> </FONT><BR> <FONT face="courier new" size="2">the others listed, to which a lot of people devoted a lot of energy, with<BR> </FONT><BR> <FONT face="courier new" size="2">some success. The language I suggested was:<BR> </FONT><BR> <FONT face="courier new" size="2"> <BR> </FONT><BR> <FONT face="courier new" size="2">"*Agreement on a substantively broad and procedurally inclusive approach to<BR> </FONT><BR> <FONT face="courier new" size="2">Internet governance, the reform of existing governance mechanisms in<BR> </FONT><BR> <FONT face="courier new" size="2">accordance with the Geneva principles, and the creation of a new mechanism<BR> </FONT><BR> <FONT face="courier new" size="2">or forum to promote multistakeholder dialogue, analysis, trend monitoring,<BR> </FONT><BR> <FONT face="courier new" size="2">and capacity building in the field of Internet governance."<BR> </FONT><BR> <FONT face="courier new" size="2"> <BR> </FONT><BR> <FONT face="courier new" size="2">According to the list archives, replies were received from Jeanette, Avri,<BR> </FONT><BR> <FONT face="courier new" size="2">Vittorio, Adam, Izumi, Wolfgang, Jacky, Parminder, and Lee. Nobody<BR> </FONT><BR> <FONT face="courier new" size="2">objected to this suggestion, although Jeanette expressed concern that<BR> </FONT><BR> <FONT face="courier new" size="2">other caucuses might want to add additional objectives, which in my view<BR> </FONT><BR> <FONT face="courier new" size="2">anyway is a separate matter and wouldn't be a function of one sentence on<BR> </FONT><BR> <FONT face="courier new" size="2">IG. In any event, since the argument for including this is clear, the<BR> </FONT><BR> <FONT face="courier new" size="2">arguments against would be counterfactual, and a number of folks haven't<BR> </FONT><BR> <FONT face="courier new" size="2">objected on its inclusion or substance, can we please treat this as<BR> </FONT><BR> <FONT face="courier new" size="2">agreed? I think it would be utterly bizarre not to mention IG in key<BR> </FONT><BR> <FONT face="courier new" size="2">objectives, and that other stakeholders and press would be perplexed.<BR> </FONT><BR> <FONT face="courier new" size="2"> <BR> </FONT><BR> <FONT face="courier new" size="2"> <BR> </FONT><BR> <FONT face="courier new" size="2">2. I also suggested a change on the IG piece for the going forward<BR> </FONT><BR> <FONT face="courier new" size="2">section on page 10:<BR> </FONT><BR> <FONT face="courier new" size="2"> <BR> </FONT><BR> <FONT face="courier new" size="2">"Element two: Involvement in the Internet Governance Forum<BR> </FONT><BR> <FONT face="courier new" size="2">The CS Internet Governance Caucus will actively participate in and support<BR> </FONT><BR> <FONT face="courier new" size="2">the work of the IGF, and is exploring ways to enhance its working methods<BR> </FONT><BR> <FONT face="courier new" size="2">and engagement with relevant stakeholders, especially the research<BR> </FONT><BR> <FONT face="courier new" size="2">community, to these ends. In addition, discussions are under way to<BR> </FONT><BR> <FONT face="courier new" size="2">create a new working group that will make recommendations on the<BR> </FONT><BR> <FONT face="courier new" size="2">modalities of the IGF."<BR> </FONT><BR> <FONT face="courier new" size="2"> <BR> </FONT><BR> <FONT face="courier new" size="2">Here things are more messy. The folks mentioned above didn't disagree<BR> </FONT><BR> <FONT face="courier new" size="2">with the desirability of tweaking this passage or with the first sentence,<BR> </FONT><BR> <FONT face="courier new" size="2">but on the second pertaining to the WG concept, various ideas were<BR> </FONT><BR> <FONT face="courier new" size="2">expressed without reaching a clear conclusion. Jeanette thought we should<BR> </FONT><BR> <FONT face="courier new" size="2">not limit the WG sentence to modalities, and should hence just say that<BR> </FONT><BR> <FONT face="courier new" size="2">the caucus will "create a working group that will make recommendations on<BR> </FONT><BR> <FONT face="courier new" size="2">relevant aspects concerning the IGF." Avri said she's fine with either<BR> </FONT><BR> <FONT face="courier new" size="2">formulation. Vittorio said "we have to be very clear on whether we expect<BR> </FONT><BR> <FONT face="courier new" size="2">this to be the only or at least the recommended place for CS groups that<BR> </FONT><BR> <FONT face="courier new" size="2">want to discuss about the forum," but did not suggest language that would<BR> </FONT><BR> <FONT face="courier new" size="2">bring this clarity. Jeanette replied, "Since we never speak for civil<BR> </FONT><BR> <FONT face="courier new" size="2">society as such but only for a specific working group or caucus, I don't<BR> </FONT><BR> <FONT face="courier new" size="2">understand what exactly it is you try to prevent or achieve." Adam said<BR> </FONT><BR> <FONT face="courier new" size="2">"Of course other caucuses and working groups will be interested in the<BR> </FONT><BR> <FONT face="courier new" size="2">forum. And the Internet governance caucus may continue as is, it might<BR> </FONT><BR> <FONT face="courier new" size="2">evolve into a new working group, or a new working group might emerge<BR> </FONT><BR> <FONT face="courier new" size="2">separately. So why not refer to civil society and not mention the caucus<BR> </FONT><BR> <FONT face="courier new" size="2">or any new working group?," but did not suggest text. Lee said "yay" for<BR> </FONT><BR> <FONT face="courier new" size="2">the original suggestion, Wolfgang said of course the WG is open to all and<BR> </FONT><BR> <FONT face="courier new" size="2">should cover both modalities and substance, Izumi agreed it is open to<BR> </FONT><BR> <FONT face="courier new" size="2">all, and Jacky asked whether "modalities and substance could be separated<BR> </FONT><BR> <FONT face="courier new" size="2">into two groups?"<BR> </FONT><BR> <FONT face="courier new" size="2"> <BR> </FONT><BR> <FONT face="courier new" size="2">That is where we left it. It's not a clear picture on the WG sentence, but<BR> </FONT><BR> <FONT face="courier new" size="2">the first seems unproblematic. Here are two options Ralf, and in the event<BR> </FONT><BR> <FONT face="courier new" size="2">you don't get more input, I guess you could just use your judgment?<BR> </FONT><BR> <FONT face="courier new" size="2"> <BR> </FONT><BR> <FONT face="courier new" size="2">A. "Element two: Involvement in the Internet Governance Forum<BR> </FONT><BR> <FONT face="courier new" size="2">The CS Internet Governance Caucus will actively participate in and support<BR> </FONT><BR> <FONT face="courier new" size="2">the work of the IGF, and is exploring ways to enhance its working methods<BR> </FONT><BR> <FONT face="courier new" size="2">and engagement with relevant stakeholders, especially the research<BR> </FONT><BR> <FONT face="courier new" size="2">community, to these ends." Full stop. Don't say anything about a WG<BR> </FONT><BR> <FONT face="courier new" size="2">since its form and function are not agreed yet, and any subsequent<BR> </FONT><BR> <FONT face="courier new" size="2">decision to create one would not be inconsistent with the statement.<BR> </FONT><BR> <FONT face="courier new" size="2"> <BR> </FONT><BR> <FONT face="courier new" size="2">B. "Element two: Involvement in the Internet Governance Forum<BR> </FONT><BR> <FONT face="courier new" size="2">The CS Internet Governance Caucus will actively participate in and support<BR> </FONT><BR> <FONT face="courier new" size="2">the work of the IGF, and is exploring ways to enhance its working methods<BR> </FONT><BR> <FONT face="courier new" size="2">and engagement with relevant stakeholders, especially the research<BR> </FONT><BR> <FONT face="courier new" size="2">community, to these ends. In addition, the caucus is considering the<BR> </FONT><BR> <FONT face="courier new" size="2">creation of a new working group that will make recommendations on the IGF,<BR> </FONT><BR> <FONT face="courier new" size="2">and other civil society caucuses and working groups will develop ideas for<BR> </FONT><BR> <FONT face="courier new" size="2">and participate in the IGF as well." This second sentence would seem to<BR> </FONT><BR> <FONT face="courier new" size="2">capture the various views expressed without committing us to any<BR> </FONT><BR> <FONT face="courier new" size="2">particular configuration, more or less, or you could tweak, whatever.<BR> </FONT><BR> <FONT face="courier new" size="2"> <BR> </FONT><BR> <FONT face="courier new" size="2"> <BR> </FONT><BR> <FONT face="courier new" size="2">3. Izumi suggested that the first sentence of the section should read,<BR> </FONT><BR> <FONT face="courier new" size="2">"Civil society is pleased with the decision to create an Internet<BR> </FONT><BR> <FONT face="courier new" size="2">Governance Forum (IGF) for multistakeholder dialogue, which it has<BR> </FONT><BR> <FONT face="courier new" size="2">advocated since 2003." The multistakeholder clause would be new. Nobody<BR> </FONT><BR> <FONT face="courier new" size="2">has objected, the case it straightforward, hopefully you can insert this.<BR> </FONT><BR> <FONT face="courier new" size="2"> <BR> </FONT><BR> <FONT face="courier new" size="2"> <BR> </FONT><BR> <FONT face="courier new" size="2">4. Wolfgang raised a concern about the Tunis Agenda's para 63 on ccTLDs,<BR> </FONT><BR> <FONT face="courier new" size="2">stating, "We should say very clear, that the recognition of the<BR> </FONT><BR> <FONT face="courier new" size="2">sovereignty of countries / governments over their ccTD space is embedded<BR> </FONT><BR> <FONT face="courier new" size="2">into a framework of general principles which includes all human rights,<BR> </FONT><BR> <FONT face="courier new" size="2">non-discrimination, equal access etc. " He did not suggest language. <BR> </FONT><BR> <FONT face="courier new" size="2">Parminder agreed, stating that national sovereignty over ccTLDs "should be<BR> </FONT><BR> <FONT face="courier new" size="2">exercised in a manner that respects human rights as expressed in various<BR> </FONT><BR> <FONT face="courier new" size="2">international treaties, and through a process that takes in diverse inputs<BR> </FONT><BR> <FONT face="courier new" size="2">from the civil society at the national level." Personally, I would favor<BR> </FONT><BR> <FONT face="courier new" size="2">expressing these concerns, but as nobody has suggested language or said<BR> </FONT><BR> <FONT face="courier new" size="2">where it should go in the IG section. As time is running out, I doubt we'd<BR> </FONT><BR> <FONT face="courier new" size="2">manage to reach a determination even if someone proposed text now, but if<BR> </FONT><BR> <FONT face="courier new" size="2">someone wants to try, great. Otherwise, I guess it'll have to be your<BR> </FONT><BR> <FONT face="courier new" size="2">editorial judgment call as to the addition of a sentence or two on this.<BR> </FONT><BR> <FONT face="courier new" size="2"> <BR> </FONT><BR> <FONT face="courier new" size="2"> <BR> </FONT><BR> <FONT face="courier new" size="2">5. A number of people have expressed various concerns about the wording<BR> </FONT><BR> <FONT face="courier new" size="2">of the last paragraph on public education. While the general idea is easy<BR> </FONT><BR> <FONT face="courier new" size="2">to support, there were some critical comments on the formulation too. <BR> </FONT><BR> <FONT face="courier new" size="2">There was not enough back and forth on language to see a resolution, and<BR> </FONT><BR> <FONT face="courier new" size="2">the situation is complicated by the fact that Divina is not on the caucus<BR> </FONT><BR> <FONT face="courier new" size="2">list. Here I would repeat my Dec. 1 suggestion which seems like a path of<BR> </FONT><BR> <FONT face="courier new" size="2">least resistance, but do what seems right.<BR> </FONT><BR> <FONT face="courier new" size="2"> <BR> </FONT><BR> <FONT face="courier new" size="2">> Lastly, in light of things said in the thread concerning the public<BR> </FONT><BR> <FONT face="courier new" size="2">> awareness paragraph, I would suggest that this should be moved to the four<BR> </FONT><BR> <FONT face="courier new" size="2">> para section on Education and Research, which I presume Divina played a<BR> </FONT><BR> <FONT face="courier new" size="2">> role in shaping. Clustering like points and having thematic sections that<BR> </FONT><BR> <FONT face="courier new" size="2">> come from people involved in the respective caucuses would in no way<BR> </FONT><BR> <FONT face="courier new" size="2">> constitute a downgrading of this important concern.<BR> </FONT><BR> <FONT face="courier new" size="2"> <BR> </FONT><BR> <FONT face="courier new" size="2">Finally, on the global public goods thread, there's been some lengthy list<BR> </FONT><BR> <FONT face="courier new" size="2">and private dialogue, strong views on both sides, no agreement, so<BR> </FONT><BR> <FONT face="courier new" size="2">whatever.<BR> </FONT><BR> <FONT face="courier new" size="2"> <BR> </FONT><BR> <FONT face="courier new" size="2">Basta. Hope this helps you finalization process, and that some other<BR> </FONT><BR> <FONT face="courier new" size="2">folks will weigh in on the above points in a manner that facilitates your<BR> </FONT><BR> <FONT face="courier new" size="2">task. Thanks again for coordinating all this.<BR> </FONT><BR> <FONT face="courier new" size="2"> <BR> </FONT><BR> <FONT face="courier new" size="2">Best,<BR> </FONT><BR> <FONT face="courier new" size="2"> <BR> </FONT><BR> <FONT face="courier new" size="2">Bill<BR> </FONT><BR> <FONT face="courier new" size="2"> <BR> </FONT><BR> <FONT face="courier new" size="2"> *******************************************************<BR> </FONT><BR> <FONT face="courier new" size="2">William J. Drake <A href="mailto:wdrake@ictsd.ch">wdrake@ictsd.ch</A><BR> </FONT><BR> <FONT face="courier new" size="2">President, Computer Professionals for<BR> </FONT><BR> <FONT face="courier new" size="2"> Social Responsibility <A href="http://www.cpsr.org">www.cpsr.org</A><BR> </FONT><BR> <FONT face="courier new" size="2"> Geneva, Switzerland<BR> </FONT><BR> <FONT face="courier new" size="2"> <A href="http://mitpress.mit.edu/IRGP-series"> http://mitpress.mit.edu/IRGP-series</A><BR> </FONT><BR> <FONT face="courier new" size="2"> <A href="http://www.cpsr.org/board/drake" eudora="autourl"> http://www.cpsr.org/board/drake</A><BR> </FONT><BR> <FONT face="courier new" size="2">Morality is the best of all devices for leading<BR> </FONT><BR> <FONT face="courier new" size="2">mankind by the nose.---Nietzsche<BR> </FONT><BR> <FONT face="courier new" size="2"> *******************************************************<BR> </FONT><BR> <FONT face="courier new" size="2"> <BR> </FONT><BR> <FONT face="courier new" size="2"> <BR> </FONT><BR> <FONT face="courier new" size="2"> _______________________________________________<BR> </FONT><BR> <FONT face="courier new" size="2">governance mailing list<BR> </FONT><BR> <FONT face="courier new" size="2"> <A href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org">governance@lists.cpsr.org</A> <BR> </FONT><BR> <FONT face="courier new" size="2"> <A href="https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance" eudora="autourl"> https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance</A><BR> </FONT>_______________________________________________<BR> governance mailing list<BR> <A href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org">governance@lists.cpsr.org</A> <BR> <A href="https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance" eudora="autourl"> https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance</A></BLOCKQUOTE><BR> _______________________________________________<BR> governance mailing list<BR> <A href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org">governance@lists.cpsr.org</A><BR> <A href="https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance" eudora="autourl"> https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance</A></BLOCKQUOTE> </BLOCKQUOTE></DIV><BR></DIV></BODY></HTML>