<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">Dear Parminder, I think this is a really important and difficult question...I am not sure we agree until I read your referenced docs. I am not prepared to give up on democracy yet, but there is no question it could use a little spine-stiffening, and I think the Internet and the modern phenomenon of social media campaigns is exactly the kind of envigoration it needs. This is one reason why keeping the Internet in a multi-stakeholder model has appeal for many of us. I will read your materials and respond more thoughtfully, but I would point out one thing...managing a global entity in a multi-stakeholder way does not in itself take power away from the nation state. The fact is, managing the protection of one's citizens in a global, free-trading world, across a range of policy issues (food safety, employment standards, access to water, rights to travel, religious freedom, privacy protection, anti-discrimination to name a few) is already a challenge. Some states are doing this more effectively than others....I would point to the EU, who have in some respects higher agricultural standards, more uniform data protection, and harmonized e-commerce regulations than we do in North America, in my humble opinion. (this may start a storm of controversy on the list, please resist the temptation, I am just trying to point out efforts to continue to assert the power to regulate, not really trying to say the EU is better.) The point about the Internet, is it is a key enabler in helping us get to whatever stage of global cooperation and human development we are capable, as deeply flawed humans, of achieving.<div>More later.</div><div>Stephanie<br><div><div>On 2014-03-14, at 8:36 AM, parminder wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"><p style="margin-bottom: 0cm">Dear Stephanie,</p><p style="margin-bottom: 0cm">I read carefully your emails about
multistakeholder participation in policy making. I agree with
everything you say. Can it then be taken that we agree on
multistakeholder participation in policy making? (More on
agreement
and different versions of multistakeholderism or MSism later.) In
fact, your points on the need for non governmental 'stakeholders'
to
have new formal venues of participation which cannot easily be
influenced or controlled by policy makers is most important. Last
year, I wrote <a href="http://itforchange.net/Param_Jan2013_The_institution_of_Internet_Governance_Forums_and_the_evolution_of_democracy">a
blog</a> where I called IGF kind of structures as representing
version 3 of democracy, where new formal venues of participation
are
instituted that are not ad hoc, and do not depend on the sweet
will
of policy makers...</p><p style="margin-bottom: 0cm">However, this is not what many
proponents of MSism stop at. (See for instance Avri's submissions
to
NetMundial process, and several others.)They specifically want
equal
role for all stakeholders – for instance, equal role for Google
and
the government of Brazil – in 'making actual public policy
decisions'. So, having agreed with you on your formulations, may I
ask you whether you agree to such equality of all stakeholders –
in
terms, sorry, but need to repeat for the sake of specificity, of
'making actual public policy decisions'. </p><p style="margin-bottom: 0cm">Do you think that this is a minor
point, that need not be raised so strongly. Is the proposition of
'equality of all stakeholders' expressed in this fashion not a
threat
to democracy?</p><p style="margin-bottom: 0cm">Please see IT for Change's submission
to NetMundial titled - '<font color="#000000"><font size="3"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal"><a href="http://content.netmundial.br/contribution/is-certain-kind-of-multistakeholderism-a-post-democratic-ideology-need-to-save-netmundial-outcome-documents-from-crossing-some-sacred-democratic-lines/300">Is
certain
kind of multistakeholderism a post-democratic ideology?
Need
to save NetMundial outcome documents from crossing some
sacred
democratic lines</a>'.</span></span></font></font></p><p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-style: normal; font-weight:
normal">
<font color="#000000"><font size="3">I am engaging with you on
this
matter especially because you are in the High Level Committee
for the
Brazil meeting. Do expect 'equality of all stakeholders' meme
to
become a key sticking point as real negotiations begin on
outcome
documents for Brazil meeting.</font></font></p><p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-style: normal; font-weight:
normal">
<font color="#000000"><font size="3">Regards</font></font></p><p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-style: normal; font-weight:
normal">
<font color="#000000"><font size="3">parminder<br>
</font></font></p><p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-style: normal; font-weight:
normal"><font color="#000000"><font size="3"><br>
</font></font>
</p>
<title></title>
<meta name="GENERATOR" content="LibreOffice 3.5 (Linux)">
<style type="text/css">
<!--
@page { margin: 2cm }
P { margin-bottom: 0.21cm }
A:link { so-language: zxx }
-->
</style>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On Sunday 09 March 2014 03:05 AM,
Stephanie Perrin wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:AAA7CE00-62CE-41C4-B24E-55D48071D331@mail.utoronto.ca" type="cite">
<pre wrap="">If I may jump in and respond, having been a civil servant for 30 years...we are not stupid. One does need inside information to fully understand the impact of regulation. One of the bigger problems in government these days is complexity, coupled with the speed of change. Coming up with, lets say, (in order to get away from pharma for a moment) agricultural regulations, you need to consult industry, farmers, consumers, shippers, anti-poverty activists, environmental experts, etc. You need to understand world markets and world impacts. You do not, as public servants, have this knowledge fall down on scrolls from heaven. Impact assessment of your proposed regulation has to come from the stakeholders, hopefully by talking to them or running public calls for comment. Now here is where multi-stakeholderism has merit over multilateralism. In true, bottom-up multistakeholderism, if you want to contribute, you can. In multilateral or normal government regu!
lation mak
ing, the involvement of all stakeholders can vary enormously, from fully transparent democratic calls for involvement, to nothing. Some countries or even policy areas within government consult only with industry associations, which may favour big players. Consumer and human rights advocates may or may not be consulted, and if they are they are sometimes hand picked. This is documented in political science literature. My point is that in good multi-stakeholder practice, the governing or rule-making party has less control of the outcome, because participation is more democratic. There will always be the issue of who has the time, money, and training to provide input, to go to the meetings, etc., but the process is harder for big players to manipulate and hopefully is more fair and equitable. When you multiply that over the many countries that have a stake in Internet governance (i.e. all of them) then it seems to me very clear that multi-stakeholderism, however flawed,!
stands to
be a more open and inclusive process. I would hope that civil society would see fit to support it and make it better.
Stephanie Perrin
PS if I may, as a newcomer to this list....life is complicated, there are indeed mostly grey areas. It would be great if we could come up with positive proposals for how to make these systems work better, rather than argue. I would repeat my proposal that doing broad-based impact assessment on all Internet governance decisions, with comment periods, might help mitigate some of the dissatisfaction with results, and improve learning.
On 2014-03-08, at 3:57 PM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Jeanette,
The difficulty lies on those grey zones you are enjoying,
Is your experience of civil servants - unable to prepare legislation without drawing on external expertise - large enough for coming to conclusion that without lobbyists, and big corps, civil servants are not able to accomplish their task? Have you got any documentation on this? Or is this something that is very well known, but undocumented for some reasons? And, if any civil servants on the list, do you agree with that understanding of civil servants poor capacities? Maybe we should ask them outside of these governance and Best bits listing?
On top of civil servants, you add that civil society has no capacity to counterbalance big corps...
At the end of the day, who has true capacity in your multistakeholder prism?
No civil servants, no civil society...
So who's able?
Corporate servants, corporate society..
With such a vision, I doubt you believe in multistakeholderism: why do you bother with civil servants and civil society?
All of that sounds really like non sense. But maybe I need to join a multistakholder meeting, so to understand more of the real life.
Jeanette,
All of this is really going insane.
Michael is so right
JC
Le 8 mars 2014 à 21:09, Jeanette Hofmann a écrit :
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">I don't know how you can read this out of my comment.
In my experience, parliaments and ministries are unable prepare legislation without drawing on external expertise. It is an illusion to think that legislation could take place as an autonomous process without external influence.
There is also nothing dubious about lobbying as such. It has been around since parliaments have lobbies and most lobbyists are officially accredited with parliaments. What is problematic is that state officials often acquire the problem perceptions and mindsets of the industies they regulate.
Another problem I see is that civil society won't have the capacity to intervene as much as it should to counter-balance the impact of commercial lobbying.
jeanette
Am 08.03.14 15:16, schrieb michael gurstein:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">So it is your position that what up to this point has been ethically dubious and in some cases downright illegal i.e. the subverting (errr.. "shaping") of public policy processes to support private interests, not only legal but compulsory?
M
-----Original Message-----
From: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:bestbits-request@lists.bestbits.net">bestbits-request@lists.bestbits.net</a> [<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:bestbits-request@lists.bestbits.net">mailto:bestbits-request@lists.bestbits.net</a>] On Behalf Of Jeanette Hofmann
Sent: Saturday, March 08, 2014 3:44 AM
To: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a>; <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:bestbits@lists.bestbits.net">bestbits@lists.bestbits.net</a>
Subject: Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions launched for endorsement at <a href="http://bestbits.net">bestbits.net</a>
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Conversely, since there is considerable interest here in
multistakeholder policy making, even at national levels, would you
support pharma companies, for instance, sitting in bodies making -
actually making - health and drug policies, and big publishers in
education policy making, and so on...
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
The problem is that the pharmaceutical companies have been doing this for decades - but behind closed doors. National legislation is not done without consulting with industries affected. Sometimes, particularly on the EU level, they even write the draft legislation. Multistakeholder offers the chance to broaden the consulation process and bring this process in the open daylight so that everybody can see what has been going on in secret.
jeanette
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">If not, what is the essential difference, and who decides the 'difference'?
Of course state's extra-ordinary interest to control the Internet may
be discussed here, but the state has the same kind of desire to
control, for instance, the education system. Does it give enough basis
for multistakeholder policy making in the education at the national level?
Be fore-warned, that is the model of policy making that we are
embracing here.
parminder
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Apart from the difference between public policies and technical
decisions, is also the difference between original public policy
authority and delegated authority. These are concepts and ideas that
are rather well worked out in the texts of political science and
public administration.
A public policy function is sovereign in the sense of not being
subject to a higher authority (judicial review being a different
matter) and is accompanied with legitimate coercive power for
enforcement. Such power only lies with elected representatives in
democracies. It cannot, for instance, be exercised by business
representatives .
(At the global level, such sovereignty is exercised in a complex
manner whereby national legislatures often need to ratify
international treaties, and while many of such treaties carry
enforcement elements, the manner of their national application remain
in a somewhat complex interplay with national political systems. But
this system of global public policies still works.)
As such <a href="http://CGI.Br">CGI.Br</a> does not and cannot consitutionally undertake public
policy function. Happy to hear counter-arguments.
There is a huge problem with deforming the clear political
definitions regarding public policy etc and then find entry points
for big business to exercise formal political power..... Once such a
role is established on some areas, then this power migrates upwards
to cover all areas of our social and political existence. This is
what is happening now.
Do note that the currently fashionable meme of 'equal footing' in
public policy functions does not ever circumscribe the areas where
big business can thus exercise formal political power, and where it
cannot. The multistakeholder policy making models, for instance the
one offered by Jeremy, applies to all areas of Internet policies at
the global level. Soon, it will be areas of policy in any sector at
the global level. Such efforts are of course already afoot. And then
gradually this models is brought to the national levels.
I remain worried how few here see and fear the headlong plunge into a
neoliberal post-democratic system that we may be taking, and in fact
contributing so strongly to...
parminder
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Membership of <a href="http://CGI.br">CGI.br</a> is of course not informal - it is quite formal,
but it is multi-stakeholder.
Government has more positions which is something I have heard some
Brazilian civil society express concern about. But it does mean that
different parts of government is represented which his important.
Business is represented through industry bodies, and so on.
It is an example of how governance processes can change, and how
public policy making can be more inclusive and multi-stakeholder and
go beyond the traditional 'government proposes policy - with or
without public consulation, follwed by legislature reviewing and
approving/rejecting'.
From a CS perspective I think we need to lobby for traditional
models to be more inclusive, for public consultation to be
introduced where it does not exist, and to be improved where it
does. But we should also propose and promote new models where
policy-making is actually done in an inclusive MS space.
Anriette
On 06/03/2014 14:02, parminder wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Joy
You clarify the difference between two positions very well..
So, I understand that, those who want to support the civil society
statement put on BestBits platform for endorsements hold that
non-gov participants(which includes business)should be on the same
footing as gov participants in terms of actually /*making public
*//*policies*//*.
*/Fine. There is no room for confusion now.
I think this is a anti-democratic statement. And oppose it as ever.
Meanwhile, look forward to see actual models of such policy
making, which arent there in the mentioned statement, or its
accompanying statements.
parminder
PS: I did not think it is BestBits statement, as Joy puts it. And
Joy - or is it someone else from APC - is on the steering committee
on BB... I hope such mis-statements are avoided, and when pointed
out withdrawn. Thanks.
/*
*/
On Thursday 06 March 2014 03:25 PM, joy wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">As Anriette has already noted - in relation to the APC Charter the
full quote in Theme 6.1 is:
Internet governance should be multilateral and democratic, with
the full involvement of governments, the private sector, civil
society and international organisations. No single government
should have a pre-eminent role in relation to international
internet governance.
This does not mean that APC thinks that multi-stakeholder
processes are not democratic or desirable. Quite the contrary and
APC has been on record in many spaces to support multi-stakeholder
processes: these are simply one form of democratic participation.
To be fair, the Best Bits submisson cites a range of other
documents and says, taken together, certain principles relevant to
internet governance can be deduced and should be taken forward
into NetMundial, including human rights.
I am happy to support the Best Bits submission: i think its 2
recommendations are simple, concise and helpful.
It seems the logic of the objections being raised to endorsing the
Best Bits submission is along the lines that on the one hand:
a) governments alone make public policy including some which is
relevant to internet governance
b) governments should be on an equal footing with each other when
doing so; and
c) it follows that non-governmental stakeholders cannot and
therefore should not be on an equal footing with governments this
role (though they can of course be involved/consulted) .
Whereas, the Best Bits submission is premised along the lines that
a) governments and multi-stakeholder processes make public policy
which is relevant to internet governance
b) therefore all stakeholders should be on an equitable footing or
parity with each other when doing so;
Again, I see no reason not to support the Best Bits submission
which simply proposes that whatever internet governance principles
NetMundial is considering, equitable multi-stakholder
participation and human rights (among others) are relevant to them.
Joy
Joy
On 6/03/2014 9:14 p.m., Anriette Esterhuysen wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Dear all
Just a clarification here on the APC Internet Rights Charter and
the use of 'multilateral'.
The full text in Theme 6.1 is:
"Internet governance should be multilateral and democratic, with
the full involvement of governments, the private sector, civil
society and international organisations. No single government
should have a pre-eminent role in relation to international
internet governance."
When we drafted this text we used 'multilateral' in its
dictionary sense as meaning the involvement of multiple parties
and multiple countries. We did not mean it in the 'intergovernmental' sense.
In fact.. the text that follows multilateral and democratic
defines how we understood the term: "with the full involvement of
governments, the private sector, civil society and international
organisations. No single government should have a pre-eminent
role in relation to international internet governance."
Since then (remember we first drafted the charter in 2001) the
term multilateral has become loaded and is often underestood as
meaning "among governments". It was not our intention to suggest
that. But we certainly did mean that governments should be
involved, and that no one government should dominate - but in the
context of the involvement of other stakeholders too.
Best
Anriette
On 05/03/2014 14:29, parminder wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">On Wednesday 05 March 2014 05:19 PM, parminder wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">On Wednesday 05 March 2014 05:09 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">On 5 Mar 2014, at 7:21 pm, parminder
<<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net">parminder@itforchange.net</a> <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net"><mailto:parminder@itforchange.net></a>> wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">And of course, the proposed view to be submitted on 1Net's
behalf has this all important principle, "Decisions made with
respect to Internet governance should only be made by bodies
that allow free and equitable access to all stakeholders at
all points in the decision-making process." Well of course.
Two hoots to democracy!
Now I shall come to the point, of my comments on the proposed
submission to NetMundial submitted by Jeremy.
I of course support and commend both APC Principles and IRP
Principles - which seem the main burden of the submission....
BUT...
/*
*//*Can someone explain me the meaning of "equitable
multistakeholder participation"*/and whether it is different
from what is meant in the above statement from 1Net's survey.
If so, how.... More precisely, are you seeking that all
stakeholders, including business reps, have equal part and
role (as gov reps) in making decisions about public policies.
Please address this point specifically.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">Yes, you picked up on a key point. There was a discussion of
this on the pad where the text was workshopped, which you can
read for yourself: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://pad.riseup.net/p/IG_principles">https://pad.riseup.net/p/IG_principles</a>. At
various times it was "parity" and "power sharing" before it
became "equitable participation", which is somewhat flexible,
to accommodate the different viewpoints that we all have about
how equal the stakeholder roles should be.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
I dont greatly like flexibility between democracy and
non-democracy.
So, request a clear response - do you mean /*parity*/ in
/*decision making*/ about /*public policies */between gov and
non gov actors....
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
It is important to note that the two main Principles docs that
this CS contribution refers to speak of democracy but not
multistakeholder governance, much less 'equitable MSism'..
In fact the APC Principles doc speaks of "The right to
multilateral democratic oversight of the Internet. Internet
governanceshould be multilateral and democratic. "
Obviously, what is the main, unique, and new element in this
present submission - equitable multistakeholder participation -
does not come from the 2 key docs which are claimed to be the
principle inspirations.
Ok, lets next check the 3 other principles docs that are also
quoted as somewhat secondary inspirations - <a href="http://CGI.Br">CGI.Br</a> Principles,
CoE principles, and G 8 principles....
In these principles docs, while all f them orepeatedly and
emphatically speak of democracy, the MS (multistakeholder) term
either does not figure (<a href="http://CGI.Br">CGI.Br</a> doc) or comes in a much much
subsidiary fashion wrt to democracy (the other two docs)
Now, lets see what does your contribution - developed by civil
society actors in IG space - come up with .....
There is not a single mention of 'democracy' or 'democratic' in
this doc.... Even when you guys came up with "key governance
characteristics" you could think only of " openness,
transparency, inclusivity, accountability, and /*equitable
multistakeholder participation */" (emphasis added)
In all your f2f meetings, and long online deliberations, did the
word 'democracy' not occur to any one at all... Or did it occur
to someone and was contributed but did not find favour in the
group.... Dont know which is worse. But both are bad enough for
me to stay away from this doc.
And I appeal also to others who really believe in democracy not
to get caught in this trap that is laid for them.... This is the
thin end of the wedge, which will soon usher you into a brave
new post democratic world, that one which the neo liberals dream
of.... It is a pity that a good part of civil society has agreed
to be the Trojan Horse for the powerful warriors of the neolib
order.
See, how the term democracy is rejected, and phrases like
equitable multistakeholder participation (further explained in
the emerging contribution from 1 Net - principle 11 in the
survey) are getting introduced as basis of our governance. And
see how exactly it matches what some of us predicted is the
prime objective at present of the US supported status quoists to
get into the text of the outcomes from NetMundial...... All of piece.
parminder
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">And this is not a petty point... Half of the time of the WGEC
got taken on this kind of discussion. This is the single most
important point today, if we can clarify nd possibly agree on
this point - rest is not too difficult... Lets accept what is
the key point, and not skirt it...
BTW, the German government has the following to say in its
submission to NetMundial
"Democratically elected governments, as the representative of
the people, possess public authority including internet-related
public policy issues and are supposed to be the main source for
legitimacy and democratic legitimation. Hence they have to
respect and protect human rights, ensure that the rule of law
is respected and that relevant national legislation complies
with their obligations under international law. Moreover, they
need to ensure that the appropriate basic conditions both in
terms of cyber-security and technical provisions are in place.
Civil society serves, and should continue to do so, as a
facilitator and notably as a source of empowerment and
credibility, especially at community level. The private sector
and particularly the technical community significantly
influence and encourage the development, distribution and
accessibility of the internet, and should continue to do so. In
order to fully live up to the potentials for economic growth,
innovation, freedom of expression, access to information and
ideas and democratic participation in a knowledge society, all
stakeholders involved need to work together."
Do you for instance agree to the above formulation, or NOT...
parminder
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">--
Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com Internet lawyer, ICT
policy advocate, geek host -t NAPTR
5.9.8.5.2.8.2.2.1.0.6.e164.org <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://e164.org/"><http://e164.org></a>|awk -F!
'{print $3}'
WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly
recommended to enable encryption at your end. For
instructions, see <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://jere.my/l/pgp">http://jere.my/l/pgp</a>.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""></pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""></pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">--
------------------------------------------------------
anriette <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:esterhuysenanriette@apc.org">esterhuysenanriette@apc.org</a> executive director,
association for progressive communications <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.apc.org/">www.apc.org</a> po box
29755, melville 2109 south africa tel/fax +27 11 726 1692
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""></pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""></pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">--
------------------------------------------------------
anriette <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:esterhuysenanriette@apc.org">esterhuysenanriette@apc.org</a> executive director, association
for progressive communications <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.apc.org/">www.apc.org</a> po box 29755, melville
2109 south africa tel/fax +27 11 726 1692
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""></pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""></pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a>
To be removed from the list, visit:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing">http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing</a>
For all other list information and functions, see:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance">http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance</a>
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.igcaucus.org/">http://www.igcaucus.org/</a>
Translate this email: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a>
To be removed from the list, visit:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing">http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing</a>
For all other list information and functions, see:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance">http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance</a>
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.igcaucus.org/">http://www.igcaucus.org/</a>
Translate this email: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
____________________________________________________________<br>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br> <a href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a><br>To be removed from the list, visit:<br> <a href="http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing">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">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/">http://www.igcaucus.org/</a><br><br>Translate this email: <a href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a><br></blockquote></div><br></div></body></html>