<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
<font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"><br>
Bertrand (and others)<br>
<br>
I have carefully gone through your analysis (and that of others).
However I could find no situation, or rather no governance requirement,
that cannot be met within a 'democratic governance' framework, with
all the cutting edge work being done in the areas of deepening
democracy, deliberative democracy, decentralization (increasing
application of the principle of subsidiarity), stakeholder
consultation/ participation etc. <br>
<br>
I do see that the context of global governance throws new challenges -
especially of scale and complexity/ multiplicity of issues. However, I
find it perfectly possible to address these new situations through
exploration of the 'democratic governance' framework we all know, and
are acquainted with the history and the philosophical/ normative basis
of. Therefore, the principle question in this discussion is; why do we
abandon an </font><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">evolutionary
</font><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">'democratic
governance' framework in favour of a completely new 'multistakeholder
governance framework'? Democratic governance has a clear ethical basis
in equality of all human beings who are expected to relate and interact
with each other on terms of equality. I would like to similarly hear
about the first principles of this new form 'MS'ism'.<br>
<br>
( Bertrand, I do see that you refer to MS-ism as an intermediate stage
towards more open and democratic systems. However (1) this implied
transition from one kind of democratic system through an MS system -
whose conformity to democratic principles is very questionable - to a
higher stage of democratic system is conceptually and practically very
unclear, and apparently untenable, to me, and (2) during some earlier
discussions a few other now involved in this debate - e.x. Jeanette and
Avri - had positioned 'Ms-ism' as an alternative and not a step to more
democratic systems. )<br>
<br>
I do understand and accept that elements of issue-centred governance at
the global level bring forth a different requirement/ manner of
alignment of actors which situation may have partly led to the MS
terminology. However, I think that this situation is perfectly possible
to be addressed through evolutionary forms of 'democratic governance'.
i would like to engage on this line of discussion more but let me shift
to another point, which is perhaps more important to deal with, and if
possible get out of way, in discussing MS-ism. <br>
<br>
This is the issue of the legitimacy and status of big business in
policy making in the new MS-kind of governance models. As I see it,
most people who are for deepening democracy (and other evolutionary
forms of democracy) will easily be with the MS crowd but for the
latter's deep silences and/ or ambiguity on this one issue. It quite
amazes me how we are able to do such long discussions on MS-ism without
discussing this key, in fact, the central issue, which divides civil
society. How well we manage to ignore this gorilla in the room. Is it
not one of the primary questions for a civil society group to address
when discussing MS-ism?? Why such silences on this question?<br>
<br>
We all know that the one group that has gained completely new
legitimacy at policy tables due to MS-ism is the business sector. And
it is also the sector which, at all places where MS-ism is practised,
has by far taken the most advantage (often, all the advantage). Citizen
groups and civil society actors always had some kind of legitimate
claims to policy making spaces, even if the real practice of deep
democracy remained a deeply contested arena. (For instance, UN still
have no official process to involve business actors in its processes
while there is a long history of CS involvement.) In any case,
deepening democracy precisely deals with increasing CS participation in
the processes of governance. Why do we need to carry the big business
in our laps to the policy table in advocating MS-ism rather than
deepening democracy?<br>
<br>
In the light of above, I would like to understand from those who
advocate MS-ism, how do they see business, especially big business
(which almost completely dominates business seats at policy tables),
which simply represents the interests of 'capital', a non-human entity
if there was one, as an legitimate actor at policy table, in equality
with those who represent interests of real people and groups of people.
I do expect to hear that interests of 'capital' are really the
interests of shareholders and thus of real people. Maybe. But a basic
tenet of democratic governance is equality of participation. Democratic
governance is supposed to provide an counter (political) force to
undue/ excessive domination of some over others. MSism enables exactly
the opposite - it gives the more powerful ever more political power.
This is against the basic principles and practices of democracy. <br>
<br>
Democratic governance aims at upholding public interest, which no doubt
consists of multiple private interests but in some important ways rises
above it. MS-ism is a naked negotiation based on power. Little surprise
that it often employs</font><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">
the language of economic contracts even for things which are apparently
political (reminds me of an old email of Bill's on ICANN policy making
process). <br>
<br>
Lets accept it. MS-ism is the preferred governance system of
neo-liberalism, which aims at reducing every social institution to
something as close to a market system as possible. MS's march is the
march of neoliberalism. It is obvious that one cannot attain a huge
degree of economic (and cultural) integration of the world without some
concomitant enhanced global governance systems. Developed countries are
afraid that any promotion of democratic political systems at the global
level would work - as democratic power is supposed to work - as a check
to their undue dominance through still greater economic and cultural
imperialism. This new thing - MS-ism - serves them well. Big business
is still overwhelmingly developed countries based. There is a new
state-business alliance which needs to be confronted. </font><font
face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">MSism rather than
confronting it, promotes it. Thats is what it is for me. I will be glad
to hear refutations, and counter logics.</font><font
face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"> (Avri, we are moving towards
post military-industrial state-business compacts, and while fighting
one we cannot help create the other, most likely, a much more virulent
version. Present dominances are mostly based on controlling financial
systems and flows, and we are moving towards dominances that would be
primarily IP-control based helped along with control over techno-social
infrastructure. That is why democratic governance of Internet is
important, and that is why correspondingly, developed country's and big
business' enthusiasm for neolib MSism in this area.) <br>
<br>
If the illegitimate route to political power that MS-ism affords to big
business is somehow taken out, MS-ism for me is a form of deepening
democracy, which is one of the principle aims and areas of work of my
organization. MSism as practised, however, seeks to supplant elements
of political discourse and practise native to democracy - public
interest, public sphere, conflict of interest, equality, human rights,
social justice etc. It seeks to take us to a pre-democratic era where
political systems were built on the basis of power that an actor
already possessed in the society. This power is now expressed through
the 'power to participate' and influence. What was earlier back room
business lobbying has now got new legitimacy and respectability, and
correspondingly more power. That is how a post-democratic MS governance
system really works.<br>
<br>
Parminder <br>
</font><br>
Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:954259bd1002240438w1951d8bch2485f1cbbb798f99@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">Dear all,
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Following Jeanette's comments on Milton's remarks, there are
ambiguities around the terms "stakeholders" and "multi-stakeholders"
that must be clarified, as I've expressed in previous exchanges with
Karl Auerbach on this topic.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>"Stakeholders" is often understood as meaning the three (or
four, or five ...) <b>"stakeholder groups"</b> or constituencies :
governments, civil society, business (plus technical community, and
IGOs). According to this approach, "multi-stakeholder" governance looks
a little bit like the ILO (International Labor organization) with the
three constituencies of governments, employers and trade unions, each
in their respective structures. in a certain way, ICANN is still
structured very much in this way, with what I have often described as
the "silo structure" that too often prevent real interaction among
actors. The two notions : "stakeholders" and "stakeholders groups" need
to be clearly distinguished : "stakeholders" is a broader and more
diverse notion. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>"Stakeholders" is also often understood (by Karl Auerbach in
particular) as meaning i<b>nstitutional organizations only</b> (ie
incorporated structures, be they public authorities, corporations or
NGOs), limiting or even forbidding therefore the participation of
individuals. I have repeatedly mentioned that this does not need to be
the case and that individuals should have the possibility to
participate with appropriate modalities in multi-stakeholder governance
frameworks. The IGF in that respect is a very useful example with its
open registration policy that allows individuals. Important established
structures (governments, businesses, NGOs) with internal consultation
and decision-making processes are relevant stakeholders, but
individuals too. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>The corollary of the participation of individuals is that in the
decision shaping phases of multi-stakeholder processes, such
individuals can represent viewpoints and not necessarily groups of
people. Provided they are contributing, they should not be required to
demonstrate specific representation credentials (hence the classical
question : but who do they really represent ? is moot, and akin to the
"how many divisions has the Pope ?"). Any person with something to
contribute should be allowed to do so because it informs the processes
and the general understanding of an issue. The purpose of such phases
is to shape issues in the most comprehensive manner, taking into
account the perspective of all actors who have a stake in it. And in
such cases, for instance, an old white man from a developed country can
perfectly have a good knowledge of the challenges of gender for youth
in poor countries and try to ensure that this perspective is taken into
account in the discussions even if no "representative" from such
communities is present. However, actual representatives of the
different interests are needed in the decision-making phase that
follows, and established institutions and structures may have a
specific role to play here. .</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>This leads to a better understanding of "multi-stakeholderism".
In this context, Milton actually presents a very valid vision, up to
the last bit of the paragraph :</div>
<blockquote class="webkit-indent-blockquote"
style="border: medium none ; margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 40px; padding: 0px;">MS
is at best a transitional phase implying a motion from purely
intergovernmental toward a more open, democratic forms of global
governance. In this progression, we need to have a clearer idea of what
the end point is - and MS is not it. In a world of perfect global
governance the artificial division of society into "estates" such as
"government, business and civil society" no longer exists; it is the
individual that matters. </blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Yes, what is at stake is the invention of a truly open,
democratic form of global governance. And yes, actors must not be
artificially divided into separate estates that are too rigid and
prevent their interaction. (This is why the Multi-stakeholder Advisory
Group for the IGF is better than three "Bureaus" for each group). And
yes, governance should be based on the right for any actor, including
individuals, to participate in an appropriate manner in the governance
processes dealing with the issues he/she has a stake in (is impacted by
or concerned with). </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>However, multi-stakeholderism should not be understood as
necessarily meaning interaction between separate stakeholder groups,
each drafting their own statements to reconcile them later on.
Furthermore, I do not believe that the future of global governance is
the generalization at the international level of the kind of
representative democracy that already reaches some limits at lower
scales. The election by 7 billion individuals of a World President or
even Parliament is not the solution.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>This is why we must consider the different structures or groups
that individuals participate in as vectors of the representation of
their diverse interests. A single individual has different stakes in an
issue - sometimes conflicting - and would benefit from having its
different perspectives carried forward in international discussions by
a diversity of actors. To take the example of environmental issues,
citizens do not want their country to be penalized versus others in the
global regime regarding CO2 emissions, and therefore want their
government to actively defend their rights. But conscious of the future
challenges for their family or the planet as a whole, they may want an
activist NGO to be part of the discussions to exert some pressure in
favor of a binding rule. Additionally, as maybe the employees of
companies in an industry that has to support an important effort to
adapt its activity, they fear that the global regime will impact their
jobs and therefore want the said company or its trade group to
participate as well. Finally, they may want to ensure that any decision
is taken on a sound technical and scientific analysis, which requests
expert participation. Etc... On such global topics, individuals have
in fact several stakeholderships in an issue, and citizenship is one of
them. A major one, but only one of them, as the global public interest
is not the mere aggregation of national public interests. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>In such a perspective, the challenge for all of us, including
governmental representatives, is to avoid limiting our understanding of
"multi-stakeholder governance" to the separated silo approach, and to
explore/invent the mechanisms through which all stakeholders can,
collectively and collaboratively (I would even say "collegially"),
"develop and implement shared regimes" on specific issues. As I have
often said in the IGF context, the "respective roles" of the different
stakeholders should vary according to the issue, the venue and the
state of the discussion. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>This means designing processes for decision-shaping
(agenda-setting, issue-framing, recommendation drafting),
decision-making (verification of consensus, validation), and
implementation (agency, monitoring and enforcement). The IGF and ICANN
are the two major laboratories where this discussion takes place. And
this list, as exemplified by these exchanges is one of the places, if
not the main one, where the political theory discussion can actually
take place. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I hope this helps move the discussion forward. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Best</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Bertrand</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>PS : the above comments are of course made on a personal basis.</div>
<div> <br>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 11:50 AM, Jeanette
Hofmann <span dir="ltr"><<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:jeanette@wzb.eu">jeanette@wzb.eu</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;">
<div class="im"><br>
<br>
<br>
Second, We<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote"
style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
need to stop habitually using "multi-stakeholderism" as our label for<br>
good governance and appropriate institutions; <br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
I don't understand why.
<div class="im"><br>
<br>
MS is at best a<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote"
style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
transitional phase implying a motion from purely intergovernmental<br>
toward a more open, democratic forms of global governance. In this<br>
progression, we need to have a clearer idea of what the end point is<br>
- and MS is not it. In a world of perfect global governance the<br>
artificial division of society into "estates" such as "government,<br>
business and civil society" no longer exists; it is the individual<br>
that matters. <br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
I completely disagree with a solely individual notion of global
governance. Autonomy and self-determination do not rest and refer to,
at least not necessarily, on individual freedom only. What we are all
arguing about here concerns democratic "rules for a life in common", as
a colleague once put it. A life in common that respects both,
individual and collective dimensions of it.<br>
The term stakeholder is perhaps not the most fortunate way of capturing
this collective aspect, as Karl A. has said many times, but to give it
up and replace it by individuals (who interact in the form of contracts
with each other?) looks like an impoverished notion of regulation and
political rule-making to me.<br>
jeanette<br>
<br>
jea
<div>
<div class="h5"><br>
In relation to this, I really enjoy the way P. skewers<br>
</div>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote"
style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div>
<div class="h5">the double standard at work in the MS discourse,
noting how MS is<br>
used to fend off certain political actors in this context but somehow<br>
does not apply when it is ACTA, WIPO or WTO. MS is about process but<br>
not substance, and policy substance is what matters ultimately.<br>
<br>
________________________________________ From: Parminder<br>
[<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net"
target="_blank">parminder@itforchange.net</a>] Sent: Sunday, February
21, 2010 2:25 AM To: Bertrand de La Chapelle Cc: <a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org"
target="_blank">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a>; Jeremy<br>
Malcolm; Jeanette Hofmann; Deirdre Williams Subject: Re: [governance]<br>
REVISION 3 Draft statement to UNSG on bypassing<br>
<br>
Jeanette and Bertrand,<br>
<br>
First of all I must apologize that I did not read the open<br>
consultation transcripts well. Indeed the governments of developed<br>
countries who spoke on the issue did mention MS-ism. I must have<br>
forgotten that part from their interventions because there principal<br>
point was procedural which I found particularly forceful. And I am<br>
sure that if we are indeed effective in our appeals that would be<br>
because of this procedural part.<br>
<br>
However, since Bertrand in the subsequent email speaks about my<br>
'analysis of motivation of governments' that made the mentioned<br>
interventions, while I clarify that it was not so much motivation but<br>
the tactical aspects of their intervention that I spoke about, I can<br>
hardly suppress the temptation of a bit of 'analysis of motivation'.<br>
Political motivations are generally a subject requiring deeper<br>
analysis, and while I do agree that developing countries are<br>
interested in, as Bertrand says 'preserve(ing) the multi-stakeholder<br>
nature of the IGF', it can hardly be said that this makes them<br>
'naturally' more open and democratic at the global political stage,<br>
and developing countries correspondingly more closed. One may ask in<br>
this context why ACTA is being negotiated in such secrecy. Why not<br>
have multistakeholder involvement in its drafting and negotiations?<br>
Especially for its Internet chapter being discussed currently? And<br>
why at WIPO and WTO developing countries are more-NGO involvement<br>
friendly and not developed countries?<br>
<br>
Where support for multistakeholderism starts and where it ends is,<br>
therefore, a question of deep political motivations. I understand<br>
that developed countries want, at this stage, to limit possibilities<br>
for more democratic global policy forums on IG issues because control<br>
over the techno-social infrastructure of the Internet, along with<br>
stronger IP regimes, underpin their new strategy for global<br>
domination. This works well with promoting of a weak IGF which is<br>
little more than an annual conference on IG, and which has this great<br>
advantage of acting as the perfect co-option device - letting off<br>
excess steam vis a vis desires for political participation in shaping<br>
the emergent techno-social infrastructure. Unfortunately developing<br>
countries mostly have not woken up to the global eco-socio-political<br>
domination aspects of IG, and see it in terms of statist controls<br>
within their own territories.<br>
<br>
Developed countries want the IGF to carry on as it is. Many<br>
developing countries want the IGF to have more substantive<br>
role in global IG regimes, along with a specific Internet policy<br>
regime, for which 'enhanced cooperation' was meant to be the place<br>
holder. Developed countries seem not interested in furthering<br>
the 'enhanced cooperation' agenda, while the technical community<br>
supports them on this, as do, regrettably, many among civil society<br>
(dominated by North based/ oriented actors). The latter two also<br>
have often supported the case for weak, annual conference, nature of<br>
IGF, with no consideration to the fact that<br>
<br>
1. IGF's principal raison detre is of helping global Internet policy<br>
making, and its effectiveness can only be measured by the extent to<br>
which it does so.<br>
<br>
2. Specifically, Tunis Agenda gives a clear mandate to IGF to make<br>
recommendations where necessary.<br>
<br>
I make the above analysis because I do not agree with the following<br>
assertions in Bertrand's email, which frames the key substantive<br>
issue in the email.<br>
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote"
style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
para 76 of the Tunis Agenda mentions "the desirability of the<br>
continuation"; ie : the recommendations of the UN SG should mainly<br>
revolve around the >question : continuation Yes or No ? and not get<br>
into any renegotiation of the mandate or the administrative and<br>
operational organization of the Forum.<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote"
style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
In this context, it would be inappropriate for the UN General<br>
assembly or ECOSOS (which are governments-only bodies) to discuss<br>
more than the Yes or >No question.<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
Section 74 of TA reads<br>
<br>
"We encourage the UN Secretary-General to examine a range of options<br>
for the convening of the Forum ..........'<br>
<br>
and 73 b reads IGF will "Have a lightweight and decentralized<br>
structure that would be subject to periodic review".<br>
<br>
Therefore, while a review of the IGF can certainly not renegotiate<br>
the mandate of the IGF, the 'administrative and operational<br>
organization of the Forum' is certainly open to review and change.<br>
<br>
In this matter we are opposed to certain kind of changes (taking it<br>
closer to the ITU. reducing MS nature etc) but seek other kinds<br>
(things that can make IGF more effective - WGs, more focused agenda,<br>
some kind of recommendations as mandated by TA, better and more<br>
effective connections to forums where substantive Internet policy is<br>
made, stable public funding to ensure its neutrality etc).<br>
<br>
I also think that to ensure that progressive forces are not able to<br>
get together to demand the kind of changes that are needed to enable<br>
the IGF to fulfill its TA mandate and become really effective, there<br>
is much more exclusive focus by 'status quoists' in the "IGF review<br>
debate' on stuff like 'ITU is going to take over the IGF' than is<br>
needed on pure merit of the issue. Such strong posturing and<br>
sloganeering helps push other possibilities of more progressive<br>
changes in the IGF, which are much needed, into the background, in<br>
fact, into the oblivion.<br>
<br>
Parminder<br>
<br>
<br>
Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote: Dear all,<br>
<br>
Parminder wrote : In fact the governments who spoke were not thinking<br>
of multistakeholderism but underlying their objections was a<br>
different politics. They suspect China (along with some others) is up<br>
to some games here, and more open consideration of UN SG's report<br>
give them a better chance to put their views in more solidly, not<br>
that they wont be there at the ECOSOC and UN GA. Also, some<br>
governments who are members of CSTD and not ECOSOC obviously are more<br>
vocal to get matters to the CSTD and vice versa. So, since weakening<br>
MS process was not what the government who spoke at the consultations<br>
really spoke about, and all the concerned actors know this, our first<br>
assertion looks really weak. These gov reps really spoke about the<br>
proper process of WSIS follow up matters going through CSTD, that is<br>
all.<br>
<br>
I must correct this : preserving the multi-stakeholder spirit of<br>
discussions was clearly in the minds of most governments who spoke in<br>
Geneva to support having the report presented to the CSTD.<br>
<br>
The reasoning is as follows : - the very idea of an Internet<br>
Governance forum came principally from the discussions of the WGIG,<br>
which was a truly multi-stakeholder group - even if the mandate of<br>
the IGF was included in a document ultimately signed by governments<br>
only (the Tunis agenda), many other actors have played an important<br>
role in its definition - the functioning of the Forum itself has been<br>
organized since its inception by a multi-stakeholder process<br>
(including through the MAG) - para 76 of the Tunis Agenda mentions<br>
"the desirability of the continuation"; ie : the recommendations of<br>
the UN SG should mainly revolve around the question : continuation<br>
Yes or No ? and not get into any renegotiation of the mandate or the<br>
administrative and operational organization of the Forum.<br>
<br>
In this context, it would be inappropriate for the UN General<br>
assembly or ECOSOS (which are governments-only bodies) to discuss<br>
more than the Yes or No question. The capacity to self-organize,<br>
which has made the IGF what it is today, must be preserved. The CSTD,<br>
because of its mandate to handle the follow-up of WSIS, is not only<br>
the legitimate entry point to prepare the draft resolutions for<br>
ECOSOC and the GA; it is also the sole UN structure that has the<br>
possibility to allow a discussion among a diversity of actors on how<br>
to make the IGF even better without changing its fundamental<br>
multi-stakehoder nature.<br>
<br>
The governments who have spoken have indeed done so in order to<br>
preserve the multi-stakeholder nature of the IGF.<br>
<br>
Best<br>
<br>
Bertrand<br>
<br>
-- ____________________ Bertrand de La Chapelle Délégué Spécial pour<br>
la Société de l'Information / Special Envoy for the Information<br>
Society Ministère des Affaires Etrangères et Européennes/ French<br>
Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32<br>
<br>
"Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de<br>
Saint Exupéry ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting<br>
</div>
</div>
humans") ____________________________________________________________
<div class="im"><br>
You received this message as a subscriber on the list: <a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org"
target="_blank">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a> To be removed from the
list, send any<br>
message to: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org" target="_blank">governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org</a><br>
<br>
For all list information and functions, see: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance" target="_blank">http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance</a><br>
<br>
Translate this email: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t" target="_blank">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a><br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div>
<div class="h5">____________________________________________________________<br>
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org"
target="_blank">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a><br>
To be removed from the list, send any message to:<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org" target="_blank">governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org</a><br>
<br>
For all list information and functions, see:<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance" target="_blank">http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance</a><br>
<br>
Translate this email: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t" target="_blank">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a><br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
<br clear="all">
<br>
-- <br>
____________________<br>
Bertrand de La Chapelle<br>
Délégué Spécial pour la Société de l'Information / Special Envoy for
the Information Society<br>
Ministère des Affaires Etrangères et Européennes/ French Ministry of
Foreign and European Affairs<br>
Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32<br>
<br>
"Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de
Saint Exupéry<br>
("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans")<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>