<html>
<head>
</head>
<body style="font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">
<p>Shooting it and burying it in the backyard versus giving it a state
funeral so to speak </p>
<p>--srs (htc one x)<br>
</p>
<p>On 6 November 2013 10:31:12 AM parminder <parminder@itforchange.net>
wrote:</p>
<blockquote type="cite">
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On Wednesday 06 November 2013 06:32 PM,
Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:594322B6-B4A4-4A3A-8334-935327A95BFE@hserus.net"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div>India hasn't explicitly repudiated that proposal.</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Which more or less goes against what you said in your earlier email.<br>
<br>
The following is a proposal that India distributed to the WGEC
today, and I quote the relevant part<br>
<br>
"Thus there is a clear mandate for defining a mechanism for
effective global Internet governance. The UN General Assembly could
embark on creation of a multilateral body for formulation of
international internet-related public policies. The proposed body
should include all stakeholders and relevant inter-governmental and
international organisations in advisory capacity within their
respective roles as identified in Tunis agenda and WGIG report. Such
body should also develop globally applicable principles on public
policy issues associated with the coordination and management of
critical Internet resources". <br>
<br>
Does it sound like CIRP?<br>
<br>
And I can assure that this is a well considered official position of
government of India, with agreement of all the concerned
ministries, and 'not the product of overzealousness of one
bureaucrat or the other'. <br>
<br>
Here it is not the question of whether I agree with the above
position or not, but to clear falsehoods being spread systematically
about India's position. BTW, this is not very different from the
position articulated by Brazilian President in here recent UN
speech, and I quote...<br>
<br>
<meta http-equiv="CONTENT-TYPE" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm">"The United Nations must play a
leading
role in the effort to regulate the conduct of States with regard
to these technologies. For this reason, Brazil will present
proposals for the establishment of a civilian multilateral
framework for the governance and use of
the Internet and to ensure the effective protection of data that
travels through the web. We need to create multilateral
mechanisms for the worldwide network that are capable of ensuring
principles such as:........"</p>
<title></title>
<meta name="GENERATOR" content="LibreOffice 3.5 (Linux)">
<style type="text/css">
<!--
@page { margin: 2cm }
P { margin-bottom: 0.21cm }
-->
</style><br>
Public policy development spaces are urgently needed at the global
level, We need to ensure these are as open and participative as
possible, and that civil society has a strong role in these spaces,
and these are connected appropriately to the IGF, without making the
manifestly anti-democratic demand that corporations, self selected
civil society persons and such actually have an equal role as
governments in decision making processes in terms of Internet
related pubic policy making. Such a demand is no less unacceptable
than a demand that pharma companies should have a veto over health
policies at the global and national levels. <br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:594322B6-B4A4-4A3A-8334-935327A95BFE@hserus.net"
type="cite">
<div> They (and specifically Mr. Sibal) have only gone on to
support something that is diametrically opposite to it, and
strongly reaffirmed India's commitment to multi stakeholderism.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>As for publicly repudiating a proposal - just a proposal mind
you, not something actually signed or anything - made by one of
their bureaucrats, why embarrass themselves by doing so, when it
can be quietly buried and a much better proposal taken forward?</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Another mis representation.... It was an official input made under
the name of government of India, fully signed by all that it needed
to be signed by...<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:594322B6-B4A4-4A3A-8334-935327A95BFE@hserus.net"
type="cite">
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Same end result, thank God.<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
The (end) result remains the quoted Indian position, re articulated
today, as above.....<br>
<br>
parminder <br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:594322B6-B4A4-4A3A-8334-935327A95BFE@hserus.net"
type="cite">
<div> <br>
--srs (iPad)</div>
<div><br>
On 06-Nov-2013, at 0:40, parminder <<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net">parminder@itforchange.net</a>>
wrote:<br>
<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On Tuesday 05 November 2013 07:27
PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:E55E2C24-7C2C-4F97-8D9B-61DB428B45E6@hserus.net"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html;
charset=UTF-8">
<div>But the CIRP proposal has been repudiated even by
India,</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Just for factual correction.... CIRP was never repudiated by
India. the fact that they showed openness to engage with
critical comments cannot be held against them. If they did
engage, one is saying they have repudiated their earlier
stand, if they hadnt engaged one would call them closed and
inflexible... Damned if you do, damned if you dont. <br>
<br>
Essentially the same proposal is put forward by India in its
WGEC response - without the name though, and with an
improvement of separating the treatment of the 'oversight'
issue which India now wants to be seen separately from the
mandate of the body which deals with general public policy
issues related to the Internet. So, the Indian proposal for a
new body for the latter purpose is still fully current. <br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:E55E2C24-7C2C-4F97-8D9B-61DB428B45E6@hserus.net"
type="cite">
<div> no matter that it was originally floated by an Indian
bureaucrat.</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
It was government of India proposal with clearance from the
highest level, and all concerned ministries. Daily Mail, which
has an overly conservative image even in UK, isnt the most
authoritative source of Southern geo politics. <br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:E55E2C24-7C2C-4F97-8D9B-61DB428B45E6@hserus.net"
type="cite">
<div> And it never did have broad support or consensus
that'd make it viable even if India had not repudiated it.</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Again, India never repudiated it.<br>
<br>
In any case, the main burden of my email is not that there is
one view on the subject, but that we need to begin a
structured discussion on the needed institutional frameworks.<br>
<br>
parminder <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
parminder<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:E55E2C24-7C2C-4F97-8D9B-61DB428B45E6@hserus.net"
type="cite">
<div><br>
</div>
<div>So, pointing out the various inaccuracies in any
comparison with the ICCP is thankfully, moot.<br>
<br>
--srs (iPad)</div>
<div><br>
On 05-Nov-2013, at 4:14, parminder <<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net">parminder@itforchange.net</a>>
wrote:<br>
<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On Saturday 26 October 2013
09:56 AM, Lee W McKnight wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B2A2317@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=UTF-8">
<div style="direction: ltr;font-family: Tahoma;color:
#000000;font-size: 10pt;">
<div style="direction:ltr; font-family:Tahoma;
color:#000000; font-size:10pt"><snip><br>
<br>
The clock is ticking, the agenda will be set
basically in stone by the end the year. Well not
the end of the year, say December 15. Whether by
the coalition of the willing, or others.<br>
<br>
Meaning we (cs, global + Brazil), i orgs,
Brazilian and other governments and oh yeah the
telco elephants definitely in the room have just
7 weeks to come up with something sensible.<br>
<br>
So far from the cheap seats it seems unlikely the
panic of 2014 (Who's afraid of a Plenipot? Does
sound like a scary thing...) will accomplish
anything substantive. (quick! we need a photo op
to ward of the wicked plenipot)<br>
<br>
Odds on the Summit taking credit for the easy wins
of patching ICANN + IANA contract, per what we are
hearing: zero<br>
<br>
Odds on the Summit kicking a 'everything else'
ICANN-like orphan issues home of some coherence
into existence: zero <br>
<br>
(Unless someone has a strawman not-ICANN plan
somewhere...Parminder and I might agree that we
could do worse than starting with blowing up
OECD's ICCP and related processes to a global
model in some mind meld with ICANN as a the sugar
daddy/cash machine to fund and to offer
prototypical msh processes for the borrowing...but
has anyone advocated that or anything in
particular else? Nope, didn't think so.) </div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Lee,<br>
<br>
India's CIRP proposal, if you take out the I* oversight
part, is basically OECD's ICCP structure; in fact a
great improvement over it, since the CIRP proposal
outlines an organic link of the new proposed 'policy
development body' with the IGF. In its latest
submission to the WG on EC, India has sought separate
treatment of oversight and other public policy issues,
and therefore seem to indeed have removed the I*
oversight part from the proposed CIRP - which makes it
almost identical to OECD's ICCP, plus the IGF linkage
bonus. <br>
<br>
And of course IT for Change along with many other NGOs
have given a specific proposal to the WGEC to (1)
develop an OECD ICCP kind of global body, (2) deal with
the internationalisation of oversight issue separately
through a techno-political body with a very thin and
clearly constrained role, and (3) globally accept and
formally recognise the current distributed architecture
of technical and logical infrastructure related policy
making and implementation processes. <br>
<br>
In seeking some real movement forward on global IG,
Brazilians have listed two key objectives for the
proposed summit - outlines of an global institutional
framework, and some global Internet related principles.
<br>
<br>
I think IGC should initiative discussion on a global
institutional framework for IG, under three distinct
heads (1) Internet related public policy issues (which
category has been called as 'orphan issues' in some
recent discussions), (2) internationalisation of ICANN
oversight, and (3) technical and logical structure
policy development and day to day technical operations.
<br>
<br>
And another thread on key Internet principles, which can
begin with some principles listed in Dilma's UN speech
as a good starting point. <br>
<br>
We, as in the global civil society, are still bogged
down over procedural issues - and being reactive - first
to the Brazil summit initiative, and then to the I*
proposal for a new non-gov stakeholders coalition, which
also seeks to develop substantive positions. We need to
get pro-active, and produce substantive positions
towards the summit. <br>
<br>
parminder <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B2A2317@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu"
type="cite">
<div style="direction: ltr;font-family: Tahoma;color:
#000000;font-size: 10pt;">
<div style="direction:ltr; font-family:Tahoma;
color:#000000; font-size:10pt">And besides, since
when were all 'orphan IG issues' ITU plenipot
matters? Someone needs to spend more time with
Bill Drake and/or Anthony Rutkowski telling
Plenipot war stories of the last several decades,
to realize what is really likely to happen there.
Or not.<br>
<br>
Anyway, I am afraid that right now this does
indeed smell like a classic 'Summit' in the
making, where the main outcome is indeed the group
hug/photo op. And a press release.<br>
<br>
If that's all this is going to be then here's my 2
cents:<br>
<br>
forget about the event and the photo op, and focus
on the 1-2 page press release. <br>
<br>
Because that's odds on the only significant thing
coming out of this.<br>
<br>
Meaning, to end on a positive note, if we as igc
can boil down to say 5 bullet points what we want
from the summit, then we should say it. <br>
<br>
Rather than wasting time saying please may I
(participate, attend, whatever), let's just get to
the (5) points. Ok, could be 7, but remember if we
are now dealing in sound bites and photo ops,
then: deal with it, and be very succinct.<br>
<br>
Lee<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<div style="font-family:Times New Roman;
color:#000000; font-size:16px">
<hr tabindex="-1">
<div id="divRpF134106" style="direction:ltr"><font
color="#000000" face="Tahoma" size="2"><b>From:</b>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org">governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org</a>
[<a moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org">governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org</a>]
on behalf of David Cake [<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:dave@difference.com.au">dave@difference.com.au</a>]<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Friday, October 25, 2013 8:04
PM<br>
<b>To:</b> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a>;
Milton L Mueller<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [governance] Ad hoc Best
Bits strategy meeting tomorrow lunchtime<br>
</font><br>
</div>
<div><br>
<div>
<div>On 26/10/2013, at 5:33 AM, Milton L
Mueller <<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:mueller@SYR.EDU"
target="_blank">mueller@SYR.EDU</a>>
wrote:</div>
<br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
<blockquote type="cite">
<div style="font-family:Helvetica;
font-size:medium; font-style:normal;
font-variant:normal; font-weight:normal;
letter-spacing:normal;
line-height:normal; orphans:2;
text-indent:0px; text-transform:none;
white-space:normal; widows:2;
word-spacing:0px; word-wrap:break-word">
<div style="direction:ltr;
font-family:Tahoma; font-size:10pt"><span
style="color:rgb(34,34,34);
font-family:arial; font-size:small;
background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">On
Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 9:43 PM, David
Cake </span><span dir="ltr"
style="color:rgb(34,34,34);
font-family:arial; font-size:small;
background-color:rgb(255,255,255)"><<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:dave@difference.com.au"
style="color:rgb(17,85,204)"
target="_blank">dave@difference.com.au</a>></span><span
style="color:rgb(34,34,34);
font-family:arial; font-size:small;
background-color:rgb(255,255,255)"> wrote:</span><br
style="color:rgb(34,34,34);
font-family:arial; font-size:small;
background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote"
style="color:rgb(34,34,34);
font-family:arial; font-size:small;
background-color:rgb(255,255,255);
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 style="word-wrap:break-word"><br>
<div><span
style="white-space:pre-wrap"></span>Everything
that Fadi etc have been saying
says that their primary
motivation is to avoid a
multi-lateral government led
body for Internet governance,
that the ITU plenipot etc are
forcing their timing (in their
opinion), and that they are in a
hurry to create a
multi-stakeholder process that
can stand as a clear
alternative. And it is clear
that they have no idea what
exact form that will take, are
very keen to have buy in from CS
or any other group that will
lend the effort credibility and
participate constructively, and
they are to a large extent
rushing things largely due to
circumstances/opportunity,
improvising as they go, and
basically dancing as fast as
they can (and boy can Fadi
dance). <br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="color:rgb(34,34,34);
font-family:arial; font-size:small;
background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">
<br>
</div>
<div style="color:rgb(34,34,34);
font-family:arial; font-size:small;
background-color:rgb(255,255,255);
position:static; z-index:auto"> It
is not possible to be a more adamant
opponent of inter-governmental
control of the internet than me.
However, I feel very suspicious of
the way the ITU bogeyman is used to
rally uncritical support for hasty
and often ill-considered responses.
There was a Plenipot in 2010. The
Internet survived. There was WCIT in
2012. There was no serious attempt
to take over the Internet, and the
final treaty that provoked so much
rejection was really not that bad.
Now we are told we have to get all
scared again and use the Rio meeting
to talk NOT about fixing ICANN and
the actual Internet governance
institutions, but to deal with an
extremely broad agenda merely in
order to pre-empt the ITU. </div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<span class="Apple-tab-span"
style="white-space:pre"></span>Fadi
claimed to have spoken to several government
leaders (of nations like South Korea) who
had become more inclined to multi-lateralism
since WCIT, with the additional impetus of
post-Snowden anti-USG feeling. The
Montevideo statement and outreach to Brazil
etc seems to have been prompted by a strong
feeling among the I* that the current
political climate is worse than in 2010, or
even in 2012. I can't say whether their
impressions are correct, but it does seem
likely that they would strongly reject the
line of argument you are putting here. </div>
<div><span class="Apple-tab-span"
style="white-space:pre"></span>I don't
think we have been told we can't use the
Brazil meeting to fix ICANN and other
institutions. The incorporation of a change
in the IANA contract at least opens up some
aspects of ICANN oversight for
renegotiation, I would have thought. And
good.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div style="font-family:Helvetica;
font-size:medium; font-style:normal;
font-variant:normal; font-weight:normal;
letter-spacing:normal;
line-height:normal; orphans:2;
text-indent:0px; text-transform:none;
white-space:normal; widows:2;
word-spacing:0px; word-wrap:break-word">
<div style="direction:ltr;
font-family:Tahoma; font-size:10pt">
<div style="color:rgb(34,34,34);
font-family:arial; font-size:small;
background-color:rgb(255,255,255);
position:static; z-index:auto"> And
yet, Brazil is basically defecting
from the pro-government coalition,
the WCIT results have made it clear
that there is nothing close to an
international consensus on inserting
the ITU into IG. Can we be a bit
more sober and realistic about what
is happening? </div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><span class="Apple-tab-span"
style="white-space:pre"></span>Well,
sure - but Fadi has more contact with
government leaders than I do, so if he
says things are substantially worse since
WCIT, I have no reason to doubt him
either. </div>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div style="font-family:Helvetica;
font-size:medium; font-style:normal;
font-variant:normal; font-weight:normal;
letter-spacing:normal;
line-height:normal; orphans:2;
text-indent:0px; text-transform:none;
white-space:normal; widows:2;
word-spacing:0px; word-wrap:break-word">
<div style="direction:ltr;
font-family:Tahoma; font-size:10pt">
<div style="color:rgb(34,34,34);
font-family:arial; font-size:small;
background-color:rgb(255,255,255);
position:static; z-index:auto"> More
to the point, why don't WE try to
set the agenda, instead of letting
those who run the I* institutions do
so? Why are you always reacting to
their initiatives instead of taking
your own?</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<span class="Apple-tab-span"
style="white-space:pre"></span>We could
have, but we didn't. And then the I* orgs
panicked a little. I think Fadi etc were
hoping something would emerge spontaneously
post-WCIT, but when it didn't and they
perceived it as becoming urgent they started
the process themselves. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div style="font-family:Helvetica;
font-size:medium; font-style:normal;
font-variant:normal; font-weight:normal;
letter-spacing:normal;
line-height:normal; orphans:2;
text-indent:0px; text-transform:none;
white-space:normal; widows:2;
word-spacing:0px; word-wrap:break-word">
<div style="direction:ltr;
font-family:Tahoma; font-size:10pt">
<div style="color:rgb(34,34,34);
font-family:arial; font-size:small;
background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote"
style="color:rgb(34,34,34);
font-family:arial; font-size:small;
background-color:rgb(255,255,255);
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 style="word-wrap:break-word">
<div> </div>
<div>This isn't an ICANN centric
process. Yes, a renewed
discussion about IANA and ICANN
accountability can, and should,
form part of that discussion. I
can assure others in civil
society that those of us
involved with ICANN (including
Milton and myself) are very keen
to lead critical discussions
about ICANN accountability. I
find it very odd over the last
few days to be cast into the
role of defender of ICANN
against paranoia and
misinformation - there are quite
enough valid reasons to
criticise ICANN (and the near
allergic reaction to the idea of
real accountability from parts
of its leadership are among
them) without making up
conspiracies or misrepresenting
its processes. <br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="color:rgb(34,34,34);
font-family:arial; font-size:small;
background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">
<br>
</div>
<div style="color:rgb(34,34,34);
font-family:arial; font-size:small;
background-color:rgb(255,255,255);
position:static; z-index:auto"> I
don't see any paranoia or
misinformation about ICANN in my
messages. I just see a long-term
understanding of how we need to
reform ICANN, a healthy skepticism
about CS being used (again), and a
determination to take advantage of
Brazil's and Fadi's wonderful
initiative. I do appreciate some of
the things Fadi has done. I just
don't think we need to be driven by
fear. </div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
<span class="Apple-tab-span"
style="white-space:pre"></span>Well, you did
sort of imply a little I* conspiracy theory,
but I'll cede the point - my comments weren't
aimed at you specifically, as of course you do
have strong understanding of ICANNs processes,
though you do still seem to see this through a
somewhat ICANN-centric point of view, which I
still think is likely to not be so useful a
perspective ongoing. While an opportunity to
discuss the IANA contract, oversight of ICANN,
etc is welcome, that really doesn't seem to be
the main focus of any of what the Brazil
meeting is about, and ICANNs seemingly central
role might have more to do with Fadi
personally choosing to push the process
along.
<div><span class="Apple-tab-span"
style="white-space:pre"></span><br>
<div><span class="Apple-tab-span"
style="white-space:pre"></span>Regards</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><span class="Apple-tab-span"
style="white-space:pre"></span>David</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div><span>____________________________________________________________</span><br>
<span>You received this message as a subscriber on the
list:</span><br>
<span> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a></span><br>
<span>To be removed from the list, visit:</span><br>
<span> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing">http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing</a></span><br>
<span></span><br>
<span>For all other list information and functions,
see:</span><br>
<span> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance">http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance</a></span><br>
<span>To edit your profile and to find the IGC's
charter, see:</span><br>
<span> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.igcaucus.org/">http://www.igcaucus.org/</a></span><br>
<span></span><br>
<span>Translate this email: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a></span><br>
</div>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div><span>____________________________________________________________</span><br>
<span>You received this message as a subscriber on the
list:</span><br>
<span> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a></span><br>
<span>To be removed from the list, visit:</span><br>
<span> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing">http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing</a></span><br>
<span></span><br>
<span>For all other list information and functions, see:</span><br>
<span> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance">http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance</a></span><br>
<span>To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter,
see:</span><br>
<span> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.igcaucus.org/">http://www.igcaucus.org/</a></span><br>
<span></span><br>
<span>Translate this email: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a></span><br>
</div>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<br>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>