<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><div style>This is the text we are suggesting.</div><div style><br></div><div style>The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) endorses and supports the formal objection lodged by the <span style="color:rgb(80,0,80);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">Electronic Frontier </span><span style="font-size:13px;color:rgb(80,0,80);font-family:arial,sans-serif">Foundation (EFF)</span><span style="font-size:13px;color:rgb(80,0,80);font-family:arial,sans-serif"> </span></div>
<div style><span style="font-size:13px;color:rgb(80,0,80);font-family:arial,sans-serif"><</span><a href="https://www.eff.org/pages/drm/w3c-formal-objection-html-wg" target="_blank" style="font-size:13px;font-family:arial,sans-serif">https://www.eff.org/pages/drm/w3c-formal-objection-html-wg</a><span style="font-size:13px;color:rgb(80,0,80);font-family:arial,sans-serif">></span><span style="font-size:13px;color:rgb(80,0,80);font-family:arial,sans-serif"><br>
</span></div><div style><span style="font-size:13px;font-family:arial,sans-serif"><br></span></div><div style><span style="font-size:13px;font-family:arial,sans-serif">We believe that the inclusion of digital rights management (DRM) in HTML5 has the potential to stifle innovation and seriously compromise the rights of end users; for these reasons particularly, </span><span style="font-size:13px;font-family:arial,sans-serif">we object to the inclusion of DRM in HTML5.</span><span style="font-size:13px;color:rgb(80,0,80);font-family:arial,sans-serif"><br>
</span></div><div style><span style="color:rgb(80,0,80);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px"><br></span></div><div style><span style="color:rgb(80,0,80);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">We fully endorse the arguments raised by the EFF in their statement </span><span style="color:rgb(80,0,80);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">"EFF's Formal Objection to the HTML WG Draft Charter" </span></div>
<div style><span style="font-size:13px;color:rgb(80,0,80);font-family:arial,sans-serif"><</span><a href="https://www.eff.org/pages/drm/w3c-formal-objection-html-wg" target="_blank" style="font-size:13px;font-family:arial,sans-serif">https://www.eff.org/pages/drm/w3c-formal-objection-html-wg</a><span style="font-size:13px;color:rgb(80,0,80);font-family:arial,sans-serif">></span><span style="font-size:13px;font-family:arial,sans-serif"><br>
</span></div><div style><span style="font-size:13px;color:rgb(80,0,80);font-family:arial,sans-serif"><br></span></div><div style><font color="#500050" face="arial, sans-serif">Deirdre</font></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"><br style="color:rgb(80,0,80);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px"></div></blockquote></div></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On 8 June 2013 16:41, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro@gmail.com" target="_blank">salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Good Point Adam and Deirdre, let's try and get a text to reflect the recently proposed changes.<div><br></div><div>
Kind Regards,</div><div>Sala</div><div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><div><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 6:36 AM, Adam Peake <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:ajp@glocom.ac.jp" target="_blank">ajp@glocom.ac.jp</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Catherine's and Deirdre's proposed changes are excellent. If we were<br>
in a formal process they'd be a welcome friendly amendment. I suggest<br>
we proceed noting support for EFF's position and this revised<br>
sentence.<br>
<br>
Best,<br>
<br>
Adam<br>
<div><div><br>
<br>
<br>
On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 3:22 AM, Deirdre Williams<br>
<<a href="mailto:williams.deirdre@gmail.com" target="_blank">williams.deirdre@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
> If the W3C meeting is in Japan on Monday and we need 48 hours (I think??) to<br>
> establish consensus then we don't really have time, but is it worth trying<br>
> with this format Sala? Several people had already accepted Adam's<br>
> suggestion, and this now speaks to Catherine's concerns.<br>
><br>
>>> > The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) endorses and<br>
>>>supports the formal objection lodged by the Electronic Frontier<br>
>>>Foundation (EFF)<br>
>>><<a href="https://www.eff.org/pages/drm/w3c-formal-objection-html-wg" target="_blank">https://www.eff.org/pages/drm/w3c-formal-objection-html-wg</a>><br>
>>> ><br>
> "We believe that the inclusion of digital rights management (DRM) in HTML5<br>
> has the potential to stifle innovation and seriously compromise the rights<br>
> of end users; for these reasons particularly, we object to the inclusion of<br>
> DRM in HTML5."<br>
>>> ><br>
>>> > We fully endorse the arguments raised by the EFF in their statement<br>
>>>"EFF's Formal Objection to the HTML WG Draft Charter"<br>
>>><<a href="https://www.eff.org/pages/drm/w3c-formal-objection-html-wg" target="_blank">https://www.eff.org/pages/drm/w3c-formal-objection-html-wg</a>><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> On 8 June 2013 14:03, Catherine Roy <<a href="mailto:ecrire@catherine-roy.net" target="_blank">ecrire@catherine-roy.net</a>> wrote:<br>
>><br>
>> Hi Deirdre,<br>
>><br>
>> That would be great. But just in case I was not clear, I do not object we<br>
>> keep the bit about stifling innovation either, so it could be something like<br>
>> :<br>
>><br>
>> "We believe that the inclusion of digital rights management (DRM) in HTML5<br>
>> has the potential to stifle innovation and seriously compromise the rights<br>
>> of end users; for these reasons particularly, we object to the inclusion of<br>
>> DRM in HTML5."<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> Best regards,<br>
>><br>
>> Catherine<br>
>><br>
>> --<br>
>> Catherine Roy<br>
>> <a href="http://www.catherine-roy.net" target="_blank">http://www.catherine-roy.net</a><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> On 08/06/2013 1:51 PM, Deirdre Williams wrote:<br>
>><br>
>> What about taking Adam's suggestion but changing the second sentence:<br>
>> We believe that the inclusion of digital rights management in HTML5 has<br>
>> the potential to stifle innovation and we object to the inclusion of digital<br>
>> rights management (DRM) in HTML5.<br>
>> to this:<br>
>> We believe that the inclusion of digital rights management in HTML5<br>
>> seriously compromises the rights of end users; for this reason particularly<br>
>> we object to the inclusion of digital rights management (DRM) in HTML5<br>
>> Deirdre<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> On 8 June 2013 13:18, Catherine Roy <<a href="mailto:ecrire@catherine-roy.net" target="_blank">ecrire@catherine-roy.net</a>> wrote:<br>
>>><br>
>>> Hi all,<br>
>>><br>
>>> To be clear, I believe that as one W3C staffer put it recently, EFF has<br>
>>> decided to take the fight against DRM in HTML5 inside the W3C to be more<br>
>>> effective by becoming a member and following the W3C process. Sending<br>
>>> petitions and writing indignated articles and press releases, while having<br>
>>> their place in the landscape, will go only so far in terms of turning this<br>
>>> issue around. Also, since there are plenty of people arguing the technical<br>
>>> drawbacks in the several mailing lists related to HTML, restricted media,<br>
>>> etc., and that a technical formal objection has also been filed (to which I<br>
>>> have lent my support), EFF probably found that, in the short term, the best<br>
>>> way to have a grasp on the issue of DRM in HTML5 was to argue that this work<br>
>>> is out of scope for the working group. But this remains an issue of saying<br>
>>> no to DRM in HTML5 and the EFF formal objection is very clear as to why it<br>
>>> has filed this FO.<br>
>>><br>
>>> As for the IGC, I found it encourageing that there was finally a<br>
>>> semblance of agreement to make a public show of support for the EFF's FO by<br>
>>> releasing a short statement to that effect. My problem here was with the<br>
>>> statement itself. I believe it would be a good idea to explain *why* we<br>
>>> support the objection. I understand that it needs to be short and sweet to<br>
>>> ensure consensus among this group. But simply saying that we support it<br>
>>> because DRM "stifles innovation" is rather lacking IMHO. At the heart of<br>
>>> this issue is users rights and the EFF FO is quite eloquent and thurough on<br>
>>> this aspect. I am kind of newish here so perhaps I have misunderstood the<br>
>>> IGC interests but I thought users rights was a major one for the group and<br>
>>> had hoped a small snippet of a sentence regarding our concerns on this<br>
>>> particular aspect would be good idea. Perhaps I was mistaken.<br>
>>><br>
>>> Finally, as I explained to someone off-list, I believe the W3C is under<br>
>>> enormous pressure at the moment regarding this issue and every action<br>
>>> counts. So much pressure in fact that, as discussed by a W3C employee in a<br>
>>> recent guardian article[1], the W3C Advisory Committee will be trying to<br>
>>> reach consensus on the decision to include or not DRM compatibility in HTML<br>
>>> this coming Monday in Japan. So yes, time is of the essence but I think it<br>
>>> is still not too late to weigh in on this issue.<br>
>>><br>
>>> Best regards,<br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>> Catherine<br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>> [1]<br>
>>> <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2013/jun/06/html5-drm-w3c-open-web" target="_blank">http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2013/jun/06/html5-drm-w3c-open-web</a><br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>> On 08/06/2013 7:41 AM, Adam Peake wrote:<br>
>>><br>
>>> Thanks Catherine, Deirdre.<br>
>>><br>
>>> I think, or hope, we are pretty much in agreement. I tried to make the<br>
>>> proposed IGC comment pretty simple, cutting the paragraphs that had<br>
>>> attracted the most disagreement. That left an opening sentence saying IGC<br>
>>> supports the EFF statement. 2nd sentence saying IGC thinks DRM in HTML5<br>
>>> harmful, trying to capture the overall sense of the other paragraphs<br>
>>> discussed on the list. 3rd sentence IGC supports the EFF statement. I know<br>
>>> 1st and 3rd rather the same, but that was the point. After a lot of to&fro<br>
>>> where we seemed not to be getting anywhere, just tried to make something<br>
>>> simple.<br>
>>><br>
>>> I suspect we won't get consensus on more.<br>
>>><br>
>>> And either we say something simple or end up, again, with a blathering<br>
>>> and generally meaningless set of contradictions and compromise (for example<br>
>>> see the IGC's February comment to the IGF open consultation).<br>
>>><br>
>>> Best,<br>
>>><br>
>>> Adam<br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>> On Jun 8, 2013, at 8:41 AM, Deirdre Williams wrote:<br>
>>><br>
>>> Thank you Catherine - that's what I thought.<br>
>>> But if EFF has gone to such lengths to object to the working group<br>
>>> charter rather than to DRM in HTML5 directly then I'm wondering why we are<br>
>>> not simply supporting the EFF objection to the Charter?<br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>> On 7 June 2013 13:10, Catherine Roy <<a href="mailto:ecrire@catherine-roy.net" target="_blank">ecrire@catherine-roy.net</a>> wrote:<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> Hi Deirdre.<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> I am sure someone from EFF on this list could explain it better than I<br>
>>>> so please correct me as needed but my understanding is that EFF's formal<br>
>>>> objection concerns an element of the HTML Working Group charter that enables<br>
>>>> the Working Group to propose the Encrypted Media Extensions (EME)<br>
>>>> specification which effectively represents a technology that, in<br>
>>>> combination with Content Decryption Modules (CDMs), allows "the remote<br>
>>>> determination of end-user usage of content". EME is used with CDMs, which is<br>
>>>> a software component that permits access to encrypted resources (so<br>
>>>> basically DRM).<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> EFF has made a formal objection on the Working Group charter to<br>
>>>> basically argue that such work, which is formulated in the charter as<br>
>>>> "supporting playback of protected content", is out of scope for the Working<br>
>>>> Group deliverables. So in effect, EFF is objecting to the fact that W3C,<br>
>>>> through its HTML Working Group, propose a specification that will enable the<br>
>>>> use of Digital Rights Management (via CDMs) in HTML5.<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> It is my understanding that by supporting the EFF formal objection, IGC<br>
>>>> is effectively saying no to DRM in HTML5.<br>
>>>><br>
>>>><br>
>>>> Best regards,<br>
>>>><br>
>>>><br>
>>>> Catherine<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> --<br>
>>>> Catherine Roy<br>
>>>> <a href="http://www.catherine-roy.net" target="_blank">http://www.catherine-roy.net</a><br>
>>>><br>
>>>><br>
>>>><br>
>>>> On 07/06/2013 10:02 AM, Deirdre Williams wrote:<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> Could someone please help to clarify things for me?<br>
>>>> I hadn't responded before about the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF)<br>
>>>> statement because I had no time to read the documents until this morning.<br>
>>>> My understanding is that the IGC was asked if it would support the<br>
>>>> recent EFF statement.<br>
>>>> The EFF statement is a "Formal Objection to the HTML WG Draft Charter",<br>
>>>> indicating that the Charter "represents a significant broadening of scope<br>
>>>> for the HTML WG (and the W3C as a whole) to include the remote determination<br>
>>>> of end-user usage of content."<br>
>>>> <a href="https://www.eff.org/pages/drm/w3c-formal-objection-html-wg" target="_blank">https://www.eff.org/pages/drm/w3c-formal-objection-html-wg</a> The objection is<br>
>>>> NOT to DRM in HTML5 as such, although the text contains a detailed<br>
>>>> discussion of that issue as justification fotr the objection.<br>
>>>> Particularly within the working group Charter, the objection is to this<br>
>>>> reference in 2 -<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> "Some examples of features that would be in scope for the updated HTML<br>
>>>> specification:<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> additions to the HTMLMediaElement element interface, to support use<br>
>>>> cases such as live events or premium content; for example, additions for:<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> facilitating adaptive streaming (Media Source Extensions)<br>
>>>> supporting playback of protected content"<br>
>>>> <a href="http://www.w3.org/html/wg/charter/2012/" target="_blank">http://www.w3.org/html/wg/charter/2012/</a><br>
>>>><br>
>>>> So please - are we discussing offering support to EFF's Objection to the<br>
>>>> Charter, or are we creating an IGC statement on DRM in HTML5?<br>
>>>> And if the latter, are we doing anything about EFF's Objection, which<br>
>>>> was what we were asked about in the first place?<br>
>>>> Thank you<br>
>>>> Deirdre<br>
>>>><br>
>>>><br>
>>>><br>
>>>> On 7 June 2013 01:54, Adam Peake <<a href="mailto:ajp@glocom.ac.jp" target="_blank">ajp@glocom.ac.jp</a>> wrote:<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> Hi Catherine,<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> Does the EFF statement cover your concerns?<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> Best,<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> Adam<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> On Jun 7, 2013, at 2:14 AM, Catherine Roy wrote:<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> Hi,<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> While I support this latest formulation by Adam as it is simple, to the<br>
>>>>> point and avoids ambiguous and perhaps (for the moment) unprovable facts, I<br>
>>>>> feel it is lacking with regards to users' rights, which is also one of the<br>
>>>>> key issues at the heart of this whole matter. That is, as someone on the W3C<br>
>>>>> restricted media mailing list mentioned, standards should be at the margin<br>
>>>>> of debates, and if required to take part, should always, in the end, be on<br>
>>>>> the side of the user. Much like optimizing sites for particular browsers<br>
>>>>> that shut out certain users, there is a real problem here with shutting out<br>
>>>>> users who do not have the right software/hardware from content (in this<br>
>>>>> case, much of the discussions revolve around premium content but it could<br>
>>>>> extend to any content that applies DRM). So, while I am not a wordsmith and<br>
>>>>> therefore apologize for not proposing exact wording, I would like to see<br>
>>>>> something more clear in the statement regarding users rights and sovereignty<br>
>>>>> over their euh, "equipment".<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> Best regards,<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> Catherine<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> --<br>
>>>>> Catherine Roy<br>
>>>>> <a href="http://www.catherine-roy.net" target="_blank">http://www.catherine-roy.net</a><br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> On 2013-06-06 04:52, Adam Peake wrote:<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> Hi Sala,<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> To be honest, having to remember a url and jump off to a separate site<br>
>>>>> for such a small statement is a pain. In my opinion, anyway. Perhaps you<br>
>>>>> can see the stats on the <a href="http://www.igcaucus.org/" target="_blank">http://www.igcaucus.org/</a> page, how many people<br>
>>>>> bother to visit vs the very large number who read the list?<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> A cleaned up version of a short statement:<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) endorses and<br>
>>>>> supports the formal objection lodged by the Electronic Frontier Foundation<br>
>>>>> (EFF) <<a href="https://www.eff.org/pages/drm/w3c-formal-objection-html-wg" target="_blank">https://www.eff.org/pages/drm/w3c-formal-objection-html-wg</a>><br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> We believe that the inclusion of digital rights management in HTML5 has<br>
>>>>> the potential to stifle innovation and we object to the inclusion of digital<br>
>>>>> rights management (DRM) in HTML5.<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> We fully endorse the arguments raised by the EFF in their statement<br>
>>>>> "EFF's Formal Objection to the HTML WG Draft Charter"<br>
>>>>> <<a href="https://www.eff.org/pages/drm/w3c-formal-objection-html-wg" target="_blank">https://www.eff.org/pages/drm/w3c-formal-objection-html-wg</a>><br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> The EFF statement we're considering to support is itself long and<br>
>>>>> speaks for itself. See no need to add more than above.<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> Adam<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> On Jun 6, 2013, at 4:30 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote:<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> In case, people missed it. The revised Statement is live at:<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> <a href="http://www.igcaucus.org/digressit/archives/112" target="_blank">http://www.igcaucus.org/digressit/archives/112</a> where you can add your<br>
>>>>> comments and suggest text.<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> Kind Regards,<br>
>>>>> Sala<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 2:50 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro<br>
>>>>> <<a href="mailto:salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro@gmail.com" target="_blank">salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> Dear All,<br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> Further to the discussions on the mailing list, I have revised the<br>
>>>>>> first version to the one below. I have highlighted the sentence still in<br>
>>>>>> contention and also note that there are mixed reactions to the balance of<br>
>>>>>> the protection of intellectual property rights through mediums like the DRM<br>
>>>>>> to protect innovation and challenges to threats of impeded "Access". This is<br>
>>>>>> a very interesting debate and one I believe should be thoroughly explored by<br>
>>>>>> the IGC where we can come to some common ground (if we are able to). I have<br>
>>>>>> not had the time to read Frank La Rue's new report but it would be<br>
>>>>>> interesting to see his report of what the world is saying in relation to<br>
>>>>>> this conflict. I am of course interested in what the IGC has to say.<br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> Roland and Avri raised some very interesting points that deserve<br>
>>>>>> discussion. As we speak, the Statement will be hosted on the Statement<br>
>>>>>> Workspace on the IGC website. I have tried to capture every comment in the<br>
>>>>>> attached document. I find that Statement Workspaces are far more effective<br>
>>>>>> in neatly allowing people to comment on each sentence etc, so my apologies<br>
>>>>>> if the attached document is inherently messy.<br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> What are your collective thoughts on what Roland suggested that whilst<br>
>>>>>> there are many battles, this is not one we should spend time on? The key<br>
>>>>>> issues for your deliberation would be:-<br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> What is the IGC's position on Digital Rights Management?<br>
>>>>>> What is the IGC's position on Digital Rights Management in HTML 5?<br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> Thank you to all those for suggesting text and new wordings and<br>
>>>>>> phrases. I have tried to capture your views below. All the mistakes are of<br>
>>>>>> course mine. Let us have your thoughts. As soon as the Statement is on the<br>
>>>>>> Workspace, Norbert will inform us and this will allow us to track comments<br>
>>>>>> on the revised statement.<br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> Revised Draft Statement on Support for EFF’s Objection<br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) objects to the<br>
>>>>>> inclusion of digital rights management (DRM) in HTML5. We endorse and<br>
>>>>>> support the formal objection lodged by the Electronic Frontier Foundation<br>
>>>>>> (EFF) and that the draft proposal from the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)<br>
>>>>>> could stifle Web innovation and block access to content for people across<br>
>>>>>> the planet.<br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> We believe that the proposed standard by W3C is a serious threat to an<br>
>>>>>> open and free internet. The inherent danger of the proposal would be to shut<br>
>>>>>> out open source developers and competition, destroy interoperability and<br>
>>>>>> lock in legacy business models.<br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> Much of the developing world relies on open source developers to<br>
>>>>>> enable OR CREATE mechanisms that allow for an open environment of sharing<br>
>>>>>> resources related to agricultural practices, education, health and diverse<br>
>>>>>> content. In such regions, access to information is a challenge and with<br>
>>>>>> serious resource constraints, but it is an open and free internet (and the<br>
>>>>>> resultant ease of collaboration/sharing information) that empowers<br>
>>>>>> communities.<br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> For the foregoing reasons we reiterate our strong objection to the<br>
>>>>>> support for DRM technologies in HTML5, and our agreement with the EFF's<br>
>>>>>> arguments in this regard.<br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> --<br>
>>>>> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala<br>
>>>>> P.O. Box 17862<br>
>>>>> Suva<br>
>>>>> Fiji<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> Twitter: @SalanietaT<br>
>>>>> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro<br>
>>>>> Tel: <a href="tel:%2B679%203544828" value="+6793544828" target="_blank">+679 3544828</a><br>
>>>>> Fiji Cell: <a href="tel:%2B679%20998%202851" value="+6799982851" target="_blank">+679 998 2851</a><br>
>>>>> Blog: <a href="http://salanieta.blogspot.com" target="_blank">salanieta.blogspot.com</a><br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>><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>
>>>>><br>
>>>>><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>
>>>>><br>
>>>>><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>
>>>><br>
>>>><br>
>>>><br>
>>>> --<br>
>>>> “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir<br>
>>>> William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979<br>
>>>><br>
>>>><br>
>>>><br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>> --<br>
>>> “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William<br>
>>> Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979<br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>> --<br>
>>> Catherine Roy<br>
>>> <a href="http://www.catherine-roy.net" target="_blank">http://www.catherine-roy.net</a><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> --<br>
>> “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William<br>
>> Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> --<br>
> “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William<br>
> Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979<br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br><div>Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala</div><div>P.O. Box 17862</div><div>Suva</div><div>Fiji</div><div><br></div><div>Twitter: @SalanietaT</div>
<div>Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro</div><div>Tel: <a href="tel:%2B679%203544828" value="+6793544828" target="_blank">+679 3544828</a></div><div>Fiji Cell: <a href="tel:%2B679%20998%202851" value="+6799982851" target="_blank">+679 998 2851</a></div>
<div>Blog: <a href="http://salanieta.blogspot.com" target="_blank">salanieta.blogspot.com</a><br></div><div> </div>
<div><font color="#222222" face="arial, sans-serif"><span style="line-height:16px"><br></span></font></div>
</div>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br>“The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979
</div>