<font class="Apple-style-span" color="#996633" face="verdana, sans-serif">Hello Milton</font><div><font class="Apple-style-span" color="#996633" face="verdana, sans-serif"><br></font><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 1:25 AM, Milton L Mueller <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:mueller@syr.edu">mueller@syr.edu</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<div>
<div dir="ltr" align="left"><font face="Arial" color="#0000ff" size="2"><span>B:</span></font></div>
<div dir="ltr" align="left"><font face="Arial" color="#0000ff" size="2"><span>Yes, this is helpful. We agree on a lot. MS does not
mean a particular categorization of stakeholder groups, this is an important
clarification. And I am glad to see that you understand that individual
participation allows the representation of viewpoints and not necessarily of
groups of people. We also agree that global public interest is not
aggregation of national interests. </span></font></div>
<div dir="ltr" align="left"><font face="Arial" color="#0000ff" size="2"><span></span></font> </div>
<div dir="ltr" align="left"><font face="Arial" color="#0000ff" size="2"><span>So fundamentally, we are in agreement on the important
issue, which is that the multistakeholder-ization of existing intergovernmental
institutions is a step in the direction of new institutions and not an end in
itself. I am sorry if I shocked those who have developed a strong rhetorical
commitment to the MS-word, but given that </span></font></div></div></blockquote><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;"><div><div dir="ltr" align="left">
<font face="Arial" color="#0000ff" size="2"><span>MS itself is not a viable model of
global governance and does not answer the profound question of what kind of new
institutions will supplant the state-based ones,</span></font></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>True, but isn't multi-stakeholderism in its very early phase of development? The experiment has just begun and you have already dismissed it for not providing answers to the profound question. It is just born and you are throwing away the baby for not being a match to the grown ups? </div>
<div><br></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;"><div><div dir="ltr" align="left"><font face="Arial" color="#0000ff" size="2"><span>I think we will pay the price,
sooner or later, if we don't make that distinction. </span></font></div>
<div dir="ltr" align="left"><font face="Arial" color="#0000ff" size="2"><span></span></font> </div>
<div dir="ltr" align="left"><font face="Arial" color="#0000ff" size="2"><span>My emphasis on the individual does not mean that I
favor holding nation-state style elections for every internet decision or (God
forbid) every policy decision in every sector. Nor do I blieve in a globalized
legislature or executive - that is just the transposition of the nation-state
model to a level that does not scale. I do believe that democratic forms could
be profitably applied in specific contexts, such as e.g. the ICANN Board, but I
suspect that a viable system of global governance will minimize its reliance on
elections and other forms of collective action and seek to pave the way for
coordinated forms of decentralizsation and freedom, while seeking to maintain
some kinds of collective accountability and rights protection against
abuses. </span></font></div>
<div dir="ltr" align="left"><font face="Arial" color="#0000ff" size="2"><span></span></font> </div>
<div dir="ltr" align="left"><font face="Arial" color="#0000ff" size="2"><span>One of the fallacies of the MS approach as currently
articulated is that </span></font></div></div></blockquote><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;"><div><div dir="ltr" align="left"><font face="Arial" color="#0000ff" size="2"><span>it seems to have no grasp of the limitations of collective
governance. </span></font></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Why should the chosen form of governance be 'unlimited' in scope? Why can't multistakeholderism be considered to be somewhere between laissez faire and totalitarianism, possibly in a zone which represents the perfect balance? </div>
<div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;"><div><div dir="ltr" align="left"><font face="Arial" color="#0000ff" size="2"><span>It drastically overstates the capabilities and scope of global
governance and pushes forward participation as the answer to everything. </span></font></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<div><div dir="ltr" align="left"><font face="Arial" color="#0000ff" size="2"><span>It
seems to imply that if we all just talk about stuff we can all agree and solve
all problems.</span></font></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>You would discuss Democracy on the same rationale?</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<div><div dir="ltr" align="left"><font face="Arial" color="#0000ff" size="2"><span> But that it isn't consistent with what we know about human nature,
and free expression is a good example. In order to be able to publish a
controversial message on my blog, I should not have to gain the collective
assent of 7 billion people. The whole point of "governance" in that area, imho,
is precisely to shield groups and individuals from unwanted "governance" by
others. </span></font></div>
<div dir="ltr" align="left"><font face="Arial" color="#0000ff" size="2"><span></span></font> </div>
<div><font face="Arial" color="#0000ff" size="2"><span>--MM</span></font></div>
<div><font face="Arial" color="#0000ff" size="2"><span></span></font> </div>
<blockquote dir="ltr" style="padding-left:5px;margin-left:5px;border-left:#0000ff 2px solid;margin-right:0px">
<div lang="en-us" dir="ltr" align="left">
<hr>
<font face="Tahoma" size="2"><b>From:</b> Bertrand de La Chapelle
[mailto:<a href="mailto:bdelachapelle@gmail.com" target="_blank">bdelachapelle@gmail.com</a>] <br><b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, February 24, 2010
7:38 AM<div class="im"><br><b>To:</b> <a href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org" target="_blank">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a>; Jeanette
Hofmann<br></div><b>Cc:</b> Milton L Mueller; Parminder; Kleinwächter,
Wolfgang<div class="im"><br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [governance] Parminder's exchange with
Bertrand<br></div></font><br></div><div><div></div><div class="h5">
<div></div>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 style="border-right:medium none;padding-right:0px;border-top:medium none;padding-left:0px;padding-bottom:0px;margin:0px 0px 0px 40px;border-left:medium none;padding-top:0px;border-bottom:medium none">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 href="mailto:jeanette@wzb.eu" target="_blank">jeanette@wzb.eu</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="padding-left:1ex;margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:#ccc 1px solid">
<div><br><br><br> Second, We<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="padding-left:1ex;margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:#ccc 1px solid">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><br><br>MS is at best a<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="padding-left:1ex;margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:#ccc 1px solid">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></div>
<div><br>In relation to this, I really enjoy the way P.
skewers<br></div></div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="padding-left:1ex;margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:#ccc 1px solid">
<div>
<div></div>
<div>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 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 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="padding-left:1ex;margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:#ccc 1px solid">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="padding-left:1ex;margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:#ccc 1px solid">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><br> You received this message as a subscriber on the
list: <a 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 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 href="http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance" target="_blank">http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance</a><br><br>Translate
this email: <a href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t" target="_blank">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a><br></div></blockquote>
<div>
<div></div>
<div>____________________________________________________________<br>You
received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br> <a 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 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 href="http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance" target="_blank">http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance</a><br><br>Translate
this email: <a 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></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>
Translate this email: <a href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t" target="_blank">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a><br></blockquote></div><br></div>