<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 14 (filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Consolas;
panose-1:2 11 6 9 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p.MsoPlainText, li.MsoPlainText, div.MsoPlainText
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Nur Text Zchn";
margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
p.MsoAcetate, li.MsoAcetate, div.MsoAcetate
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Sprechblasentext Zchn";
margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:8.0pt;
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";}
span.NurTextZchn
{mso-style-name:"Nur Text Zchn";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Nur Text";
font-family:Consolas;}
span.SprechblasentextZchn
{mso-style-name:"Sprechblasentext Zchn";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:Sprechblasentext;
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";}
p.PlainText, li.PlainText, div.PlainText
{mso-style-name:"Plain Text";
mso-style-link:"Plain Text Char";
margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
span.PlainTextChar
{mso-style-name:"Plain Text Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Plain Text";
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
p.BalloonText, li.BalloonText, div.BalloonText
{mso-style-name:"Balloon Text";
mso-style-link:"Balloon Text Char";
margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
span.BalloonTextChar
{mso-style-name:"Balloon Text Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Balloon Text";
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";}
span.E-MailFormatvorlage25
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
/* List Definitions */
@list l0
{mso-list-id:1206526748;
mso-list-type:hybrid;
mso-list-template-ids:-355723618 996162738 201785369 201785371 201785359 201785369 201785371 201785359 201785369 201785371;}
@list l0:level1
{mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:53.25pt;
text-indent:-35.25pt;}
@list l0:level2
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;}
@list l0:level3
{mso-level-number-format:roman-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:right;
text-indent:-9.0pt;}
@list l0:level4
{mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;}
@list l0:level5
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;}
@list l0:level6
{mso-level-number-format:roman-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:right;
text-indent:-9.0pt;}
@list l0:level7
{mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;}
@list l0:level8
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;}
@list l0:level9
{mso-level-number-format:roman-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:right;
text-indent:-9.0pt;}
ol
{margin-bottom:0cm;}
ul
{margin-bottom:0cm;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang="DE-AT" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US">Dear all,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US">I find Parminder’s definition of the Internet as both a common (non-exclusive/rivalrous) as well as a public good (non-exclusive/non-rivalrous) interesting. I think there is a vivid
discussion on this which is probably why this point has potential to go beyond its conceptual nature:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:53.25pt;text-indent:-35.25pt;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">
<![if !supportLists]><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><span style="mso-list:Ignore">1.<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><![endif]><b><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US">Rosenzweig (2011), “Cybersecurity and Public Goods. The Public/Private ‘Partnership’”</span></b><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US">,
<a href="http://media.hoover.org/sites/default/files/documents/EmergingThreats_Rosenzweig.pdf">
<span style="color:blue">http://media.hoover.org/sites/default/files/documents/EmergingThreats_Rosenzweig.pdf</span></a> (e.g., see figure on p. 8), which defines the “early Internet” – as Avri did below – as having been a commons.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:53.25pt;text-indent:-35.25pt;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">
<![if !supportLists]><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><span style="mso-list:Ignore">2.<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><![endif]><b><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US">Bauer/van Eeten (2009), “Cybersecurity: Stakeholder incentives, externalities, and policy options”</span></b><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US">, which
argues – similar, but not identical to Matthias’ argument – that cyber security “has strong public good characteristics”. When applied to the Internet, this seems to me to be sort of consistent with Anriette’s term “public-good-like”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:53.25pt;text-indent:-35.25pt;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">
<![if !supportLists]><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><span style="mso-list:Ignore">3.<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><![endif]><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US">I am sure there is a bunch of other articles on this<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US">I also think that a positive perspective on global public goods makes good sense, especially when viewed in light of Thomas Jefferson’s famous quote on knowledge: “he who receives an
idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US">Personally, I think Anriette’s point is quite interesting, holding that it is probably difficult to define the Internet as 'just one thing'. But maybe parts of it fall into one of the
above categories?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US">Best,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US">Philipp<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span lang="DE" style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">Von:</span></b><span lang="DE" style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif""> governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org]
<b>Im Auftrag von </b>michael gurstein<br>
<b>Gesendet:</b> Montag, 15. April 2013 10:39<br>
<b>An:</b> governance@lists.igcaucus.org; 'Anriette Esterhuysen'; 'Kettemann, Matthias'<br>
<b>Cc:</b> 'parminder'<br>
<b>Betreff:</b> RE: AW: [governance] Internet as a commons/ public good; was, Conflicts in Internet Governance<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">I sent this email below just after Christmas last year so folks must have missed it... The application of the concept of a "global public good" to the Internet was discussed at some length as part of a broader re-definition
of global public goods initiated through the UNDP and the Human Development Report and particularly in the work of the German/UN economist Inge Kaul. (this below was as part of an on-going discussion with Michael Lebrant covering much the same ground as is
being covered here.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">M<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">----------------------------------------------<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">From: michael gurstein [<span lang="EN-US"><a href="mailto:gurstein@gmail.com"><span lang="DE-AT">mailto:gurstein@gmail.com</span></a></span>]
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2012 9:20 AM<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">To: 'Michael Leibrandt'; 'governance@lists.igcaucus.org'<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">Subject: RE: [governance] FW: Towards the Internet as a Global Public Good: A Seasonal Wish to One and All:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">Hi Michael,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">Thanks for raising the issues that you do. I`m not an economist but in reviewing your comments I realize that I should have mentioned in
<a href="http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2012/12/20/towards-the-internet-as-a-global-public-good/">
the blogpost</a> that rather than referring to the mainstream perspective on Global Public Goods (GPG) (as evidenced by the Wikipedia reference), my own thinking in this area was formed largely by the work of a Inge Kaul when and after she was working with
the UNDP and specifically on the UN Human Development Report and the International Task Force on Global Public Goods.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">In her discussion, rather than seeing GPG as a ``market failure`` counterpart to private (market) goods, as neo-classical economists would have it, she developed (through linking her discussion to Ostrom among others)
a ``positive`` perspective on GPG`s as an element in achieving what she calls active policy driven objectives (and specifically linking these with civil society and the broad public interest including in areas of global social and economic justice and environmental
management). I believe that her approach to GPG`s is directly consistent with a public interest approach to the global development and ``management`` of the Internet.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"><a href="http://www.yorku.ca/drache/talks/pdf/apd_kaulfin.pdf">http://www.yorku.ca/drache/talks/pdf/apd_kaulfin.pdf</a> (Note that I`ve updated my GPG link in the blogpost.)<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">Best,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">Mike<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">-----Original Message-----<br>
From: <a href="mailto:governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org">governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org</a> [<a href="mailto:governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org">mailto:governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org</a>] On Behalf Of Anriette Esterhuysen<br>
Sent: Monday, April 15, 2013 1:18 AM<br>
To: <a href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a>; Kettemann, Matthias (<a href="mailto:matthias.kettemann@uni-graz.at">matthias.kettemann@uni-graz.at</a>)<br>
Cc: parminder<br>
Subject: Re: AW: [governance] Internet as a commons/ public good; was, Conflicts in Internet Governance<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">Dear Matthias, Parminder and all (thanks for changing the subject-line<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">Parminder)<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">Matthias, yes.. I think this is the kind of conceptual debate that we need to have.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">Parminder, I like the idea of civil society adopting a 'definition'. But we need to be sure it is one that is robust enough to be used from social, economic and legal perspectives. So perhaps we need some debate and
discussion and then come back to your proposed text.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">Whenever I raise the idea of the internet as a 'global public good'<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">people make similar points to those made by Matthias - and I take these seriously. At the same time I believe that there is a strong movement towards the internet being becoming non-exclusive and non-rivalrous in
use. Is that not what we want? So perhaps I am saying I want the internet to be a global public good and to be accepted as such - if not now, in the near future.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">I sometimes use the rather meaningless term 'public-good-like' entity.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">Your suggestion makes sense to me, Matthias:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">"Would it make more sense to say that the Internet’s stability, functionality and security (understood as encompassing human<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">rights-sensitivity) is a global public good? Or is that distinction only conceptually interesting."<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">It is conceptually interesting. The internet is not 'just one thing', as Avri and Parminder's definitions capture. That adds conceptual and legal difficulties. But in terms of the role it plays in cultural, social,
economic, political and individual life' it has a distinct identity.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">We need a debate that involves legal people, activists, and economists.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">But I believe we should not back down on developing such a definition and advocating for its adoption. Many people will say it is not possible, or will actively not want it. But I believe it is the key to being able
to consolidate IG principles, and also to have a clearer understanding of the 'respective' and diverse roles of stakeholders referred to in WSIS documents.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">In the longer term I think arriving at such an understanding is necessary not just to protect the public interest (which does mean different things to different people, but I won't go there now ) and to preserve what
we are referring to as the internet 'commons', but also to help create and maintain a level playing field for the large variety and number of private sector entities and social enterprises that operate on or through the internet.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">Anriette<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">On 15/04/2013 08:44, Kettemann, Matthias<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">(<a href="mailto:matthias.kettemann@uni-graz.at"><span style="color:windowtext;text-decoration:none">matthias.kettemann@uni-graz.at</span></a>) wrote:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">> Dear all,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">> I think we can gain much from the debate of what the Internet is – we probably won’t find consensus, but we will understand the Internet better.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">> International law is charged, inter alia, with regulating global public goods. These are usually defined as non-exclusive and exhibit non-rivalry in the usage. Now, people can be (and unfortunately are being) excluded
from (usage of) the Internet. (The non-rivalry aspect can be interesting as an argument against artificially limiting domain name resources and as a argument to strengthen net neutrality).<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">> So I have some problems with stating that the Internet is just one global public good like air. Safeguarding the Internet necessitates action; safeguarding air and water prima facie not – of corse, once they are
polluted, remedial action is required.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">> Would it make more sense to say that the Internet’s stability, functionality and security (understood as encompassing human rights-sensitivity) is a global public good? Or is that distinction only conceptually interesting?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">> Kind regards<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">> Matthias<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">> Von: <a href="mailto:governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org">
<span style="color:windowtext;text-decoration:none">governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org</span></a>
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">> [<a href="mailto:governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org"><span style="color:windowtext;text-decoration:none">mailto:governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org</span></a>] Im Auftrag von
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">> parminder<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">> Gesendet: Montag, 15. April 2013 06:51<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">> An: <a href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org">
<span style="color:windowtext;text-decoration:none">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</span></a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">> Betreff: [governance] Internet as a commons/ public good; was,
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">> Conflicts in Internet Governance<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">> Anriette/ All<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">> I find this posting, and later ones in the thread very interesting.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">> Indeed a good amount of confusion in this group's internal
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">> interactions owe to the fact that while we have some broad process
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">> rules, we have very little in terms of substance that we can take as a
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">> starting point for our political/ advocacy work. Recognising the
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">> Internet as a commons/ public good, and seeking that its basic
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">> governance principles flow from such a basic understanding of the
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">> Internet, is good and useful basic agreement to try to reach for this
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">> group,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">> I propose that the caucus adopts this as a/ the basic principle for IGC's political/ advocacy work.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">> I propose that we even go beyond and adopt a working definition of the Internet, absence of which itself has been identified as a major problem that renders many of our discussions/ positions here unclear. Avri proposes
the following definition, which I find very encouraging....<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">> "Internet as an emergent, and emerging, reality consisting of hardware, protocols and software, and human intentionality brought together by a common set of design principles and constrained by policies fashioned
by the stakeholders."<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">> I propose small modifications to it<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">> "Internet as an emergent, and emerging, reality consisting of hardware, protocols and software, human intentionality, and a new kind of social spatiality, brought together by a common set of design principles and
constrained by policies fashioned by due democratic processes."<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">> So what I propose for this caucus to adopt is as follows "We recognise
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">> the Internet as an emergent, and emerging, reality consisting of hardware, protocols and software, human intentionality, and a new kind of social spatiality, brought together by a common set of design principles
and constrained by policies fashioned by due democratic processes. Accordingly, the Internet is to be considered as a global commons and a global public good. The design principles and policies that constitute the governance of the Internet should must flow
from such recognition of the Internet as a commons and a public good."<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">> The text can of course be improved a lot, but I thought it is good to put forward something that the caucus can work upon...<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">> parminder<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">> On Sunday 14 April 2013 10:28 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">> The question is, what is needed to protect and strengthen the internet<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">> commons?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">> As Avri points out, governments have assisted the theft of the commons.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">> I would say that the form that this assistance takes ranges from lack
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">> of<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">> the basic regulation that is needed to protect it to active protection<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">> of certain vested interests. That is why the notion of an 'unregulated'<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">> internet is so problematic and why the notion of an open and
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">> unregulated<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">> internet can so easily be a contradiction in terms.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">> There needs to be some basic rules that makes sure that the internet<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">> remains 'open and free' in a broad sense.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">> The risks, or the challenges related to this is that many governments<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">> approach regulation of the internet not from the perspective of<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">> protecting it as a commons, but from the perspective of enabling them
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">> to<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">> exercise more control over internet content and use, and user behaviour.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">> I remain convinced that one of the difficulties in internet governance<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">> is that there is a conceptual/principle deficit of some kind. Not so<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">> much statement of principles that affirm freedom of expression,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">> 'net-neutrality', etc.. Those are good....<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">> I think they real deficit is in how the internet is defined, or what<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">> kind of entity we understand it to be.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">> When the management and supply of water is being regulated there are<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">> also lots of contestation. For example between mines, communities who<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">> live in the catchment area, communities who live downstream subject to<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">> seasonal flooding, cities and commercial farms who need dams, and
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">> nature<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">> conservation and reservers, where traditional seasonal flooding is
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">> often<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">> essential to the survival of many species.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">> Policy would generally try to understand and balance all these
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">> interests<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">> and will be premised on a common understanding that water is a common<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">> resource. The public interest principles will be fairly easily<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">> understood by most that are involved water policy and regulation. But<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">> there will be lots of argument about how it is managed, and used and<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">> often the wrong decisions will be made.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">> I just had a glance at the CGI.br principles and the IRP 10 principles<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">> and neither statement contains anything that suggests what the
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">> internet<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">> - from the perspective of it being a 'commons' or a public good - is.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">> I<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">> know I have been dwelling on this ONE KEY 'principle' deficit for a<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">> while... but I just can't give thinking it is at the root of the<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">> difficulties we have in addressing the conflicts of interest in
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">> internet<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">> governance.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">> Anriette<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">> On 14/04/2013 02:50, Avri Doria wrote:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">> All of the Internet, like the land world before it, was once commons. Then, as before, the rich, the powerful and greedy, with the assistance of the governments they bought, and continue to buy, began to misappropriate
those commons and called it property. Each day more of that commons its stolen. Each day more of the linguistic commons is stolen and called intellectual property. The Internet commons is almost gone. This its what government do best - with some very few
exceptions - assist in the theft of the commons.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">> I have no problem with those who create art or new Internet spaces enjoying the fruits of their creativity and inventiveness. A neologism may be owned. A new Internet space may be owned. But the language itself or
the Internet should not be.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">> Diego Rafael Canabarro <<a href="mailto:diegocanabarro@gmail.com"><span style="color:windowtext;text-decoration:none">diegocanabarro@gmail.com</span></a>><<a href="mailto:diegocanabarro@gmail.com"><span style="color:windowtext;text-decoration:none">mailto:diegocanabarro@gmail.com</span></a>>
wrote:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">> At the International Studies Association Annual Convention last week
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">> in<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">> San<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">> Francisco, an official from the US Department of State said: "there's<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">> no<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">> commons on cyberspace". That perception is closely related to the<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">> conflict<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">> presented by Mr. Perry bellow in this thread. I'm still struggling
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">> with<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">> that assertion.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">> On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 12:20 PM, Norbert Bollow <<a href="mailto:nb@bollow.ch"><span style="color:windowtext;text-decoration:none">nb@bollow.ch</span></a>><<a href="mailto:nb@bollow.ch"><span style="color:windowtext;text-decoration:none">mailto:nb@bollow.ch</span></a>>
wrote:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">> Roland Perry <<a href="mailto:roland@internetpolicyagency.com"><span style="color:windowtext;text-decoration:none">roland@internetpolicyagency.com</span></a>><<a href="mailto:roland@internetpolicyagency.com"><span style="color:windowtext;text-decoration:none">mailto:roland@internetpolicyagency.com</span></a>>
wrote:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">> One of the most significant I'm aware of (and I hope this is within<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">> the remit of your question):<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">> It definitely is, and it's a conflict that I have not been<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">> sufficiently<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">> conscious of, so thank you very much for pointing this out!<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">> Greetings,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">> Norbert<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">> The private sector has built extensive<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">> networks [fixed and mobile] using $billons of investment on which<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">> their shareholders [many of whom are the consumers' pension funds]<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">> expect a return, versus many customers who feel entitled to have<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">> unlimited usage for a relatively trivial monthly payment (which<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">> they<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">> sometimes dress up as "Network Neutrality").<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">> I post this not to support either of the above points of view, but<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">> merely to inform readers of the conflict it unquestionably<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">> represents.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">> ____________________________________________________________<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">> <a href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org%3cmailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org">
<span style="color:windowtext;text-decoration:none">governance@lists.igcaucus.org<mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org</span></a>><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">> To be removed from the list, visit:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">> <a href="http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing">
<span style="color:windowtext;text-decoration:none">http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing</span></a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">> For all other list information and functions, see:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">> <a href="http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance">
<span style="color:windowtext;text-decoration:none">http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance</span></a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">> <a href="http://www.igcaucus.org/">
<span style="color:windowtext;text-decoration:none">http://www.igcaucus.org/</span></a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">> Translate this email: <a href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t">
<span style="color:windowtext;text-decoration:none">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</span></a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">> --<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">> Diego R. Canabarro<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">> <a href="http://lattes.cnpq.br/4980585945314597">
<span style="color:windowtext;text-decoration:none">http://lattes.cnpq.br/4980585945314597</span></a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">> --<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">> diego.canabarro [at] ufrgs.br<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">> diego [at] pubpol.umass.edu<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">> MSN: diegocanabarro [at] gmail.com<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">> Skype: diegocanabarro<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">> Cell # +55-51-9244-3425 (Brasil) / +1-413-362-0133 (USA)<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">> --<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">> Avri Doria<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">--<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">------------------------------------------------------<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">anriette esterhuysen <a href="mailto:anriette@apc.org">
<span style="color:windowtext;text-decoration:none">anriette@apc.org</span></a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">executive director, association for progressive communications
<a href="http://www.apc.org"><span style="color:windowtext;text-decoration:none">www.apc.org</span></a> po box 29755, melville 2109 south africa tel/fax +27 11 726 1692<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>