<div dir="ltr">Parminder,<div style>Thanks for the clarification of the intent. I am not against that at all, but there seemed to be a confusion, or different ideas about what we want to achieve, and my and your clarification, among others, seem to make this point clearer.<br>
</div><div style><br></div><div style>Yes, I meant it was a "working definition" during WGIG, and similar to that, y/our effort of making the definition of the Internet as civil society is our kind of working definition.</div>
<div style><br></div><div style>izumi</div><div style><br></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">2013/4/19 parminder <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net" target="_blank">parminder@itforchange.net</a>></span><br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"><div class="im">
<br>
<div>On Friday 19 April 2013 06:44 AM, Izumi
AIZU wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">I was late to join this very interesting debate,
but like to share my thoughts.
<div><br>
</div>
<div>First of all, "facts" or "reality" and "principle" or
"definition" are not the same thing in my view.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>The fact that telecom is liberalized and operated by
private companies does not always</div>
<div>mean that the definition of telecom is totally departed
from public good/service/ or common</div>
<div>and became private good period. They are rather relative
things not static and fixed, as Jeanette rightly points out.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I think privatization and introducing fair market
competition to former monopoly would result in</div>
<div>better "public" service in a larger view was the principle
idea behind the liberalization of the telecom, and as
indicated in some countries, there have been universal service
obligation still exercised (including in my country) with
government regulation. So facts and ideas or principles could
be on different layers.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Second, as we all know, "Internet" is consisted of
different layers, or set of networks. </div>
<div>We may have different understanding of what is Internet, or
which layer of Internet - </div>
<div>by devices, (open and common) protocols, access services,
or end-services, which may</div>
<div>lead different level of (non-)excludability. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Just making a single, simple definition might lead
to an ambiguous phrase that mean not much, I am afraid.
Remembering the working definition of Internet Governance in
the WGIG days.</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br></div>
Izumi<br>
<br>
WGIG sought a definition of Internet governance to be able to make
progress on what and how of IG... All such efforts are contextual
and with different purposes. Here, with IGC, the effort is not to <br>
define the Internet or IG, but to set up a basic advocacy principle
on which side of what is happening, or what could happen, to the
Internet would we like to put their weight on..... It is civil
society's vision of the directions that the Internet should evolve
in, and alternatively, not go towards....<span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br>
<br>
parminder <br></font></span><div><div class="h5">
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>izumi </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">2013/4/19 Mawaki Chango <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:kichango@gmail.com" target="_blank">kichango@gmail.com</a>></span><br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>Corrections: "devices" instead of "artifacts" in
the first sentence, and in the last sentence, "global
Internet *governance* agenda" plus slight
improvements. The previous option 2 then reads:<br>
</div>
<div><br>
We recognise the Internet to be not only a global
network of networks comprised of computing devices and
processes, but also an emergent and emerging social
reality. In that sense, it is an intricate combination
of hardware, software, protocols, human intentionality
enabling new kind of social interactions and
transactions, which is brought together by a common
set of design principles, and stirred by policies
established through due democratic processes. While
the design principles and policies that constitute its
governance should ensure its stability, functionality
and security, they must also aim at preserving and
enhancing the global commons and global public good
character of the Internet [which has made previous
innovations possible*]. Therefore, in the face of the
growing danger for the Internet experience to be
reduced to closed or proprietary online spaces, we
urge that the preservation and enhancement of the
Internet's global commons and public good dimensions
be at the forefront of global Internet governance
agenda going forward.<br>
<br>
</div>
<div>[...*] to be added as you see appropriate.<span><font color="#888888"><br>
</font></span></div>
<span><font color="#888888">
<div><br>
</div>
mc<br>
</font></span></div>
<div>
<div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at
1:23 PM, Mawaki Chango <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:kichango@gmail.com" target="_blank">kichango@gmail.com</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="ltr">I think 'stirred' or 'shaped' is
preferable to 'constrained by policies...,
Adding a few changes I suggest the following
version of the statement:<br>
<div><br>
We recognise the Internet to be not only a
global network of networks comprised of
computing artifacts and processes, but also
an emergent and emerging social reality. In
that sense, it is an intricate combination
of hardware, software, protocols, human
intentionality and a new kind of social
spatiality, brought together by a common set
of design principles, and stirred by
policies established through due democratic
processes. While the design principles and
policies that constitute its governance
should ensure its stability, functionality
and security, they must also aim at
preserving and enhancing the global commons
and global public good character of the
Internet. In the face of the danger for the
Internet experience to be reduced to closed
or proprietary spaces, we urge that the
global commons and global public good
dimensions be at the forefront of global
Internet agenda going forward.<br>
<br>
</div>
<div>Or, paraphrasing 'social spatiality'...:<br>
<br>
We recognise the Internet to be not only a
global network of networks comprised of
computing artifacts and processes, but also
an emergent and emerging social reality. In
that sense, it is an intricate combination
of hardware, software, protocols, human
intentionality enabling new kind of social
interactions and transactions, which is
brought together by a common set of design
principles, and stirred by policies
established through due democratic
processes. While the design principles and
policies that constitute its governance
should ensure its stability, functionality
and security, they must also aim at
preserving and enhancing the global commons
and global public good character of the
Internet. In the face of the danger for the
Internet experience to be reduced to closed
or proprietary spaces, we urge that the
global commons and global public good
dimensions be at the forefront of global
Internet agenda going forward.<span><font color="#888888"><br>
<br>
<br>
</font></span></div>
<span><font color="#888888">
<div>Mawaki<br>
</div>
</font></span>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Apr
18, 2013 at 12:34 PM, parminder <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net" target="_blank">parminder@itforchange.net</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div> <br>
<div>On Wednesday 17 April
2013 11:57 PM, Mawaki Chango
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>So one thing is
for the caucus to
keep the
discussion on as
to where we want
to go wrt to the
issue put forth by
Parminder and
Anriette, seeking
a conceptually
robust basis to
advocate for the
public good-ness
of the internet,
etc. In that
regard, BTW, the
recently proposed
draft definition
of the internet in
a related thread
does not have to
be presented as
THE definition of
THE concept of
Internet, but a
conceptual frame
to be considered
aside other
possibly valid
definitions. Time
will tell how
pertinent that
framing might be.
Why shouldn't we
be able to do
that, especially
since we all seem
to agree, at
various degrees,
that internet
includes public as
well as private
aspects/components
(and, as Parminder
notes, we're
witnessing the
onslaught of some
of its publicness
which is of
importance in our
view)?<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
After seeing many comments in
this discussion, I think one way
to go forward is to speak about
"preserving and enhancing
Internet's commons and public
good nature" rather than
declaring that the Internet is a
commons and a public goods. This
approach circumvents some of the
problems expressed in this
discussion, and makes it more
aspirational (although based on
some clearly established facts)
rather than precisely
definitional. Accordingly, I
have modified the text as it
last stood as follows.<br>
<br>
Text as it stood:<br>
<br>
<blockquote>We recognise the
Internet to be an emergent and
emerging reality. As a global
network of networks, it is an
its intricate combination of
hardware, software, protocols,
human intentionality and a new
kind of social spatiality,
brought together by a common
set of design principles, and
constrained by policies
established by due democratic
processes. We consider the
Internet as a global commons
and a global public good. The
design principles and policies
that constitute its governance
should, therefore, flow from
such recognition of the
Internet as a commons and
public good.<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
Text as amended now:<br>
<br>
<blockquote>We recognise the
Internet to be an emergent and
emerging reality. As a global
network of networks, it is an
its intricate combination of
hardware, software, protocols,
human intentionality and a new
kind of social spatiality,
brought together by a common
set of design principles, and
constrained by policies
established by due democratic
processes. The design
principles and policies that
constitute its governance
should principally aim at
preserving and enhancing the
global commons and global
public goods character of the
Internet.<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
We may add, or not, the
following, in order to make
clearer the nature of the
problems that we are trying to
address:<br>
<br>
There is an increased tendency
towards diminishing the
non-excludablity of the Internet
(through a new kind of '<a href="http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/enclosure+movement" target="_blank">enclosure
movement</a>'* of the digital
space) and also its
non-rivalrousness (through
excessive commodification),
which should be stemmed. <br>
<br>
(* 'enclosure movement' is kind
of exactly opposite to, and
sought to be undone by,
contemporary occupy movements)<br>
<br>
(text suggestion ends)<span><font color="#888888"><br>
<br>
parminder <br>
</font></span>
<div>
<div> <br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div> <br>
</div>
Related to that
and more generally
(and building on
Jeanette's
pertinent
observation), why
do we seem to
assume sometimes
that government
has the monopoly
of publicness (or
we equate
publicness
advocates with
government
advocates)? I
would wish to have
a clarification
once for all on
this list about
that. Who is
public? Who is
the/a guadian of
the public
interest? Is it
only the
government?
Obviously no, I
would think. Isn't
CS also about the
"public"? And yes,
doesn't market
sometimes, maybe
even often,
improve the
conditions and
circumstances of
the public? (But
is there any such
thing as pure
market, without
any help of public
concern? I would
argue no, just as
many governments,
eg, in the US and
in Brazil,
routinely show
that government
may be willing to
take private money
and undermine
itself.) <br>
<br>
So (in line with
the idea that
private and public
are the opposite
ends of a
spectrum) the
question is: Under
what conditions,
and maybe to what
extent, do actors
other than
governments
contribute to the
"public" (public
good, public
interest, public
welfare or
wellbeing, public
etc.)? Does anyone
know of a
conceptual
framework that may
be pragmatically
useful, and may be
set as a reference
on the matter, in
these debates of
ours? That would
be really helpful
to prevent locking
ourselves or our
debating
challengers into a
sterile
categorization
government vs.
business, public
vs. private. <br>
<br>
</div>
One last thing, in
our quest of (or
claim for)
scientific truths,
we can look at
history in different
ways or at different
levels: Yes, history
shows that there are
many, maybe
overwhelming,
instances where
governments failed
the public interest
and private business
delivered more good
to the public. Does
that mean private
business has always
succeeded anytime,
everywhere? What
about private
business success vs.
private business
failure? Or isn't
private business
failure possible?
History may also
show that there are
some conditions
under which private
business fails (and
fails gravely the
community that has
made them possible),
and other conditions
under which they
succeed both as
business in the
narrow sense (re.
bottom line) and as
social actors. The
truth in these
social matters is
often temporal and
contextual by
several other
dimensions. Indeed,
the fact that
certain market
liberalization has
proved to be so
successful in the
late 20th century in
the US and in
Western Europe, for
example, may or may
not be totally
unrelated with the
fact that those
markets were
previously protected
during decades
through monopoly or
various
protectionism
regimes. Even
turning the
observable (and
indisputable) facts
of the day into
a-temporal truths
may sometimes be
misleading. We will
have to be more
nuanced on that
spectrum spanning
from private to
public, putting the
facts in perspective
wrt the nature of
the actors and the
sociohistorical
context.<br>
<br>
</div>
Best,<br>
<br>
</div>
Mawaki <br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On
Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at
3:29 PM, michael
gurstein <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:gurstein@gmail.com" target="_blank">gurstein@gmail.com</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="white" link="blue" vlink="purple" lang="EN-US">
<div>
<p><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:rgb(31,73,125)">Apart
from all the
completely
gratuitous ad
hominem's --
"pursuing a
political
agenda",
"honest
debate", "you
and others who
so fervently
blah blah…",
"sane people
blah blah" and
the rather
silly attempt
to hijack a
discussion by
insisting that
his position
is
"scientific"
and thus
anyone else's
is presumably
what…
superstition?
I see little
interest or
value in
pursuing this
discussion…
That kind of
stuff may fly
in academic
environments
where grad
students and
junior
colleagues
have no choice
but to listen
and nod and go
on but is
really beyond
the pale in
the real world
except those
who get their
policy
discussions
via Faux News
etc.etc.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:rgb(31,73,125)"> </span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:rgb(31,73,125)">M</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:rgb(31,73,125)"> </span></p>
<div>
<div style="border-width:1pt medium medium;border-style:solid none none;border-color:rgb(181,196,223) -moz-use-text-color -moz-use-text-color;padding:3pt 0in 0in">
<p><b><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:windowtext">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:windowtext">
<a href="mailto:governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org" target="_blank">governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org</a>
[mailto:<a href="mailto:governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org" target="_blank">governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org</a>]
<b>On Behalf
Of </b>Milton
L Mueller<br>
<b>Sent:</b>
Tuesday, April
16, 2013 6:39
PM<br>
<b>To:</b> <a href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org" target="_blank">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a></span></p>
<div><br>
<b>Subject:</b>
RE:
[governance]
Internet as a
commons/
public good</div>
</div>
</div>
<p> </p>
<p><span> </span></p>
<p><span> </span></p>
<div style="border-width:medium medium medium 1.5pt;border-style:none none none solid;border-color:-moz-use-text-color -moz-use-text-color -moz-use-text-color blue;padding:0in 0in 0in 4pt">
<div>
<div style="border-width:1pt medium medium;border-style:solid none none;border-color:rgb(181,196,223) -moz-use-text-color -moz-use-text-color;padding:3pt 0in 0in">
<p style="margin-bottom:12pt"><b><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:windowtext">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:windowtext">
michael
gurstein [<a href="mailto:gurstein@gmail.com" target="_blank">mailto:gurstein@gmail.com</a>]
</span><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:rgb(31,73,125)"></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:rgb(31,73,125)">And
in that
context I
pointed to the
discussion
around these
related issues
by Inge Kaul
and Joseph
Steiglitz in
the UNDP Human
Development
Index
supported
effort to
re-awaken/redefine
issues
concerning
"public goods"
and take them
out of the
dessicated
hands/minds of
the
professional
classical
(read
ideologically
Friedmanian)
economists/public
policy
geeks/academics.
And to
recreate these
notions as a
tool to
support those
looking to
protect the
public
interest from
the onslaught
of those who
would destroy
thist at the
altar of
universalized
Hobbesian
privatized
interests. </span></p>
<p><b><i><span> </span></i></b></p>
<p><b><i><span>[Milton
L Mueller]
Right. So from
my perspective
you are just
flatly
admitting that
you are
pursuing a
political
agenda and
there is no
real
scientific
basis for your
claim. </span></i></b></p>
<p><b><i><span> </span></i></b></p>
<p><b><i><span>I’ve
got an idea:
why don’t we
have an
_honest_
fact-based
debate about
the role of
the public
sector in the
Internet’s
development
and use?
Instead of
arbitrarily
attaching a
label “public
good” to it
and trying to
derive
pre-ordained
policies from
that, why
don’t you just
come out and
say, “I think
there should
be more
governmental
control,
subsidization
and regulation
of the
Internet”?
Make an honest
case for how
that will
change things
for the
better?</span></i></b></p>
<p><b><i><span> </span></i></b></p>
<p><b><i><span>If
we have such
an honest
debate, the
first thing
that you and
others who
believe so
fervently in
public
sector-led
development
will have to
face is that
privatization
and
liberalization
of
telecommunications
is what led to
widespread
diffusion of
telecom
infrastructure,
and that the
attendant
deregulation
and free trade
in information
and telecom
services led
to the rapid
diffusion and
development of
the internet.
And
conversely,
that 70 years
of state-owned
monopolies –
telecoms as
public good
–stunted
development
and led to
penetration
rates of 10%
of less and
waiting
periods of
sometimes 6
years simply
to get a
telephone
line. And it
is still
countries with
the least
liberalization
who have the
least-developed,
least
accessible
internet
sectors. </span></i></b></p>
<p><b><i><span> </span></i></b></p>
<p><b><i><span>I
know that the
unparalleled
success of
neoliberal
policies must
drive
anti-neoliberals
crazy. But,
there it is:
undeniable
fact, played
out in country
after country,
year after
year, for 20
years. I am so
sorry that
reality did
not conform to
your beliefs.
I really am.
You have my
deepest
sympathy.
Those
“dessicated”
market
processes
actually
produced more
public good,
more public
benefit, than
your telecom
socialism.
Ouch. That
must hurt.
Deal with it.
</span></i></b></p>
<p><b><i><span> </span></i></b></p>
<p><b><i><span>Typically,
sane people
adjust their
beliefs to
reality. They
do not try to
re-label
reality so
that it
conforms to
their
ideology. </span></i></b></p>
<p><b><i><span> </span></i></b></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:rgb(31,73,125)">And
to my mind if
there is a
suitable
candidate for
the type of
redifinition
in which they
are/were
engaged "the
Internet" is
surely one,
and rather
than defining
the Internet
in such a way
as to obviate
the
possibility of
it being
understood as
a global
public good,
perhaps better
to understand
how the
definiition of
the Internet
should be
recognized as
one that at a
minimum
accommodates
such notions.</span></p>
<p><b><i><span> </span></i></b></p>
<p><b><i><span>[Milton
L Mueller] An
accurate,
reality-grounded
definition of
the internet
can easily
accommodate
notions of
non-proprietary
spaces,
commons,
common pool
governance, as
well as
private,
competitive
market-driven
spaces. The
whole point,
which I have
tried to make
in papers such
as this <a href="http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1828102" target="_blank">http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1828102</a>
is that the
Internet
arrived at a
very powerful,
creative
balance of
private,
competitive
and open,
public spaces.
It wasn’t
planned, it
just happened,
because it
worked. </span></i></b></p>
<p><b><i><span> </span></i></b></p>
<p><b><i><span>Before
you mess with
that equation,
I’d ask you to
at least seek
to understand
it. Show some
respect for
economic and
political
science,
actually READ
Ostrom and
don’t just
chant the
words
“commons,” and
“public good,”
understand how
economic
structures and
incentives
affect what
happens. Pay
attention to
the private,
competitive,
market side of
the equation,
show it some
respect, apply
labels and
concepts
critically,
testing
whether they
actually
conform to
reality. </span></i></b></p>
<p><b><i><span> </span></i></b></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
____________________________________________________________<br>
You received this
message as a
subscriber on the
list:<br>
<a href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org" target="_blank">governance@lists.igcaucus.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.igcaucus.org/info/governance" target="_blank">http://lists.igcaucus.org/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>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
____________________________________________________________<br>
You received this message as a
subscriber on the list:<br>
<a href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org" target="_blank">governance@lists.igcaucus.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.igcaucus.org/info/governance" target="_blank">http://lists.igcaucus.org/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>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
____________________________________________________________<br>
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br>
<a href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org" target="_blank">governance@lists.igcaucus.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.igcaucus.org/info/governance" target="_blank">http://lists.igcaucus.org/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>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
<br clear="all">
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div></div></div>
<br>____________________________________________________________<br>
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br>
<a href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org">governance@lists.igcaucus.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.igcaucus.org/info/governance" target="_blank">http://lists.igcaucus.org/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></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br> >> Izumi Aizu <<<br>Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo<br>Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, <br>
Japan<br><a href="http://www.anr.org" target="_blank">www.anr.org</a><br>
</div>