<div><font color="#ff0000">Dear Anriette,</font></div>
<div><font color="#ff0000"></font> </div>
<div><font color="#ff0000">Seeing through all your lenses, helps us to get an enhanced perspective.</font></div>
<div><font color="#ff0000"></font> </div>
<div><font color="#ff0000">Vinaka (Thanks),</font></div>
<div><font color="#ff0000"></font> </div>
<div><font color="#ff0000">Sala</font></div>
<div><br><br></div>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 10:37 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:anriette@apc.org" target="_blank">anriette@apc.org</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">Dear all<br><br>Thanks to Wolfgang, Izumi and Marilia for their reports on the meeting.<br> Having different perspectives is extremely useful. Below are some more<br>
reactions from me, and information, in response to Marilia's report.<br><br>Anriette<br><br>On 28/02/11 03:53, Marilia Maciel wrote:<br><br>[snip]<br>><br>> *1 - General impressions*<br>
<div>> ><br>> Multistakeholder participation and equal chance to intervene on this<br>> space seems to be something widely accepted now. India, Iran and others<br>> welcomed the participation of other stakeholders, which was very<br>
> positive. Non-gov actors could speak on equal footing.<br>><br>> The mood was not very good at the beginning of the meeting. The<br>> Secretariat’s lack of responsiveness, the fact that they conevened the<br>
> meeting in Montreux during Saturday and the fact that the questions that<br>> would supposedly structure report were not discussed in advance all gave<br>> place to criticism, which the Chair did not take well. Saying it short,<br>
> we are dealing with an unskilled Chair/Secretariat and this is something<br>> to worry, given the huge amount of work ahead and the lack of time.<br><br></div>I agree that the Chair and Secretariat could, and should, have handled<br>
procedural issues better.<br><br>At the same time I think that the procedural issues were a bit<br>over-politicised.<br><br>Some of the governments felt that the working group should have met<br>earlier (when most of us non-governmental stakeholders would not have<br>
been able to be there), and some said that 'no work had been done for 2<br>months) when many people worked hard on their submissions to the list of<br>topics posted in January.<font color="#ff0000">A bit sad that those governments did not recognise the importance of non-governmental stakeholders. Interesting that some said that no work had been done for 2 months. Hmmm.</font><br>
<br>Sala, you asked what the procedural issues were. They were, in summary:<br><br>a) Format of the list of topics for input going out to working group<br>members without working group members being able to first comment ON THE<br>
FORMAT. <font color="#ff0000">OMG, no wonder it took ages.<br></font><br>I agree that it would have been better to first ask for input on the<br>structure. The structure of topics had several big gaps in it.<br><br>At the same time, one could have added your comments on the structure in<br>
your submission for the sake of progress, or raise them as additional<br>points on the first day of the working group meeting, rather than halt<br>the process.<br><br>But again, more skilled management would have helped.<br>
<br>b) Duration, and venue of the meeting. Several governments felt the<br>meeting should have been in Geneva, and longer. If it is in Geneva they<br>can keep in touch with other important negotiations, e.g. the Human<br>
Rights Council and WIPO. <br><br>They also need special permissions from their missions to go and stay at<br>a hotel in Montreux.<br><br>My opinion is that the first point is legitimate for small missions. The<br>second is not really, it is just an hour by train and easy to commute<br>
from Geneva to Montreux.<br><br>c) Overall process of how the report is to be drafted not discussed<br>before the gathering of inputs started.<br><br>My opinion is again that this is a valid point, but there was no need to<br>
overstate it, or politicise it to such an extent as people did. <br><br>So what? Let's discuss the core content issues, and then get back to it. <font color="#ff0000">I suppose if people have flown thousands of miles to discuss, you would want to ensure that you maximise discussions on core content issues.</font><br>
<br>My feeling is that it is only once you have all the content in front of<br>you that you can come up with a really good structure for the document,<br>and that, once everyone has given their inputs, that you will get a<br>
sense of what kind of drafting process will be best.<br><br>I was reminded of my political naivety repeatedly during the meeting :)<br> Being practical does not have much room in a process where so much is<br>intensely political. And, the structure of the document is extremely<br>
political. This I do agree on.<br><br>In the defense of the chair I want to say that he is not an experienced<br>UN bureaucrat, and felt he was taking on a convening role, rather than a<br>negotiating role. I understand that he got fedup.<br>
<br>At one point he said that if the room wanted to continue to discuss<br>procedures they could get another chair. I was very pleased that the<br>Iranian delegated responded with a very clear expression of support for<br>
him, and a call that he should stay on as chair.<br><br>As for the CSTD secretariat.. I agree.. they need to put much more<br>effort into managing this process and giving the chair the support he<br>needs. Their capacity is very limited though... essentially one staff<br>
member and a bundle of interns (who are all really excellent by the way).<br><br>>> *2- Structure of the report (jump this topic if you don't want to hear<br>
<div>> about procedure)*<br>><br>> The meeting begun with a procedural clarification asked by India and<br>> Egypt. They asked if the questions of the draft structure were the ones<br>> that would guide the writing of the report and asked who would actually<br>
> take the task of writing it. Some people argued the draft structure was<br>> an agenda for the WG meeting only, not the actual structure of the<br>> report. Personally, I found this approach a bit nonsense.<br>
<br></div>I did not really find this 'nonsense'. To me it made sense to have those<br>topics as a starting point. The agenda was open for discussion. I agreed<br>with India and Egypt that key topics were missing. But, why not just<br>
propose that they were added to the agenda, rather than open up the<br>entire process and waste a day?<br><br>One of these 'missing' topics were: key characteristics of the IGF as<br>contained in the Tunis Agenda. I also felt we should start discussion<br>
with this topic. But really!! The way in which they expressed their<br>concerns was unnecessarily confrontational.<br>
<div><br>> The chair said that we would only discuss that at the end of the<br>> meeting, but suggested that maybe an ad hoc group could be created to<br>> write the report.<br>><br>> India made a point that we could not go into substantive matters if we<br>
> were not sure that we were actually discussing points that would table<br>> the report. In my opinion, the points made by India were very pertinent,<br>> but unfortunately lead us to be caught in procedural matters again on<br>
> the first day.<br><br>> Suggestions were made about new questions that should be introduced if<br>> the points were going to guide the writing of the report. Ex: the first<br>> question should be an evaluation of the fullfillment of te IGF mandate<br>
> vis-a-vis the Tunis Agenda, so we would know and document exactly which<br>> are the key-areas for improvement.<br>><br>> India distributed a proposal that changed a bit the structure from the<br>> questionnaire proposed by the secretariat. The business sector also<br>
> presented a proposal.<br><br>> Both proposals were successfully merged during<br>> coffee brake.<br><br></div>The business sector did not really present a proposal. One individual<br>from business and one from ISOC tried to help by working with the<br>
secretariat to do a merger of the Indian proposal and the original<br>agenda, using 'track changes' and brackets and they bamed it 'Room<br>Document'.<br><br>This unfortunately did not address some of Indian's primary concerns,<br>
such as the sequence of the discussion (they wanted to start with Tunis<br>Agenda, and with the link of the IGF to agreed development goals).<br><br>I was personally quite annoyed :) I had just got India to agree to the<br>
original agenda, but with their key points inserted in the sequence<br>where they felt they should belong.<br><br>The creating of the agenda as a 'room document' with bracketed text<br>resulted, unintentionally, in the meeting starting to negotiate the text<br>
of the agenda! Which some people saw as the draft structure of the<br>report, and others just as an agenda. <font color="#ff0000">Sadly, this happens often as sometimes people can be lazy listeners and rely on the drafters to capture both the letter and the spirit. It takes a certain amount of vigilance, I suppose t</font><br>
<br>For me this was the most frustrating part of the meeting. Again, not<br>having clear direction from the chair on 'what' we were doing did not<br>help to make things simpler. Although, I am not sure anything could have<br>
helped at that point :)<br>
<div><br>After new disgreements, the draft structure was approved<br>> on the beginning of day 2, being called as” key elements for the<br>> report”, which give us room to believe that new issues can be included<br>
> if the relevant (I dont think any of the issues can be removed, though).<br><br></div>After the session on day 1 a few of us stayed behind and I talked with<br>the three different groups that were discussion the agenda. Moving from<br>
one to the other, I managed to get them to agree to a merger, without<br>hierachy, of the India/Egypt proposal and the original, in a new sequence.<br><br>Basically this was the 'room document' but in a new order. I made it<br>
clear to all the parties it would not be a structure, and it was with<br>that understanding that they agreed on the list of topics.<br><br>India said, in fairness I thought, that they would accept this<br>compromise but if it was opened for discussion the next day they would<br>
insist on their 'day one proposal' being accepted.<br><br>Here I made a mistake. When working with the secretariat on typing this,<br>myself, someone from the Indian delegation and someone from the US<br>delegation and a business representative tried to come up with a<br>
non-contentious title for the document. I proposed: Schedule of topics<br>for discussion on 26 Feb' thinking it was sufficiently neutral :)<br><br>The document was emailed to all working group members by the secretariat.<br>
<br>To my surprise when it was tabled the next morning, Egypt objected to<br>the title, saying it should also be the structure. This took up another<br>hour.. but in the end, India, Brazil, Pakistan presented compromise<br>
proposals and a very constructive phase of the meeting started. <font color="#ff0000">Bummer<br></font>><br>> *3 – Outcomes of the IGF*<br>
<div>><br>> As I said, I did not manage to take many notes on day 2, while speaking<br>> and listening, but my impression was that there was general support that<br>> the IGF would have as outcome something that would cover convergence and<br>
> divergence on policy matters and be apt to feed into the process of<br>> police making taking place in other relevant bodies. The actual ways to<br>> do it were not consensus, the approach mentioned by Wolfgang (a lot of<br>
> messages emerged from workshops) was one of the possibilities on the<br>> table, some others were advanced as well.<br><br></div>Yes, consensus on the idea, but work to be done on how to do this. The<br>detail might well be delegated to the MAG and the secretariat.<br>
><br>> *4- Remote participation*<br>
<div>><br>> Huge support about it. It was really important to talk about RP in the<br>> CSTD WG environment, since some representatives did not know it in<br>> details. RP was recognized as key element for inclusion, a key<br>
> innovation from the IGF that deserved more support and joint efforts to<br>> enhancement. Workshops conducted completely online during the IGF<br>> (including from hubs) were suggestd. Some meetings of the MAG and OC<br>
> could take place online as well.<br><br></div>Agree.. lots of support for remote participation. I think to some extent<br>more support from developed countries, than developing countries. I<br>think this is not so much because they don't think it is important, but<br>
because they are not convinced that an IGF where developing country<br>participants participate mostly remotely, while those physically present<br>are mostly from developed countries, will be an IGF that really reflects<br>
developing country interests. :)<br><br>Agenda setting is a big thing here.. and we did not talk about it enough.<br><br>Marilia made it clear to everyone present that the remote participation<br>successes result from voluntary work, and she mentioned the names of the<br>
members of the working group.<br><br>> *5- How to write the report*<br>
<div>><br>> As said before, at the beginning of the meeting, the chair suggested the<br>> creation of a smaller drafting group for the report, that seemed to have<br>> been generally accpeted. Many people spoke for it, no one spoke against it<br>
<br>> On the second day a proposal circulated that the drafting group would<br>> have the role to compile the points raised in all consultations and<br>> write a first version of the report, then circulate online for comments.<br>
> In depth discussions would take place in the next meeting of the WG.<br>> Everybody agreed and then we discussed the composition during lunch.<br>><br>> The proposal advanced by Brazil was that there should be 1 country per<br>
> region (total of 5) plus 1 from the business sector plus 1 from<br>> technical and academic community and 2 from civil society. The reason of<br>> the 2 reps from CS, according to them, was that CS represented many<br>
> diferent views that are difficult to capture. India supported.<br><br></div>The background to this was a morning coffee break discussion where I<br>proposed that civil society has more than one rep in the drafting group,<br>
as we have to represent more diversity. Brazil accepted this and<br>continued to lobby for this during the rest of the day, but the private<br>sector strongly opposed this idea, as it would diverge from the formula<br>used to convene the CSTD working group.<br>
<br>I found this quite bloody minded and procedural :)<br><br>As civil society we need to keep in mind that if we want more influence<br>in the IGF we will need to take on not just governments, but also some<br>of our fellow non-governmental stakeholder groups.<br>
<br>We have much in common with them, but we will not always agree with<br>them. This is inevitable, if we are acting in civil society interests.<br>But it should also not harm our generally constructive relationship with<br>
business.<br>
<div>><br>> This proposal seems to have disagreed very much the business sector, but<br>> instead of discussing and making a conter-proposal they took a step back<br>> and decided to be against the draft group.<br>
<br></div>I am not sure that is exactly what happened. They had supported the idea<br>of an open voluntary drafting group from the outset. So for them a<br>drafting group was always going to be a compromise. Same for some<br>
governments (led by the US) and for the technical community.<br>
<div><br>They argued that we should<br>> leave for the secretariat to come with a report and our role should be<br>> to discuss it. Developed countries (Finland, US, Portugal) and Russia<br>> backed the proposal. I think it is a pitty and a dangerous political<br>
> move in face of the faults commited by the secretariat and the chair. In<br>> addition, Brazil raised a good point about the incoherence to preach<br>> that multistakeholders can take issues and do things collaboratively and<br>
> then leave this important matter in the hands of the secretariat.<br><br></div>I practice I don't think these are such mutually exclusive options. The<br>secretariat will have to compile input anyway... so the first draft<br>
which will be made up of compiled input cannot be produced by anyone<br>other than the secretariat.<br><br>But then they need to work with others to give the process legitimacy,<br>and to give the working group ownership.<br>
<br>I think a smaller group is necessary... it will save time. So I do<br>support the formation of a drafting group that people feel comfortable with.<br><br>I believe that this drafting group should:<br><br>- not include people who did not attend the Feb 25 and 26 meetings<br>
- not have the right to introduce new text - they should work with text<br>from compiled inputs, and the proceedings of the first working group meeting<br>- I support the Brazil proposal on composition of the working group, but<br>
would add to it the condition that it does not include people who were<br>not at the meeting.<br>
<div><br>><br>> DESA asked the WG to also portrait the lessons learned. highlight more<br>> in the report things such as the multistakeholder carachteristic and<br>> remote participation<br>><br><br></div>
This is an important point. DESA was proposing that multi-stakeholder<br>participation, and remote participation, be added as 'headings' or key<br>elements to the structure of the report. No one really supported them in<br>
a very explicit manner. But we should bring this up again before the<br>questionnaire goes out to the community.<br><br>I think the other key element that was missing is 'capacity building'.<br><br>How the IGF can improve its capacity building role needs to be profiled<br>
in the working group report.<br>><br>> *6 – Next steps* (please someone correct me if I am wrong, it was<br>
<div>> mentioned fast):<br>><br>> - The new structure of the questionnaire will be placed online, comments<br>> will be open until March 15<br><br></div>I would propose we add to the structure the following topics (we can<br>
draw on text in the Tunis Agenda to frame these more effectively):<br><br>IGF's contribution to capacity building in IG<br><br>Multi-stakeholder participation in the IGF<br><br>Enhancing remote participation in the IGF<br>
<div><br>><br>> - The Secretariat will compile older contributions, new contributions<br>> and the points raised in this WG meeting and write a draft report<br>><br>> - The report will be sent to WG members. They can offer comments<br>
><br>> - The text will be discussed on 24 and 25 March in Geneva.<br>><br><br></div>I left before the closing. At the time I left I thought that the Chair<br>said he would decide on the drafting process, and whether, and how, a<br>
drafting group would be convened.<br><br>But things might have changed after Izumi and I left.<br><br>><br>> *7- Submission of the report*<br>
<div>><br>> DESA said they had contacted the office in NY and postponed the delivery<br>> of the report to April 1st. Still tight!<br>><br>> The report should have 17 pages maximum<br>><br>><br>><br>
><br>> On Sat, Feb 26, 2011 at 5:23 PM, Izumi AIZU <<a href="mailto:aizu@anr.org" target="_blank">aizu@anr.org</a><br></div>
<div>
<div></div>
<div>> <mailto:<a href="mailto:aizu@anr.org" target="_blank">aizu@anr.org</a>>> wrote:<br>><br>> Thank you Wolfgang for your quite precise and concise summary.<br>><br>> Since I had to leave earlier than the meeting's closure, I could not<br>
> capture what was the closing, especially with<br>> regard to the "drafting group" since several members including USG and<br>> business were not supporting the<br>> creation of such drafting group consist of WG members,<br>
> but rather to task it to the secretariat, to me that is not<br>> the right path.<br>><br>> I would like to underscore what Wolfgang mentioned here<br>> about the good acceptance and recognition of Civil society<br>
> members and our inputs - compared with December where<br>> it was very different. I spoke with India, Egypt, and some<br>> other gov members informally during brakes and they are<br>> really trying to accommodate us as peer members, and<br>
> valuing our input (and other stakeholders input).<br>><br>> No one questioned the composition of drafting group<br>> include non-gov stakeholders - yes, we had some difference<br>> between CS and business for the number of members to the<br>
> drafting group. CS wanted to have more numbers than other<br>> stakeholders since we are much more diverse than, say business or<br>> academic/tech community. They disagreed and tried to keep equal<br>
> number.<br>><br>> This does not mean, please, that CS members were supporting G77<br>> position on outcome. As far as I can tell, no<br>> CS members took that position per se.<br>><br>> izumi<br>
><br>> 2011/2/27 "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"<br>> <<a href="mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter@medienkomm.uni-halle.de" target="_blank">wolfgang.kleinwaechter@medienkomm.uni-halle.de</a><br></div></div>
> <mailto:<a href="mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter@medienkomm.uni-halle.de" target="_blank">wolfgang.kleinwaechter@medienkomm.uni-halle.de</a>>>:<br>
<div>
<div></div>
<div>> > Hi everybody<br>> ><br>> > here are some observations from the IGF Improvement meeting in<br>> Montreux.<br>> ><br>> > 1. The first and most important point is that nobody challenged<br>
> the participation of civil society and other non-governmental<br>> stakeholders as equals in the discussion and in the future drafting<br>> of the final report. After the two December meetings of the UNCSTD<br>
> this was not so obviously expected. Even the government of Iran said<br>> that it values the contribution of non-governmental stakeholders in<br>> the process since 2003. There was no hostile climate. In contrary,<br>
> contributions from all five CS reps in the WG were taken as very<br>> helpful and reasonable input.<br>> ><br>> > 2. A lot of time was wasted with the discussion on procedureal<br>> issues. The discussion on substantial issues circeled for hours<br>
> around the questions of the "linkage" of the IGF. India, Egypt but<br>> also Brazil used the languge of the UNGA resolution which says that<br>> the IGF should be linked to the "broader dialogue on Internet<br>
> Governance". Some pepole in the room had the impression that this is<br>> not a good language because the broadest dialogue is the IGF itself.<br>> And there was some mistrust that this could become a formula to put<br>
> the IGF under the "enhanced cooperation" discussion in the UNGA.<br>> Alternative proposed language was to link the IGF to "other<br>> dialogues" but India and Egypt insisted in the "accepted language"<br>
> which, BTW, was introduced by the US government during the<br>> negotiations in the 2nd Committee of the UNGA in New York in<br>> November 2010. However both Egypt and India accepted an<br>> interpretiaton that one of the functions of the IGF is to bring<br>
> information to other dialogues and that this formulation (in the<br>> headline of Chapter 2 of the forthcoming report) will not include<br>> any formal sub-ordination of the IGF under "another dialogue". My<br>
> comment here is that it is rather obvious that on the one hand IGF<br>> and EC are two different processes which are not formally<br>> interlinked but there are some trade offs on the other hand. The<br>
> IBSA was not discussed in detail. This will remain an open question.<br>> Russia proposed again to link the IGF with the WSIS Forum but<br>> produced protest against any form of "merger". In a second<br>
> interventon Russia clarified that they did not propose "merger" but<br>> wanted to use "synergies" to avoid the waste of resources. There was<br>> no support for a closer linkage between the two fora.<br>
> ><br>> > 3. The debate about outcome did not create any new ideas. There<br>> was a broad consensus that the IGF should not become a "negotiation<br>> body", should not produce any "negotiated language" or "binding<br>
> recommendations", but should produce something which people can take<br>> home and read within "ten minutes" and show their constituencies as<br>> "outcome". My impression was that more and more stakeholders,<br>
> including governments, can live with "messages". The proposed<br>> procedure to generate the messages was not discussed in detail but<br>> the proposal to have nominated rapporteurs for each workshop and<br>
> plenary who have to produce one to three "short messages" from the<br>> discussion was seen as a reasonable approach. This would guaratee<br>> that there is a distributed system of messages production which<br>
> would reduce the risk of capture of the drafting by one single<br>> group. 50 workshops would mean 50 - 150 messages from 50 rapporteurs.<br>> ><br>> > 4. Another key issues was the role and function of the MAG. The<br>
> idea to have the MAG (or the secretariat) like a bureau was<br>> mentioned but got no suprport. The majority was in favour of a more<br>> open MAG, more open consultations and a right mixture between<br>
> continuation and rotation in the membership. A related question was<br>> the financing of the secretariat. India and Egypt called for a<br>> stable public funding (to become independen from voluntary<br>
> contributions) but they did not say where the money should come from.<br>> ><br>> > 5. The broader involvement of developing countries was discussed<br>> at length. There was a broad consensus among all participants that<br>
> the participation of developing countries - both governments and<br>> non-govenrmental stakeholders - has to be broadend. There was an<br>> outspoken wish to strengthen in particular civil society<br>
> organisations and small and medium enterprises in developing<br>> countries and to enable them to participate more actively in IGF<br>> activities.<br>> ><br>> > 6. There was a clear support for a stronger linkage between the<br>
> global IGF and national and regional IGFs. On the other hand,<br>> dynamic coalitions were not really discussed. There was a proposal<br>> to have in between the global IGFs also "thematic IGFs" but also<br>
> here no concrete step was planned.<br>> ><br>> > 7. The meeting decided not to go into the details of how to<br>> organize workshops, plenaries, feeder workshops etc. Some proposals<br>
> were made how to improve the planning and the linkage between the<br>> various sessions within an IGF, but this has to be further discussed.<br>> ><br>> > 8. The only thing (but this is not bad) the group could agree<br>
> after two days is the structure of the planned report to the UNCSTD<br>> meeting in May 2011. There is now an informal drafting group which<br>> will work together with the Secretariat to draft the report for the<br>
> next meeting, scheduled for March 24/25, 2011 in Geneva.<br>> ><br>> > I want to thank all friends of the IGC and the civil society for<br>> their input. CS played and active and recognized role and made very<br>
> valuable contributions to the process. At the end Anriette,<br>> Parminder and other raised even the issue to increase the number of<br>> CS people in the various forthcoming groups because CS is different<br>
> from the other non-governmentwl stakeholders (broader, more diverse<br>> etc.). Nobody really objetced this but there was no time left for a<br>> discussion, Lets wait and see where we will go from here.<br>
> ><br>> > Best wishes<br>> ><br>> > wolfgang<br>> > ____________________________________________________________<br>> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br>
</div></div>> > <a href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org" target="_blank">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org" target="_blank">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a>><br>
<div>> > To be removed from the list, visit:<br>> > <a href="http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing" target="_blank">http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing</a><br>> ><br>> > For all other 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>> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:<br>> > <a href="http://www.igcaucus.org/" target="_blank">http://www.igcaucus.org/</a><br>
> ><br>> > Translate this email: <a href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t" target="_blank">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a><br>> ><br>> ><br>><br>><br>><br>
> --<br>> >> Izumi Aizu <<<br>><br>> Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo<br>><br>> Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita,<br>
> Japan<br>> * * * * *<br>> << Writing the Future of the History >><br></div>> <a href="http://www.anr.org/" target="_blank">www.anr.org</a> <<a href="http://www.anr.org/" target="_blank">http://www.anr.org</a>><br>
<div>> ____________________________________________________________<br>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br></div>> <a href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org" target="_blank">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org" target="_blank">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a>><br>
<div>> To be removed from the list, visit:<br>> <a href="http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing" target="_blank">http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing</a><br>><br>> For all other 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>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:<br>> <a href="http://www.igcaucus.org/" target="_blank">http://www.igcaucus.org/</a><br>
><br>> Translate this email: <a href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t" target="_blank">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a><br>><br>><br>><br>><br>> --<br>> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade<br>
> FGV Direito Rio<br>><br>> Center for Technology and Society<br>> Getulio Vargas Foundation<br>> Rio de Janeiro - Brazil<br><br></div>
<div>--<br>------------------------------------------------------<br>anriette esterhuysen <a href="mailto:anriette@apc.org" target="_blank">anriette@apc.org</a><br>executive director<br>association for progressive communications<br>
</div><a href="http://www.apc.org/" target="_blank">www.apc.org</a><br>
<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, visit:<br> <a href="http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing" target="_blank">http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing</a><br><br>For all other 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>
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:<br> <a href="http://www.igcaucus.org/" target="_blank">http://www.igcaucus.org/</a><br><br>Translate this email: <a href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t" target="_blank">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a><br>
<br></div></div></blockquote></div><br>