<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On Friday 19 April 2013 10:14 AM, Izumi
AIZU wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CA+YNoKh6p-J_WFqeHR0SjSBpWM8hAXsr3QZgp+qjJRoejd=3ZQ@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<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>
</blockquote>
<br>
Yes, Izumi, exactly so. Thanks...<br>
<br>
Meanwhile, for the attention of the co-coordinators, there seems to
be good level of general approval for the IGC adopting some text on
the commons and the public good nature of the Internet, but there is
still some degree of lack of clarity abut what should be in such a
text and what not (although Mawaki's current text looks very
promising to me) <br>
<br>
Can we perhaps adopt some kind of a rough procedure - maybe an
online vote - to get the sense of the house first on whether people
at all want any kind of text on 'commons and public goods nature of
the Internet' adopted or not....<br>
<br>
and then when, and if, we know that such is the general will of the
group, we can proceed to drafting the text, and then put it up for a
consensus/ rough consensus call... or alternatively, we can directly
put the Mawaki's text, with a few possible modifications in the next
few days to the consensus/ rough consensus process.<br>
<br>
Just for your consideration<br>
<br>
parminder <br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CA+YNoKh6p-J_WFqeHR0SjSBpWM8hAXsr3QZgp+qjJRoejd=3ZQ@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div style="">
</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
moz-do-not-send="true"
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 moz-do-not-send="true"
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
moz-do-not-send="true"
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
moz-do-not-send="true"
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
moz-do-not-send="true"
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
moz-do-not-send="true" 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
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org" target="_blank">governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org</a>
[mailto:<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
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
moz-do-not-send="true" 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
moz-do-not-send="true"
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
moz-do-not-send="true"
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
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org" target="_blank">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a><br>
To be removed
from the list,
visit:<br>
<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
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
moz-do-not-send="true"
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
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.igcaucus.org/" target="_blank">http://www.igcaucus.org/</a><br>
<br>
Translate this
email: <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t" target="_blank">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a><br>
<br>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
____________________________________________________________<br>
You received this
message as a
subscriber on the
list:<br>
<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org" target="_blank">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a><br>
To be removed from
the list, visit:<br>
<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
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
moz-do-not-send="true"
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
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.igcaucus.org/" target="_blank">http://www.igcaucus.org/</a><br>
<br>
Translate this
email: <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t" target="_blank">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a><br>
<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 moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org"
target="_blank">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a><br>
To be removed from the list, visit:<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
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 moz-do-not-send="true"
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 moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.igcaucus.org/"
target="_blank">http://www.igcaucus.org/</a><br>
<br>
Translate this email: <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t"
target="_blank">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a><br>
<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 moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a><br>
To be removed from the list, visit:<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
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 moz-do-not-send="true"
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 moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.igcaucus.org/" target="_blank">http://www.igcaucus.org/</a><br>
<br>
Translate this email: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t"
target="_blank">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a><br>
<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 moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://www.anr.org"
target="_blank">www.anr.org</a><br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>