Hello Michael Gurstein<br><br>I agree with your remarks. A better funded IGF would be stronger and more purposeful, so I feel that IGC should make this statement. <br><br>Thanks<br>Sivasubramanian Muthusamy<br>
<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 9:13 PM, Michael Gurstein <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:gurstein@gmail.com">gurstein@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
Hmmm... The California riposte...<br>
<br>
Jurisdictions are deluded/bamboozled/blackmailed into denying themselves<br>
sources of revenue (particularly by those who don't like the way that that<br>
revenue may currently or in the future be spent).<br>
<br>
Then when the challenge comes to spend some money, the jurisdiction (or<br>
their supporters -- usually the supporters of the status quo), can argue but<br>
there is no money to do what should be done...<br>
<br>
The result is that the things that should be done, but which require money<br>
to do them never get done and the status quo drifts merrily along... (at<br>
least until the banks stop cashing the IOU's or whatever...<br>
<font color="#888888"><br>
M<br>
</font><div><div></div><div class="h5"><br>
-----Original Message-----<br>
From: Jeanette Hofmann [mailto:<a href="mailto:jeanette@wzb.eu">jeanette@wzb.eu</a>]<br>
Sent: Monday, July 13, 2009 11:27 AM<br>
To: <a href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a>; Ginger Paque<br>
Cc: Sivasubramanian Muthusamy; Michael Gurstein<br>
Subject: [SPAM]Re: [governance] Question 6: Comments on Shiva's proposed<br>
paras<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Ginger Paque wrote:<br>
> Thank you Shiva, I can see that you made a serious effort at<br>
> compromise.<br>
> However, there are still areas I cannot agree with. Please consider the<br>
> following counter-proposal, and of course, we hope for comments from<br>
> others as well:<br>
><br>
> [The following text was re-submitted by Shiva, and then edited by<br>
> Ginger]<br>
><br>
> The Internet Governance Caucus calls upon the IGF Secretariat to<br>
> substantially fund IGF programs and participation to further enhance the<br>
> quality of programs with greater diversity of participation.<br>
<br>
The IGF secretariat has no budget to fund the expenses listed below. I<br>
don't understand why we would want to "call upon the IGF Secretariat to ><br>
substantially fund IGF programs and participation" in light of the<br>
lack of such funds.<br>
<br>
jeanette<br>
><br>
> There are two aspects to be considered in this regard: a) Present IGF<br>
> participants representing various stakeholder groups are highly<br>
> qualified individuals with diverse accomplishments but it is also true<br>
> that IGF participation needs to be further expanded to include more<br>
> Civil Society participants known for their commitment and<br>
> accomplishments outside the IGF arena on various Civil Society causes.<br>
> Business leaders who are otherwise committed to social and other<br>
> governance issues are not seen at the IGF, and not all governments are<br>
> represented at the IGF. And b) The present attendees of the IGF do not<br>
> represent all participant segments and geographic regions. This needs to<br>
> be improved and it requires various efforts, but availability of various<br>
> categories of travel grants for participants may help improve<br>
> participation by those not attending the IGF for want of funds. IGF<br>
> already has made some funds available for representation from Less<br>
> Developed Countries, but such funding achieves a limited objective.<br>
><br>
> The true cost of the IGF (including all visible and invisible costs to<br>
> the IGF Secretariat, participating Governments, organizations and<br>
> individual participants) would be several times that of the actual<br>
> outflow from the IGF Secretariat in organizing the IGF, as reflected in<br>
> the IGF book of accounts. If an economist estimates the total visible<br>
> and invisible costs of the IGF, it would be an enormous sum, which is<br>
> already spent. With an increment in funding for travel support to panel<br>
> speaker and participants, which would amount to a small proportion of<br>
> the true cost of the IGF, the quality of panels and the diversity of<br>
> participation could be improved.<br>
><br>
> With this rationale, the Internet Governance Caucus recommends that<br>
> the<br>
> IGF should consider budgetary allocations supported by grants from<br>
> business, governments, well funded non-governmental and international<br>
> organizations and the United Nations. The fund may extend travel grants<br>
> to 200 lead participants (panel speakers, program organizers), full and<br>
> partial fellowships to a greater number of participants with special<br>
> attention to participants from unrepresented categories (unrepresented<br>
> geographic regions and/or unrepresented participant segments and even to<br>
> those from affluent, represented regions if there is an individual need ).<br>
><br>
> Such a fund would enable the IGF to bring in more diverse opinions to<br>
> the IGF from experts who would add further value to the IGF. It is<br>
> especially recommended that such a fund carry no link as to the<br>
> positions or content proposed by the presenter (as opposed to a grant<br>
> from a business trust with stated or implied conditions about the<br>
> positions to be taken). It is recommended that the IGF create a fund<br>
> large enough to have significant impact in further enhancing quality and<br>
> diversity of participation.<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote:<br>
>> Hello Ginger, Michael Guerstein and All,<br>
>><br>
>> Have revised the statement and the changes made are highlighted. This<br>
>> mail is best viewed with html / mime settings. ( for the convenience<br>
>> of those whose mail settings are plain text, I am attaching the text<br>
>> as a PDF file which would show the highlighted changes )<br>
>><br>
>> Thank you<br>
>><br>
>> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy<br>
>><br>
>> The Internet Governance Caucus calls upon the IGF Secretariat to<br>
>> fund the IGF programs and participation substantially and<br>
>> significantly to further enhance the quality of programs with<br>
>> greater diversity of participation. * *There are two aspects to be<br>
>> considered in this regard: a) WSIS/ present IGF participants<br>
>> representing various stakeholder groups are highly qualified<br>
>> individuals with diverse accomplishments but it is also true that<br>
>> IGF participation needs to be further expanded to invite and<br>
>> include more Civil Society participants known for their commitment<br>
>> and accomplishments outside the IGF arena on various Civil Society<br>
>> causes ; business leaders who are otherwise committed to social<br>
>> and other governance issues are not seen at the IGF, and not all<br>
>> governments are represented at the IGF ( and though not for<br>
>> financial reasons, the present participants from Government are<br>
>> not represented on a high enough level ) - [ this sentence in<br>
>> parenthesis may be deleted if unnecessary as it is not directly<br>
>> relevant to the point ] and b) The present participants of the IGF<br>
>> do not represent all participant segments and geographic regions.<br>
>> This needs to be improved and it requires various efforts, but<br>
>> availability of various categories of Travel Grants for different<br>
>> classes of participants may help improve participation by those<br>
>> not attending the IGF for want of funds. IGF already has made some<br>
>> funds available for representation from Less Developed Countries,<br>
>> but such funding achieves a limited objective.<br>
>><br>
>> The true cost of the IGF (including all visible and invisible<br>
>> costs to the IGF Secretariat, participating Governments,<br>
>> organizations and individual participants) would be several times<br>
>> that of the actual outflow from the IGF Secretariat in organizing<br>
>> the IGF, as reflected in the IGF book of accounts. If an economist<br>
>> estimates the total visible and invisible costs of the IGF, it<br>
>> would be an enormous sum, which is already spent. For want of a<br>
>> marginal allocation for travel support to panel speaker and<br>
>> participants, which would amount to a small proportion of the true<br>
>> cost of the IGF, the quality of panels and the diversity of<br>
>> participation are compromised.<br>
>><br>
>> With this rationale, the Internet Governance Caucus recommends<br>
>> that the IGF should consider liberal budgetary allocations<br>
>> supported by unconditional grants from business, governments, well<br>
>> funded non-governmental and international organizations and the<br>
>> United Nations. The fund may extend uncompromising, comfortable<br>
>> travel grants/ honorarium to 200 lead participants (panel<br>
>> speakers, program organizers, who are largely invitees who are<br>
>> required to be well-received for participation), full and partial<br>
>> fellowships to a large number of participants with special<br>
>> attention to participants from unrepresented categories<br>
>> (unrepresented geographic regions and/or unrepresented participant<br>
>> segments and even to those from affluent, represented regions if<br>
>> there is an individual need ).<br>
>><br>
>> Such a fund would enable the IGF to bring in really diverse<br>
>> opinions to the IGF from experts who would add further value to<br>
>> the IGF. It is especially recommended that such a fund may be<br>
>> built up from contributions that are unconditional (as opposed to<br>
>> a grant from a business trust with stated or implied conditions<br>
>> about the positions to be taken; 'unconditional' does not imply<br>
>> that funds may have to be disbursed without even the basic<br>
>> conditions that the recipient should attend the IGF and attend the<br>
>> sessions etc. In this context "unconditional" means something<br>
>> larger. It is to hint at a system of Travel Grants whereby IGF<br>
>> will pool funds from Business Corporations, Governments,<br>
>> International Organizations, well funded NGOs and UN with no<br>
>> implied conditions on the positions to be taken by participants*)*<br>
>> and may be awarded to panelists and participants unconditionally.<br>
>> It is recommended that the IGF create a fund large enough to have<br>
>> significant impact in further enhancing quality and diversity of<br>
>> participation.<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy<br>
>> Blog: <a href="http://isocmadras.blogspot.com" target="_blank">http://isocmadras.blogspot.com</a><br>
>><br>
>> facebook: <a href="http://is.gd/x8Sh" target="_blank">http://is.gd/x8Sh</a><br>
>> LinkedIn: <a href="http://is.gd/x8U6" target="_blank">http://is.gd/x8U6</a><br>
>> Twitter: <a href="http://is.gd/x8Vz" target="_blank">http://is.gd/x8Vz</a><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 5:55 PM, Sivasubramanian Muthusamy<br>
>> <<a href="mailto:isolatedn@gmail.com">isolatedn@gmail.com</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:isolatedn@gmail.com">isolatedn@gmail.com</a>>> wrote:<br>
>><br>
>> Hello Ginger<br>
>><br>
>> Will have just a little time to spend on this, will review the<br>
>> complete questionnaire comments, and reword the Q6 comment, but<br>
>> don't really have a lot of time today. Leaving for the city in a<br>
>> few hours for a short trip, will find some time to work tomorrow<br>
>> as well, but not tonight.<br>
>><br>
>> Would prefer this as an IGC statement, rather than as an<br>
>> independent proposal, which I could have sent it on my own but<br>
>> preferred not to.<br>
>><br>
>> Shiva.<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 5:14 PM, Ginger Paque <<a href="mailto:gpaque@gmail.com">gpaque@gmail.com</a><br>
>> <mailto:<a href="mailto:gpaque@gmail.com">gpaque@gmail.com</a>>> wrote:<br>
>><br>
>> Hi Shiva,<br>
>><br>
>> I was referring to Q6, as several of us - including myself,<br>
>> and Ian, as well as Michael and others, are not yet satisfied<br>
>> with the wording on the funding concept. You are welcome to<br>
>> continue the discussion and see if you can reach a consensus<br>
>> on it, but I suspect that by the time everyone is happy, the<br>
>> statement won't say much of anything. Could you review the<br>
>> thread on Q6, including Ian's answer to the complete<br>
>> questionnaire draft, and tell us what you think?<br>
>><br>
>> Let's look at Q 3 separately, ok?<br>
>><br>
>> Thanks. I appreciate your willingness to discuss.<br>
>><br>
>> Best,<br>
>> Ginger<br>
>><br>
>> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote:<br>
>><br>
>> Hello Ginger<br>
>><br>
>> You would like this submitted as my own comment, rather<br>
>> than as an IGC statement? Is this only on Q6 or does it<br>
>> also apply to Q3?<br>
>><br>
>> There were further exchanges between Gurstein and me, and<br>
>> the misunderstanding are being clarified. Would you really<br>
>> feel that the entire statement has to be dropped as<br>
>> comment from IGC?<br>
>><br>
>> Thanks.<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 4:40 PM, Ginger Paque<br>
>> <<a href="mailto:gpaque@gmail.com">gpaque@gmail.com</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:gpaque@gmail.com">gpaque@gmail.com</a>><br>
>> <mailto:<a href="mailto:gpaque@gmail.com">gpaque@gmail.com</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:gpaque@gmail.com">gpaque@gmail.com</a>>>><br>
>> wrote:<br>
>><br>
>> Shiva, As there seems to be quite a bit of controversy<br>
>> about this<br>
>> concept and wording, and we are very short on time, I<br>
>> wonder if we<br>
>> could continue this discussion after the questionnaire is<br>
>> submitted, perhaps for comments to be submitted by the<br>
>> August<br>
>> deadline?<br>
>><br>
>> In the meantime, you could submit your own comment,<br>
>> which would<br>
>> give you more freedom to make your point. Is that<br>
>> acceptable to you?<br>
>><br>
>> Regards,<br>
>> Ginger<br>
>><br>
>> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote:<br>
>><br>
>> Hello Michael Gurstein<br>
>><br>
>> A quick reply and a little more later.<br>
>><br>
>> On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 6:12 AM, Michael Gurstein<br>
>> <<a href="mailto:gurstein@gmail.com">gurstein@gmail.com</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:gurstein@gmail.com">gurstein@gmail.com</a>><br>
>> <mailto:<a href="mailto:gurstein@gmail.com">gurstein@gmail.com</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:gurstein@gmail.com">gurstein@gmail.com</a>>><br>
>> <mailto:<a href="mailto:gurstein@gmail.com">gurstein@gmail.com</a><br>
>> <mailto:<a href="mailto:gurstein@gmail.com">gurstein@gmail.com</a>> <mailto:<a href="mailto:gurstein@gmail.com">gurstein@gmail.com</a><br>
>> <mailto:<a href="mailto:gurstein@gmail.com">gurstein@gmail.com</a>>>>> wrote:<br>
>><br>
>> Hi,<br>
>><br>
>> -----Original Message-----<br>
>> *From:* Sivasubramanian Muthusamy<br>
>> [mailto:<a href="mailto:isolatedn@gmail.com">isolatedn@gmail.com</a><br>
>> <mailto:<a href="mailto:isolatedn@gmail.com">isolatedn@gmail.com</a>> <mailto:<a href="mailto:isolatedn@gmail.com">isolatedn@gmail.com</a><br>
>> <mailto:<a href="mailto:isolatedn@gmail.com">isolatedn@gmail.com</a>>><br>
>> <mailto:<a href="mailto:isolatedn@gmail.com">isolatedn@gmail.com</a><br>
>> <mailto:<a href="mailto:isolatedn@gmail.com">isolatedn@gmail.com</a>> <mailto:<a href="mailto:isolatedn@gmail.com">isolatedn@gmail.com</a><br>
>> <mailto:<a href="mailto:isolatedn@gmail.com">isolatedn@gmail.com</a>>>>]<br>
>> *Sent:* Sunday, July 12, 2009 6:18 PM<br>
>> *To:* <a href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a><br>
>> <mailto:<a href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a>><br>
>> <mailto:<a href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a><br>
>> <mailto:<a href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a>>><br>
>> <mailto:<a href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a><br>
>> <mailto:<a href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a>><br>
>> <mailto:<a href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a><br>
>> <mailto:<a href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a>>>>; Michael Gurstein<br>
>> *Subject:* Re: [governance] Question 6:<br>
>> Comments on Siva's<br>
>> proposed paras<br>
>><br>
>> Hello Michael Gurstein,<br>
>><br>
>> On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 2:50 AM, Michael<br>
>> Gurstein<br>
>> <<a href="mailto:gurstein@gmail.com">gurstein@gmail.com</a><br>
>> <mailto:<a href="mailto:gurstein@gmail.com">gurstein@gmail.com</a>> <mailto:<a href="mailto:gurstein@gmail.com">gurstein@gmail.com</a><br>
>> <mailto:<a href="mailto:gurstein@gmail.com">gurstein@gmail.com</a>>><br>
>> <mailto:<a href="mailto:gurstein@gmail.com">gurstein@gmail.com</a><br>
>> <mailto:<a href="mailto:gurstein@gmail.com">gurstein@gmail.com</a>> <mailto:<a href="mailto:gurstein@gmail.com">gurstein@gmail.com</a><br>
>> <mailto:<a href="mailto:gurstein@gmail.com">gurstein@gmail.com</a>>>>> wrote:<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> "The Internet Governance Caucus calls<br>
>> upon the IGF<br>
>> Secretariat to fund the IGF programs and<br>
>> participation<br>
>> substantially and significantly to<br>
>> further enhance the<br>
>> quality of programs with greater<br>
>> diversity of<br>
>> participation" sounds better?<br>
>> YES...<br>
>> Thanks.<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> There are two aspects to be considered<br>
>> in this<br>
>> regard: a)<br>
>> The absence or<br>
>> non-participation of some of the world's<br>
>> most renowned<br>
>> Civil Society opinion<br>
>> leaders is noticeable; Business Leaders<br>
>> who are<br>
>> otherwise<br>
>> committed to<br>
>> social and other governance issues off<br>
>> IGF are not<br>
>> seen at<br>
>> the IGF;<br>
>> Governments are not represented on a<br>
>> level high enough<br>
>><br>
>> HMMM. WHO/WHAT EXACTLY IS MEANT BY<br>
>> "RENOWNED CIVIL<br>
>> SOCIETY<br>
>> OPINION LEADERS"<br>
>> (IN SOME CIRCLES THERE ARE AT LEAST TWO AND<br>
>> PROBABLY MORE<br>
>> INTERNAL<br>
>> CONTRADITIONS IN THAT SIMPLE STATEMENT<br>
>> AND CERTAINLY<br>
>> NEITHER WE NOR THE<br>
>> SECRETARIAT SHOULD BE EXPECTED TO<br>
>> IDENTIFY WHO THESE<br>
>> "RENOWNED" FOLKS MIGHT<br>
>> BE.<br>
>><br>
>> AS WELL, ARE WE LOOKING FOR CIVIL<br>
>> SOCIETY "LEADERS" OR<br>
>> FOLKS FROM CIVIL<br>
>> SOCIETY ORGANIZATIONS IN LEADERSHIP<br>
>> POSITIONS, OR<br>
>> ARE WE<br>
>> LOOKING FOR CIVIL<br>
>> SOCIETY SPOKESPEOPLE WHO UNDERSTAND IG<br>
>> ISSUES, OR<br>
>> ARE WE<br>
>> LOOKING FOR LEADERS<br>
>> OF RESPONSIBLE REPRESENTATIVE CS<br>
>> ORGANIZATIONS WHO<br>
>> HAVE A<br>
>> POSITION//OPINION/KNOWLEDGE ON IG ISSUES<br>
>> (EACH OF THESE<br>
>> CATEGORIES IS<br>
>> PROBABLY DISCREET AND COULD BE INCLUDED<br>
>> AMBIGUOUSLY<br>
>> UNDER<br>
>> YOUR STATEMENT.<br>
>><br>
>> IF BIZ LEADERS THINK IT IS OF SUFFICIENT<br>
>> IMPORTANCE<br>
>> THEY'LL LIKELY COME, IF<br>
>> NOT, NOT AND NOT MUCH WE OR THE<br>
>> SECRETARIAT CAN DO<br>
>> ABOUT<br>
>> THAT AND SIMILARLY<br>
>> WITH GOVERNMENTS.<br>
>><br>
>> I THINK THIS PARA SHOULD BE DROPPED...<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> I am sorry, I don't agree with your negative<br>
>> interpretation of<br>
>> such a positive suggestion. Are we to assert<br>
>> that the<br>
>> present<br>
>> participants constitute a complete,<br>
>> representative, and<br>
>> ultimate group ? NO, BUT<br>
>> I'M HAVING<br>
>> TROUBLE SEEING WHAT NAOMI KLEIN OR VENDANA<br>
>> SHIVA WOULD HAVE TO CONTRIBUTE EITHER...<br>
>><br>
>> I will have to browse a little to learn about Naomi<br>
>> Klein;<br>
>> Vendana Shiva is an Indian name that sounds<br>
>> familiar, but I<br>
>> wasn't thinking of these names, nor was my point<br>
>> intended to<br>
>> bring in anyone whom I know or associated with.<br>
>> Looks like<br>
>> you are reading between the lines of what I write.<br>
>><br>
>> HAVING THE HEAD OF SEWA OR K-NET<br>
>> WOULD SEEM TO<br>
>> ME TO BE RATHER<br>
>> MORE USEFUL, "RENOWNED" OR NOT, AS THEY AT<br>
>> LEAST COULD TALK<br>
>> WITH SOME DIRECT KNOWLEDGE ABOUT HOW IG<br>
>> ISSUES IMPACT<br>
>> THEM AND<br>
>> THE KINDS OF THINGS THEY ARE TRYING TO DO ON<br>
>> THE GROUND.<br>
>><br>
>> Again an Indian reference - you have used the word<br>
>> "Sewa" in<br>
>> your comment. Perhaps you are reading me as someone<br>
>> pushing<br>
>> the Indian point of view? I am not. I am born in<br>
>> India, a<br>
>> participant from India, I have faith in and respect<br>
>> for my<br>
>> country but I believe that in an International<br>
>> context I am at<br>
>> least a little wider than a national. I have been<br>
>> inspired by<br>
>> teachers who taught me in my school days that<br>
>> "patriotism is a<br>
>> prejudice" which is profound thinking which in<br>
>> depths implies<br>
>> that one must be beyond being patriotic and be<br>
>> rather global.<br>
>><br>
>> (Will come back this point and write more in<br>
>> response to what<br>
>> you have written a little later)<br>
>><br>
>> Thank you.<br>
>> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy.<br>
>><br>
>> MBG<br>
>> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy<br>
>><br>
>> M<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> ____________________________________________________________<br>
>> You received this message as a<br>
>> subscriber on the list:<br>
>> <a href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a><br>
>> <mailto:<a href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a>><br>
>> <mailto:<a href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a><br>
>> <mailto:<a href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a>>><br>
>> <mailto:<a href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a><br>
>> <mailto:<a href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a>><br>
>> <mailto:<a href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a><br>
>> <mailto:<a href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a>>>><br>
>> To be removed from the list, send any<br>
>> message to:<br>
>><br>
>> <a href="mailto:governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org">governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org</a><br>
>> <mailto:<a href="mailto:governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org">governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org</a>><br>
>> <mailto:<a href="mailto:governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org">governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org</a><br>
>> <mailto:<a href="mailto:governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org">governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org</a>>><br>
>><br>
>> <mailto:<a href="mailto:governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org">governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org</a><br>
>> <mailto:<a href="mailto:governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org">governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org</a>><br>
>> <mailto:<a href="mailto:governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org">governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org</a><br>
>> <mailto:<a href="mailto:governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org">governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org</a>>>><br>
>><br>
>> For all list information and functions,<br>
>> see:<br>
>><br>
>> <a href="http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance" target="_blank">http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance</a><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
> ____________________________________________________________<br>
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br>
> <a href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a><br>
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:<br>
> <a href="mailto:governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org">governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org</a><br>
><br>
> For all list information and functions, see:<br>
> <a href="http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance" target="_blank">http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance</a><br>
<br>
____________________________________________________________<br>
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br>
<a href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a><br>
To be removed from the list, send any message to:<br>
<a href="mailto:governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org">governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org</a><br>
<br>
For all list information and functions, see:<br>
<a href="http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance" target="_blank">http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br><input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden"><div id="refHTML"></div>