<html><head><style type="text/css"><!-- DIV {margin:0px;} --></style></head><body><div style="font-family:bookman old style, new york, times, serif;font-size:10pt"><DIV></DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">Hi Lisa and Max and everyone.</SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal 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 class=MsoNormal 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 class=MsoNormal 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 class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"></SPAN> regards </P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt">Shaila </P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"></SPAN> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"></SPAN> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal 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 <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" /><st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Egypt</st1:place></st1:country-region> gives <FONT color=#0000bf>greater</FONT> priority <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal 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 style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </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 class=yshortcuts>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 style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>these avenues to uphold human rights implies a serious opportunity cost for the well being of peoples, globally.<BR></FONT>* <SPAN class=yshortcuts>International human rights</SPAN>, as contained in the <SPAN class=yshortcuts>Universal</SPAN><BR><SPAN class=yshortcuts>Declaration of Human Rights</SPAN> and confirmed by the core <SPAN class=yshortcuts>human rights</SPAN><BR><SPAN class=yshortcuts>treaties</SPAN> and other <SPAN class=yshortcuts>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 class=yshortcuts>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 class=yshortcuts>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 class=yshortcuts>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 class=yshortcuts>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 style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>with the<BR>organizers of the main plenary sessions <SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>to do this, and would like to<BR>support all stakeholders through providing <SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>relevant guidelines<BR>and experts <FONT color=#0000bf>from private and public sector.s and civil
society..<o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal 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 <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Egypt</st1:place></st1:country-region> and future IGFs as </FONT></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal 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 style="mso-special-character: line-break"></FONT><BR style="mso-special-character: line-break"></P>
<DIV></SPAN><o:p></o:p>thanks</DIV>
<DIV>Shaila<BR> </DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal 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 class=MsoNormal 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 class=MsoNormal 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><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"><FONT color=#7f003f></FONT> </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><FONT size=2></FONT><BR><FONT size=2></FONT></FONT> </P>
<P><FONT color=#7f003f></FONT><FONT size=2> </FONT></P>
<P><FONT color=#7f003f></FONT><FONT size=2> </FONT></P>
<P><FONT face="times new roman, new york, times, serif" color=#40007f></FONT> </P>
<P><FONT size=2> </FONT></P><FONT size=2></FONT>
<P></P>
<P><SPAN><FONT size=2></FONT></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 <lisa@global-partners.co.uk><BR><B><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">To:</SPAN></B> governance@lists.cpsr.org<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" ymailto="mailto:lehto.paul@gmail.com">lehto.paul@gmail.com</A>] <BR>Sent: 09 September 2009 17:38<BR>To: <A href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org" ymailto="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org">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" ymailto="mailto:lisa@global-partners.co.uk">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" ymailto="mailto:anja@cis-india.org">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>> http://www.eset.com<BR>><BR>> ____________________________________________________________<BR>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<BR>> <A href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org" ymailto="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" ymailto="mailto:governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org">governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org</A><BR>><BR>> For all list information and functions, see:<BR>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance<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"
ymailto="mailto:lehto.paul@gmail.com">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" ymailto="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" ymailto="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></div></body></html>