<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 14 (filtered medium)"><base href="x-msg://200/"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p.MsoAcetate, li.MsoAcetate, div.MsoAcetate
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Balloon Text Char";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:8.0pt;
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";}
span.BalloonTextChar
{mso-style-name:"Balloon Text Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Balloon Text";
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";}
span.apple-style-span
{mso-style-name:apple-style-span;}
span.apple-converted-space
{mso-style-name:apple-converted-space;}
span.EmailStyle21
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Thanks George for a very sober, serious, insightful and dare I say generous piece. And there is little there that I disagree with including your overall aspirations for and comments on civil society.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>There are however, two issue themes that aren`t included in your discussion which come from two separate pieces of my own personal ecology in these matters that I feel have to be addressed if we are to get to the space that you are urging us toward.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>The first is that you don`t mention Snowden or what we have learned (or perhaps for some, found to be confirmed) through his actions. What we have seen in the starkest of terms in the Snowden documents is how important `control` over the Internet is seen in some quarters, and to what lengths those quarters and presumably others will go to ensure their `dominance` in matters having to do with how the Internet is deployed and used. Your technical community colleagues have characterized this as an ``attack`` on the Internet. From my perspective I see it as a full-on attempt to subvert the Internet in support of certain interests—and at this point it is unclear whether those interests are national security, national strategic, economic, political or some seamless integration of all of these.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Among the most damaging outcomes from Snowden is a general breakdown in trust (or confirmation of the reasons for an on-going lack of trust) concerning I would say, all matters having to do with the core elements of the Internet of which certainly, Internet governance is one. Again your technical community colleagues well recognize this development (as of course does the Business Community) and the extremely corrosive and destructive elements that this lack of trust has introduced into what had previously been on-going collaborative relationships of all sorts with respect to Internet related activities. This lack of trust is certainly no less in Civil Society (and dare I say no less warranted) than for the other stakeholder groups and given the lack of normative coherence and even of a shared self- definition that we witness in Civil Society discussions on a daily basis it is perhaps even more explicable for CS, even if no less damaging.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>I don`t know what to do about this. Perhaps given the lack of resources for facilitating the kinds of (generally face to face and purpose driven) encounters in neutral disinterested spaces that are usually involved in `trust building` perhaps nothing can be done, but I do know that not facing the issue of trust directly and recognizing it in its full (and very ugly) reality means I think that it is more or less impossible to go forward in the ways that you are not unreasonably suggesting. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>The second issue that I would want to add to your commentary is a different one and comes from quite a different background. Many here began this particular odyssey in relation one way or another to WSIS. And certainly for me working in the grassroots use and among grassroots users of ICTs, WSIS was the doorway into these broader Internet Governance concerns. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Notably, many in CS see WSIS as a significant success and one whose gains they currently appear reluctant to put in jeopardy by re-opening those discussions. I see it rather differently in that for me WSIS was largely a continuation of the pattern of top-down processes (the DotForce, the ICT4D Task Force etc.etc.) trying to solve ICT for Development issues without giving those most directly involved a chance to participate and provide their own insight into these matters. Few (if any) of the organizations (including it must be said the CS organizations) most directly involved with WSIS were in fact, in a position to give voice to the concerns of the grassroots users or activists/practitioners and unfortunately the train of failed ICT4D policies and programs (and more recently the quite evident donor fatigue with these failed programs) is a direct result.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>I believe even my first intervention into the IG discussion space articulated much of the above and very very regrettably I see little if any, progress having been made in the activities and interventions which have followed. Rather I see the matters which would be of greatest interest to grassroots users and communities perhaps characterized best through the term ``Internet Justice*`` derided, marginalized and ignored; even dare I say, to the extent that a number of CS groups appear to be opposing a revisiting of WSIS specifically because issues relating to Internet Justice might be introduced including by the G77. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>I think it would be very desirable for CS broadly to move in the directions indicated in George`s piece below but only if done in full recognition, awareness and responsiveness to the issues that I have just attempted to articulate.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Best, <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Mike<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'> *Notably the term ``Internet Justice`` follows on from our Environmental CS colleagues who are now characterizing much of their concerns under the rubric of ``Environmental Justice``.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><div><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>From:</span></b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'> George Sadowsky [mailto:george.sadowsky@gmail.com] <br><b>Sent:</b> Sunday, November 24, 2013 8:59 AM<br><b>To:</b> michael gurstein<br><b>Cc:</b> governance@lists.igcaucus.org; Peter Ian; Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro<br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [governance] Inter-stakeholder issues in a multi-stakeholder environment<o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>All,<o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><u>Please note that the opinions that follow are my own personal opinions and are independent of any of the organizations with which I am affiliated.</u><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>I'm suggesting that we should modify both the words and concept of Sala's suggestions and my response.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Let's not think of doing anything formal; I think that both ends would balk at that, and for good reason. Instead, I'll just be somewhat more active on this list, and if anything comes up with respect to the technical community that I can clarify or help with on an informal and personal basis, I'll try to do that.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>So with that understanding, I'd like to throw out some thoughts to see if any of them resonate with any of you.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><u>First</u>, I believe that the introduction of the idea of multi-stakeholder approaches has had a significant negative effect between the Internet technical community and the community that has coalesced to represent classical civil society concerns. As I recall in the 1990s, these communities were considerably intermingled; the promise of the Internet encouraged us not only to help it evolve in beneficial ways but also to explore how to exploit it for social and economic benefits.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>The solidification of different stakeholder groups resulting from the WSIS process, caused informal differences to formalize. Issues of representation, power, time at the microphone, visibility on (sometimes competing) lists and victory in arguments on those lists grew, while informal discussion gradually declined. Polarization of opinion grew as willingness to respect others' opinions and to agree civilly to disagree suffered. <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><u>Second</u>, I believe that the specific role of the Internet technical community as a stakeholder group for the purposes of participating in the MAG and in the IGF is not properly understood. At this point in its evolution, the Internet is a very complex system at most levels. In order to understand fully the implications of policies that have to do with Internet administration, operation and governance, one has have a good technical understand of what the effect of those policies will be at a detailed level. The primary role of representatives of the Internet technical community, in a MAG and IGF setting, is to study and understand such effects and to inform those deliberating about them. That function may well extend toward consideration of broader thematic areas and suggestions of what needs to be discussed for continued Internet health, either short or long term, or both. <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>In the grand scheme of things, this is a moderately narrow focus, but it is extremely important.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><u>Third</u>, I believe that one result of formalized multi-stakeholderism appears to have been to separate groups of people rather than separating groups of ideas. A couple of examples illustrate the point. To the extent that the Internet technical community does its work in guiding the MAG well to enhance Internet evolution, I believe that involved representatives of civil society benefit and should encourage their participation. Conversely, representatives of the Internet technical community are people, and many are very likely to have beliefs that are quite consistent with the positions espoused by those same civil society representatives. The multi-stakeholder approach, however, seems to create a silo effect that minimizes or even denies the overlap of commonality of interest regarding issues by separating people into different silos. So instead of recognizing positive overlap of beliefs, the approach encourages a focus on inter-stakeholder group separation.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><u>Fourth</u>, I'd like to propose a reconceptualization of the term "civil society." In the multi-stakeholder instantiation that is now employed by the UN/MAG/IGF axis , it refers to groups if individuals, some representing organizations of various sizes that agree to various extents regarding the importance of individual rights of various kinds. These groups represent civil society goals and are therefore grouped as "civil society" to populate that stakeholder group. And although the goals of that group are generally quite positive, their actions are often based upon pushing back against other stakeholder groups, most notably government but also others. Perhaps that reflects the reality of the tension between groups, but that tension is not moderated, as it might sometimes be, by people bridging groups instead of being siloed.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>An alternate way to define civil society is to start with all people in the world and remove government involvement, the private sector involvement, and perhaps other large institutional influences. To borrow a phrase from Apple, what is left is "the rest of us," and it contains fractions, generally large fractions of most of us as individuals. <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Most individuals have interests in more than one sector or stakeholder group. We have interactions with government and may work for it. Alternatively we may work for a private or other public sector organization. Almost all of us are increasingly users of the internet. Using this approach, perhaps an aggregate of 5 billion of us constitute "civil society," as opposed to the people who are now labeled as being in the civil society stakeholder group. If we are all civil society in large parts of our lives, then we all have some claim to represent our views as we live. Thus, a representative of Internet technology on the MAG is likely to, and has a right to opine on issues in the larger space, just as self-defined representatives of civil society positions have a right to do. This illustrates again how the various stakeholder groups, or silos, are really quite intertwined, making the siloed and often competitive relationships between them at a formal level quite unrepresentative of the underlying reality,<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><u>I conclude</u> that the multi-stakeholder approach that is accepted to be an approach to bring us together, has not insignificant negative externalities that serve to keep us apart. We need to assess the multi-stakeholder approach with that in mind If it is retained as an organizing principle, we need to recognize and understand those negative effects so that we can minimize them and can exploit the positive aspects of that approach.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>This is a much longer note than I ordinarily write, but it has helped me to understand some of the roots of the often unnecessarily antagonistic relationship between proponents of issues important to civil society and technical community experts guiding the evolution of the Internet. Thank you for taking the time to read it. I realize that what I have written, and any discussion of it, is considerably more nuanced than what I have presented above. However, I have tried to present the core of some ideas that I think may be useful. The more nuanced discussion can and will come later.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Your comments are welcome.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>George<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p><div><div><p class=MsoNormal>On Nov 23, 2013, at 1:53 PM, michael gurstein wrote:<o:p></o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></p><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Thanks George and it is a potentially interesting proposition.</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'> </span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>But I must say that I’m unclear as to precisely what role is being suggested here. If the role is to attempt to frame the diversity of voices being articulated in civil society (in my case including those of the community informatics community for example) in a manner in which it can be more readily understood/assimilated/responded to by the technical community I think that is very useful.</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'> </span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>If it is, on the other hand, to act as a more or less “authoritative”/designated “filter” of communications/voices from Civil Society to the Technical Community then I can see quite considerable difficulty and controversy resulting, if nothing else, from a concern within certain CS elements of being “silenced/ignored”.</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'> </span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>(The same clarification would need to be made if the role is perceived as being more of an “honest broker”—i.e. the question being, particularly on the CS side, how inclusive of all CS interests/voices is the “brokerage” committed/able to be.</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'> </span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Perhaps some clarification is in order here either from yourself in how you perceive the role, or from Ian or Sala on how they presented the role (and perceive it from a CS perspective).</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'> </span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>(I should also possibly add here that a significant number of those active in the Community Informatics community would, by their background, qualifications, experience and current activities qualify as being “techies” of one sort or another. Whether they would qualify as being members of the “Technical Community” (TC) under what I understand to be the criteria for inclusion within the TC as currently defined by the formal TC structures I’m not sure, as their orientation tends to be towards technical design and fabrication in support of social/digital inclusion and social justice.)</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'> </span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Best to all,</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'> </span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>M</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'> </span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in;border-width:initial;border-color:initial'><div><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>From:</span></b><span class=apple-converted-space><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'> </span></span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'><a href="mailto:governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org">governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org</a><span class=apple-converted-space> </span>[<a href="mailto:governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org">mailto:governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org</a>]<span class=apple-converted-space> </span><b>On Behalf Of<span class=apple-converted-space> </span></b>George Sadowsky<br><b>Sent:</b><span class=apple-converted-space> </span>Saturday, November 23, 2013 8:04 AM<br><b>To:</b><span class=apple-converted-space> </span>Ian Peter<br><b>Cc:</b><span class=apple-converted-space> </span>Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro;<span class=apple-converted-space> </span><a href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a><br><b>Subject:</b><span class=apple-converted-space> </span>Re: [governance] Fadi Speech to ALAC, Brazil 2014 Meeting and need for IGC and civil society Liaisons</span><o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Hi, Ian,<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div></div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Sala and I talked while we were both in Buenos Aires. Perhaps I can clarify my sense of what she may have been proposing.<o:p></o:p></p></div></div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div></div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal>There is at the moment somewhat of a gulf between the technical community and the list(s) used by the proclaimed representatives of civil society. Sometimes such differences of opinion, as well as fact, can be resoled rather quickly if they are discussed directly by people on both sides of the issue, rather than being left to fester and feed growing suspicion and/or discontent. I think that Sala thought that having some announced or implied line of communication, clearly non-exclusive, might be helpful at times. I thought so, too.<o:p></o:p></p></div></div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div></div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Having seen little response from anyone on this list, perhaps the idea isn't welcome in the more formalized sense in which it has been presented, and I can understand that. I think that perhaps I could be more active from time to time in the discussions that occur, and that might help to bridge some differences between the communities. Although I consider myself more technical in the context of Internet governance discussions, I do have roots in development activities that are quite consistent with some of the expressions of opinion posted to this and similar lists.<o:p></o:p></p></div></div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div></div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal>George<o:p></o:p></p></div></div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><<trimmed>><o:p></o:p></p></div></div></body></html>