<div>Hi Ginger and all:</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Thanks much for sending this statement out (<em>process</em>) and for all the good thought and substantive work (<em>merits</em>) that went into it.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>I'd like to look at "The Four Freedoms" which are often cited internationally though penned in a national context (Pres. F. D. Roosevelt) and see how such virtual gold standards fan out to the Rights , Responsibilities, and Principles now sought, claimed, elucidated, and even if partially - achieved.. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Freedom of Speech and Expression</div>
<div>Freedom of Religion (or Belief Systems)</div>
<div>Freedom from Want</div>
<div>Freedom from Fear.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Hope there are 'takers on this';</div>
<div> </div>
<div>With warm regards, LDMF.</div>
<div>Dr. Linda D. Misek-Falkoff (Ph.D., J.D.)<br>for i.d. here: Respectful Interfaces Programme, Communications Coordination Committee for the U.N.,</div>
<div>World Education Fellowship.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Law; Computing; Humanities; cyberspace ARPANet forward.<br><br></div>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 2:46 PM, Ginger Paque <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:gpaque@gmail.com">gpaque@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">
<div bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000"><font face="Arial">Thanks to everyone for their work on this. I really like the present draft (with Shaily's additions). I think that as CS we must speak out unequivocally on this topic.<br>
<br>I agree.<br>Best, Ginger<br></font><br>shaila mistry wrote:
<blockquote type="cite">
<div style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: bookman old style,new york,times,serif">
<div>Many apologies...I meant STRENGTHEN... as in add strength.... not straighten..glad I spotted this !!!</div>
<div>shaila</div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: bookman old style,new york,times,serif">
<div style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: times new roman,new york,times,serif">
<div style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: bookman old style,new york,times,serif">
<p style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><span style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">Hi Lisa and Max and everyone.</span></p>
<p style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><span style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">Thank you all for this combined effort. I was out of town and just got back and wanted to make a few suggestions. Hope I am not too late.</span></p>
<p style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><span style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">I apologize for the lateness of my comments. I have made a few suggested changes to Draft 5 as posted by Lisa. My intention was to straightened the statement. Please feel free to edit as you see fit. I just felt that we can present our cause for human rights with greater determination.. </span></p>
<p style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><span style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">I went to look for this on the website but could not access it .</span><span style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">I have cut and paste below, in addition I have attached the file so that the changes are tracked.Also corrected some typo's</span></p>
<p style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><span style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"></span> regards </p>
<p style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt">Shaila </p>
<p style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><span style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"></span> </p>
<p style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><span style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"></span> </p>
<p style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><span style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">DRAFT STATEMENT (V5).<font color="#0000ff">edited in blue by Shaila Rao Mistry 9-9-09<br></font><br>The Caucus [and undersigned DCs] repeat their request that the<br>
programme for IGF-4 in Egypt gives <font color="#0000bf">greater</font> priority </span></p>
<p style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><span style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">to human rights. The WSIS Declaration and Tunis Agenda <font color="#0000bf">strongly</font> reaffirmed the centrality<br>of human rights in the information society, <font color="#0000bf">despite </font>this <span> </span>human rights and<br>
associated principles have received too little attention at the IGF so<br>far. This is problematic <font color="#0000ff">because :<br></font><br>* <span>Fundamental human rights</span> such as the rights to freedom of<br>
expression, privacy, civic participation, education and the right to<br>development are strongly threatened by actions and restrictive policies<br>of a growing number of actors vis a vis the internet, including state<br>and private actors at both national as well as global levels.<br>
* The internet presents new opportunities for upholding and<br>advancing human rights, for example through enhancing access to<br>knowledge and common resources. It is vital that we build on and enhance<br>these opportunities. <font color="#0000bf">Ignoring <span> </span>these avenues to uphold human rights implies a serious opportunity cost for the well being of peoples, globally.<br>
</font>* <span>International human rights</span>, as contained in the <span>Universal</span><br><span>Declaration of Human Rights</span> and confirmed by the core <span>human rights</span><br><span>treaties</span> and other <span>universal human rights</span> instruments, are legally<br>
binding. The growing role of information and communication technologies<br>has not changed the legal obligation of states having ratified these<br>instruments to respect, protect and implement the human rights of their<br>
citizens.<br>* The human rights framework is an internationally agreed set of<br>standards that has practical as well as <span>ethical value</span>. It balances<br>different rights against each other to preserve individual and public<br>
interest. In addition to its legally binding implications, human rights<br>are therefore a useful tool for addressing <span>internet governance issues</span>,<br>such as how to deal with security concerns on the internet in compliance<br>
with the rights to freedom of expression and privacy. Besides stating<br>the obligations of states and governments, the human rights framework<br>also allows us to derive the rights and responsibilities of other<br>stakeholders. <br>
<br>The Internet <span>Governance</span> Caucus [and undersigned DCs] call for the human<br>rights dimension of all internet governance issues to be included in the<br>planning and implementation of all <font color="#0000bf">future </font>IGF sessions, so that human rights<br>
are given the attention they deserve as cross-cutting issues. This<br>should include explicit consideration of how global, regional and<br><span>national policies</span> affect human rights, and the development of positive<br>
policy principles to build an open and accessible internet for all. The<br>Caucus [and undersigned DCs] would like to <font color="#0000bf">volunteer active involvement</font> <span> </span>with the<br>organizers of the main plenary sessions <span> </span>to do this, and would like to<br>
support all stakeholders through providing <span> </span>relevant guidelines<br>and experts <font color="#0000bf">from private and public sector.s and civil society..</font></span></p>
<p style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><span style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"><font color="#0000bf">The IRP and the Caucus see this upcoming IGF in Egypt and future IGFs as </font></span></p>
<p style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><span style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"><font color="#0000bf">renewed opportunity to </font></span><span style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"><font color="#0000bf">make Rights and Principles a core theme.<br>
</font><br></span></p>
<div>thanks</div>
<div>Shaila<br> </div>
<p style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><font size="1"><strong><span style="FONT-SIZE: 8pt; COLOR: blue">Life is too short ....challenge the rules</span></strong><b><span style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: black"></span></b></font></p>
<p style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><font size="1"><strong><span style="FONT-SIZE: 8pt; COLOR: blue">Forgive quickly ... love truly ...and tenderly</span></strong><b><span style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: black"></span></b></font></p>
<p style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><font size="1"><strong><span style="FONT-SIZE: 8pt; COLOR: blue">Laugh constantly.....and never stop dreaming! </span></strong><b><span style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: black"></span></b></font></p>
<p></p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p><font face="bookman old style, new york, times, serif" color="#6000bf" size="1"> </font></p>
<p style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: rgb(0,0,0); FONT-FAMILY: bookman old style,new york,times,serif"> </p>
<p><font face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif" color="#6000bf" size="1"> </font></p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p><font face="times new roman, new york, times, serif" color="#7f003f"><br></font> </p>
<p><font size="2"> </font></p>
<p><font size="2"> </font></p>
<p> </p>
<p><font size="2"> </font></p>
<p><span></span></p>
<p> </p>
<div>
<div style="COLOR: rgb(64,0,127)"><font face="comic sans ms"><strong>
<div style="FONT-WEIGHT: normal; COLOR: rgb(127,0,127)"><span style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: comic sans ms"><font face="comic sans ms"><strong></strong></font></span> </div>
<div><span style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: comic sans ms"><font face="comic sans ms"><strong></strong></font></span> </div></strong></font></div><br><br></div>
<div><br></div>
<div style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: bookman old style,new york,times,serif"><br>
<div style="FONT-SIZE: 13px; FONT-FAMILY: arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><font face="Tahoma" size="2">
<hr size="1">
<b><span style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">From:</span></b> Lisa Horner <a href="mailto:lisa@global-partners.co.uk" target="_blank"><lisa@global-partners.co.uk></a><br><b><span style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">To:</span></b> <a href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org" target="_blank">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a><br>
<b><span style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">Sent:</span></b> Wednesday, September 9, 2009 9:56:29 AM<br><b><span style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">Subject:</span></b> RE: [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights and principles<br></font><br>
Thanks for your detailed comments Paul - really useful and make sense.<br><br>Since that posting, we've come up with a new draft that emphasizes that<br>rights are legally binding. I hope it addresses your concerns.<br>
<br>Wolfgang - you said you didn't understand what we mean in the last<br>sentence. In my view, the idea would be to provide session organizers<br>with access to information and experts in the IGC who can help them to<br>
consider the human rights dimensions of the issues that they are<br>discussing. Does that make sense? I tried to incorporate the gist of<br>your comments as best I could, given that you were working with an<br>earlier version.<br>
<br>I've pasted a new draft (v5) below, incorporating the comments we've had<br>today.<br><br>The deadline for comments is 0900 CET tomorrow, and I hope we're moving<br>towards consensus...<br><br>Thanks,<br>Lisa<br>
<br>--------------------<br><br>DRAFT STATEMENT (V5).<br><br>The Caucus [and undersigned DCs] repeat their request that the<br>programme for IGF-4 in Egypt gives the required attention to human<br>rights. The WSIS Declaration and Tunis Agenda reaffirmed the centrality<br>
of human rights in the information society, but human rights and<br>associated principles have received too little attention at the IGF so<br>far. This is problematic as:<br><br>* Fundamental human rights such as the rights to freedom of<br>
expression, privacy, civic participation, education and the right to<br>development are strongly threatened by actions and restrictive policies<br>of a growing number of actors vis a vis the internet, including state<br>and private actors at both national as well as global levels.<br>
* The internet presents new opportunities for upholding and<br>advancing human rights, for example through enhancing access to<br>knowledge and common resources. It is vital that we build on and enhance<br>these opportunities.<br>
* International human rights, as contained in the Universal<br>Declaration of Human Rights and confirmed by the core human rights<br>treaties and other universal human rights instruments, are legally<br>binding. The growing role of information and communication technologies<br>
has not changed the legal obligation of states having ratified these<br>instruments to respect, protect and implement the human rights of their<br>citizens.<br>* The human rights framework is an internationally agreed set of<br>
standards that has practical as well as ethical value. It balances<br>different rights against each other to preserve individual and public<br>interest. In addition to its legally binding implications, human rights<br>are therefore a useful tool for addressing internet governance issues,<br>
such as how to deal with security concerns on the internet in compliance<br>with the rights to freedom of expression and privacy. Besides stating<br>the obligations of states and governments, the human rights framework<br>
also allows us to derive the rights and responsibilities of other<br>stakeholders. <br><br>The Internet Governance Caucus [and undersigned DCs] call for the human<br>rights dimension of all internet governance issues to be included in the<br>
planning and implementation of all IGF sessions, so that human rights<br>are given the attention they deserve as cross-cutting issues. This<br>should include explicit consideration of how global, regional and<br>national policies affect human rights, and the development of positive<br>
policy principles to build an open and accessible internet for all. The<br>Caucus [and undersigned DCs] would like to offer assistance to the<br>organisers of the main plenary sessions to do this, and would like to<br>support all stakeholders through providing access to relevant guidelines<br>
and experts.<br><br><br><br>-----Original Message-----<br>From: Paul Lehto [mailto:<a href="mailto:lehto.paul@gmail.com" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">lehto.paul@gmail.com</a>] <br>Sent: 09 September 2009 17:38<br>To: <a href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a>; Lisa Horner<br>
Subject: Re: [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights and<br>principles<br><br>In the draft IGC statement below, it refers to the "human rights<br>*framework*" (emphasis mine) and then characterizes this framework<br>
with words and phrases like "internationally accepted set of<br>standards" and "has practical as well as ethical value", constitutes<br>"guidelines" or "tools" and, in a prior paragraph, refers to<br>
"opportunities to uphold" human rights in certain areas being "vital."<br><br>All of these phrases understate the actual binding status of human<br>rights, even while appearing to stress its "vital" importance (a word<br>
that, unfortunately, almost any lobbyist on any issue no matter how<br>mundane will often attempt to claim). In general, it is much stronger<br>to be urging the enforcement and upholding of current law (the case<br>with human rights) because there is a duty to uphold it, than it is to<br>
be urging the adoption of a new law or the application of a "standard"<br>to a new issue, because those are optional or at the discretion of the<br>person or entity being urged to take appropriate action.<br><br>
The true status of international human rights is more as follows:<br><br>(1) Anything less than rigorous and liberal interpretation of the<br>rights and principles ultimately means that national or global society<br>goes off course, because they've either ignored or understated their<br>
most important rights and principles, instead of vindicating and<br>respecting them at all times. Ignoring rights and principles, even<br>if unitentional and even if only in part, is ultimately deadly, and<br>often deadly quite soon.<br>
<br>(2) When these rights take the form of constitutional law, as they do<br>in the USA in which treaty obligations are higher federal<br>constitutional law, they are supreme law three separate ways: (1) as<br>federal law, under the Supremacy clause of the US Constitution higher<br>
than state law, (2) as constitutional law, in corporated by reference<br>into the Constitution, and (3) as international law, recognized as<br>supreme by the US Constitution itself, expreslly in the case of treaty<br>ratification, and even without treaty ratification where core human<br>
rights amounting to war crimes are involved (see Justice Jackson's<br>opening statement at Nuremberg, stating the principles equally<br>applicable to the victors in WWII as they were to the Germans).<br><br>(3) Human rights and their necessary correlative principles are<br>
nothing less than existing and binding LAW that almost all the<br>countries of the world have even specifically consented to, via treaty<br>ratification procedures. Nobody is free to ignore them. Nobody is<br>free to treat actual or alleged violations of human rights as if they<br>
were optional "opportunities" to behave correctly.<br><br>(4) In the context of a relatively new technology, new contexts for<br>issues do arise, but it is the same old rights and principles that are<br>applied in the new context, so as to vindicate the underlying<br>
principles, even if the doctrine ends up changing to accomodate the<br>new context.<br><br>(5) In light of the above, the "opportunities" "to uphold" are in fact<br>binding legal requirements to uphold. "Uphold" is often a word used<br>
in oaths, and it implies not only compliance with a constitutional<br>scheme but more than that: It obliges the person taking the oath to a<br>"holding up" -- in veneration -- of the binding principles, just as a<br>
trustee would be expected to do, who holds and exercises rights on<br>behalf of another (We the People). Upholding rights means giving them<br>wide sway out of respect, not simply lawyering it to death in order to<br>narrow or eliminate its effects, while all the while claiming to<br>
respect the rights. If this latter sense is the intent of the phrase<br>"opportunities to uphold" then it would be ok, IMHO, provided it is<br>joined with a stronger statement that makes clear that compliance with<br>
the law is not an option, it's a binding requirement of law.<br><br>(6) FWIW, treaty signature is not always required even though it<br>exists in the case of human rights generally speaking. In the case of<br>the most fundamental rights like anti-slavery, and the prohibitions on<br>
torture, mistreatment of prisoners and on genocide, the international<br>law prohibiting these is binding even without treaty ratification,<br>under the jus cogens principles of international law (one of the bases<br>of war crimes tribunals, to which failure to ratify a treaty is no<br>
defense). The alleged fact, for example, that one was ordered to<br>violate these rights is no defense to a charge for their violation.<br>(See Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal, for example, in which the Chief<br>Justice Jackson there also specifically states that these principles<br>
apply just as much to the victorious countries in WWII as they did to<br>the Germans).<br><br>As always, the violation of a right does not mean that the right<br>doesn't exist. Some may detect violations in the area of war crimes<br>
in recent US history. No amount of violations will make the right go<br>away, even if violated at the highest levels. After all, especially in<br>the area of war crimes, one often sees an entire nation's apparatus<br>
perverted to accomplish rights denials of the most atrocious kinds.<br>If the violations themselves did anything to diminish the actual<br>rights in question, the Nazis would have gotten off scot free at<br>Nuremberg in addition to having a "nice" run of it for approaching two<br>
decades.<br><br>In general, I favor not "lobbying" people to apply human rights LAWS,<br>but rather to urge them to do their **duty**, do their job, and uphold<br>their oaths (if applicable) by following human rights laws, upholding<br>
them vigorously, and giving them a reasonably expansive<br>interpretation whenever a range of possible meanings exist.<br><br>Paul Lehto, Juris Doctor<br><br>On 9/2/09, Lisa Horner <<a href="mailto:lisa@global-partners.co.uk" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">lisa@global-partners.co.uk</a>> wrote:<br>
> Hi all<br>><br>> I've pasted a statement below for discussion. I've tried to explain<br>(a) why<br>> it's important to consider rights and principles and (b) what we think<br>> should be done. Over to everyone else for comments and edits.<br>
><br>> Anja - thanks for your thoughts. In response to yours and Ginger's<br>comments<br>> I only included the suggestion of offering to work with people to<br>ensure<br>> that rights issues are addressed. In relation to your last comment<br>
about<br>> being more explicit about violations and commitments, I personally<br>think we<br>> should try and present the rights and principles discussion in<br>positive<br>> rather than negative terms in a statement like this. Whilst we should<br>
of<br>> course be clear on what standards are and what constitutes violation<br>of<br>> them, I think we want to encourage widespread participation and<br>engagement<br>> with the issues rather than scare people off? Rather than including<br>
it in<br>> this statement, maybe we could do something else, for example start<br>> compiling a list of violations to circulate at the IGF or to include<br>as<br>> guidance for session organizers?<br>><br>> As usual, please edit directly or send through explicit suggestions<br>
for<br>> changes rather than more general opinion which can be more difficult<br>to<br>> incorporate into amendments.<br>><br>> Does next Thursday 10th September sound ok as a deadline for this?<br>><br>> All the best,<br>
> Lisa<br>><br>> --------------------<br>><br>> DRAFT STATEMENT<br>><br>> The following statement is submitted on behalf of the Civil Society<br>Internet<br>> Governance Caucus.<br>><br>> The Caucus requests that the human rights are given adequate attention<br>
in<br>> the programme for IGF-4 in Egypt. The WSIS Declaration and Tunis<br>Agenda<br>> reaffirmed the importance of human rights in the information society,<br>but<br>> human rights and associated principles have received very little<br>
attention<br>> at the IGF. This is problematic as:<br>> * Fundamental human rights including freedom of expression and<br>privacy are<br>> threatened by current internet governance processes and practice.<br>
> * The internet presents new opportunities for upholding and<br>advancing human<br>> rights, for example through enhancing access to knowledge and<br>resources. It<br>> is vital that we build on and enhance these opportunities.<br>
> * The human rights framework is an internationally accepted set of<br>standards<br>> that has practical as well as ethical value. It contains guidelines<br>on how<br>> to balance different rights against each other to preserve individual<br>
and<br>> public interest. This makes it a useful tool for addressing internet<br>> governance issues, such as how to balance freedom of expression with<br>> concerns for security on the internet. The framework also considers<br>
both<br>> rights and responsibilities of different stakeholders.<br>><br>> The Internet Governance Caucus calls for human rights issues to be<br>addressed<br>> during the planning and implementation of all IGF sessions. This<br>
should<br>> include explicit consideration of how policies affect fundamental<br>rights,<br>> and the development of positive policy principles to build an open and<br>> accessible internet for all. The Caucus would like to offer<br>
assistance to<br>> the organisers of the main plenary sessions to do this, and would like<br>to<br>> support all stakeholders through providing access to relevant<br>guidelines and<br>> experts.<br>><br>> --------------------------------------------------------<br>
> -----Original Message-----<br>> From: Anja Kovacs [mailto:<a href="mailto:anja@cis-india.org" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">anja@cis-india.org</a>]<br>> Sent: 01 September 2009 11:49<br>> To: governance<br>
> Subject: Re: [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights and<br>principles<br>><br>> Dear all,<br>><br>> Sorry for responding to this belatedly - I was travelling last week<br>with<br>> only sporadic, very slow, Internet access.<br>
><br>> Thanks Lisa, for these excellent suggestions, and for offering to<br>draft<br>> a text. There were just two things I wanted to note. In terms of<br>> strategy, I have been wondering whether it would perhaps be wiser not<br>
to<br>> include in the statement a request for space in the emerging issues<br>> session to reflect on the meaning of "rights and principles". Why,<br>> after all, discuss the meaning of rights and principles in the last<br>
> session, if we have already integrated rights and principles and their<br>> implications in IG practice in all preceding ones? If wider support<br>for<br>> putting the rights debate back on the official IGF agenda does emerge<br>
> during the planning meeting, this particular suggestion would make it<br>> too easy for those opposing such attention to ensure that this<br>> discussion is relegated once again to this one session at the very end<br>
> of the IGF. If, at the planning meeting, we get the sense that a<br>> discussion in the emerging issues sessions is probably the best we can<br>> get, we can always still make this suggestion right there and then,<br>
> rather than including it in a written statement already now.<br>><br>> I have also been wondering whether it is time that we start using<br>> somewhat stronger language and explicitly remind governments not only<br>
of<br>> the international commitments to human rights that they have made, but<br>> also of the fact that not actively working to uphold such commitments<br>> effectively amounts to condoning rights violations - or am I being too<br>
> impatient here? Such a phrasing would of course implicate a country<br>> like France as much as it would, say, China.<br>><br>> Cheers,<br>> Anja<br>><br>><br>><br>> __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus<br>
signature<br>> database 4389 (20090902) __________<br>><br>> The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.<br>><br>> <a href="http://www.eset.com/" target="_blank">http://www.eset.com</a><br>><br>> ____________________________________________________________<br>
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br>> <a href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">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" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">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><br>-- <br>Paul R Lehto, J.D.<br>P.O. Box #1<br>Ishpeming, MI 49849<br><a href="mailto:lehto.paul@gmail.com" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">lehto.paul@gmail.com</a><br>906-204-4026<br>____________________________________________________________<br>
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br> <a href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">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" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">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" rel="nofollow">http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance</a><br>
</div></div></div></div></div></div></blockquote></div><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></blockquote></div><br>