<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On Friday 27 February 2015 06:10 PM,
Anriette Esterhuysen wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:54F065A4.3040005@apc.org" type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Dear Parminder
Just a quick response (still too long, sorry) due to lack of time.</pre>
</blockquote>
Anriette<br>
<br>
I do not wish to unduly tax your indulgence and patience, and so in
this email I will raise just one issue, which, in my view, is also
the central one here. You say, and so have many others, that there
is no generalised equal footing MS model, and the respective roles
of different stakeholders will depend "on the decision that is being
made". I have often insisted that I am only talking about one
particular kind of decision - *<i><b>'decisions' regarding public
policies</b></i>*, and I keep asking what is the respective
roles of governments and business in deciding public policies. And I
ask again. <br>
<br>
I am not bothered here about any other kind of decision, nor about a
great variety of very important pre decision processes (although
they can also be rigged, especially any kind of veto over agenda
setting as provided in the submission made by many groups to the Net
Mundial process, to which I think APC too signed.) There is no doubt
that all stakeholders in these pre decision processes for public
policies have various kinds of roles. <br>
<br>
If we are now to get into wondering what is public policy, and who
defines what it is, we are getting into well established concepts of
political science (which unlike governments may still not be so
sullied). However, I am ready to discuss it - if that is what needs
to be discussed. <br>
<br>
In order to not leave it vague, let us consider two specific,
although, hypothetical instances. There is a UN adopted model law on
e-commerce, which forms the basis of many an early statutes on IT in
many countries (including India). Now, lets say, just
hypothetically, that it is found useful to have a global model law
on maintaining net neutrality. If there can be a global model law on
ecom, no fundamental reason why there cannot be one on NN - at least
theoretically. My question then is, what do you think should be the
role of governments and private sector respectively in 'finally'
deciding on such a model law?<br>
<br>
Or, we can talk about normative documents. Say, for instance, it was
found useful to write a global normative document on the 'role on
data in the society', which would enable countries to begin
understanding this new terrain in normative terms and can help the
necessary legislative and regulatory work. (There are innumerable
such important documents, like on health, education, etc written
regularly at UN bodies.) In order to make it more concrete, let us
say, UNESCO was asked to do it. Who do think should make and decide
on the final document - governments, or governments and corporates
on an equal footing?<br>
<br>
This simply is <i>*the</i> question*.<br>
<br>
If we can agree on this one issue (and possibly codify the agreement
and begin to advocate it together), I think we would have agreed on
almost everything.<br>
<br>
Thanks, and sorry for writing again, but for me, and many of us,
this above is the only 'real area of difference' in many of the
discussions that take place here, and it will be good to get
specific, and if possible to hammer this difference out. That will
be a great gain for all of us.<br>
<br>
parminder <br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:54F065A4.3040005@apc.org" type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
On 27/02/2015 12:14, parminder wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Dear Anriette
Sorry, I had failed to see 'public good' part in APC's submission to NM,
and do fully remember our earlier collaborations/ discussions on this
subject, not only in the instance you quote but also when Pablo wrote
that paper on Internet as a public good. We may however need to flesh
out the governance mechanisms implication of such a thinking, in which
regard I dont see much being done in the civil society space. (I will
come later to your reference to 'public good nature of the Internet' and
the Aarhus Convention.) The recent FCC decisions both on regulating the
Internet as a kind of public utility (the Net Neutrality decision) and
that to prempt states from making laws prohibiting local governments
from owning broadband networks takes us in the direction of what in my
view are the governance implications of an "internet as a public good'
kind of thinking.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">Agree.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">First we must just get past the endless wranglings of economists about
their idea of 'public good' as being non-rivalrous and non-exclude-able,
and having externalities and so on, whereby it becomes difficult for
private actors to develop business models around them, which fact
creates market failures. Internet and its services are often or even
mostly rivalrous and exclude-able. Digital technologies have in fact
even rendered such goods excludable which were earlier considered
non-excludable, for instance broadcast signals. And lets not even talk
about externalities - for instance, I dont think good health services is
a public good because of issues of externalities etc - that is mostly
humbug, whereby perhaps it may be considered that treating infectious
diseases (that have externalities) is a public responsibility but not so
much non-infectious ones. Isnt it ridiculous1 As for business models,
never in the history have companies become so rich so fast as global
Internet companies. So the economic concept of public goods is not
working here, and therefore lets get over it.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">I think it actually does work in many senses. But I agree we should not
let technical objections stop us, I just think it is worth having strong
conceptual arguments that can be used to address them.
I put this in a footnote of the chapter I wrote on the post-NETmundial
book (Beyond NETmundial) that Bill Drake compiled and edited for Annenberg:
"While the internet does not meet conventional criteria for being a
global public good, this does not prevent public policy and regulation
from approaching the internet as an entity that has many of the
qualities of a public good. It is worth noting that it is mostly the
lack of effective public policy and regulation that prevents the
internet from conforming to traditional definitions of a public good,
such as being ubiquitous and universally available."
Book available here:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.global.asc.upenn.edu/publications/beyond-netmundial-the-roadmap-for-institutional-improvements-to-the-global-internet-governance-ecosystem/">http://www.global.asc.upenn.edu/publications/beyond-netmundial-the-roadmap-for-institutional-improvements-to-the-global-internet-governance-ecosystem/</a>
If you have time I would appreciate you reading my chapter as I make
some effort there to outline what APC's critique of multistakeholder
mechanisms are, but also why we believe that internet governance does
need this approach.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">I would take 'Internet as public good' to simply mean that it is
socially and politically determined as too important a service to be
left to market forces alone, and public authorities must ensure that
appropriate 'quality' and quantity of Internet and Internet services are
made available to all, in some kind of equitable manner. This can be
done either by public authorities directly providing these services, or
ensuring through regulation that they get appropriately provided, even
if actual providers are private players. Either we take this
socio-political meaning of public good, or just dump this term in
relation to Internet and its governance. So, I take it that when you and
APC remain enthusiastic about Internet as a public good' idea, we are
talking about this latter socio-political meaning of the term.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">I am not sure I would limit it to a 'social-political- meaning. I think
that precisely because the internet is platform for business, economic
development, social interaction, political exchange, etc. etc. that it
should be understood us and governed as a public good/common resource.
But yes, I essentially agree and have never argued that it should be
left to market forces alone. Not many people in CS have - to my
knowledge - advocated for a completely unregulated internet.
Just to take one example - protecting human rights on the internet. That
requires regulation and the efforts of the many CS organisations working
in this area has been to achieve this.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Now, if we agree on the 'Internet as a public good' in this sense, the
next issue is to explore the implications of it for governance
mechanisms for the Internet (without such exploration and following
through with it, Internet as public good' remains a mere slogan, of
little real use). To me, this takes us directly to the issue of
regulation, and the default or backstopper responsibility of public
authorities on matters Internet. But here the equal footing
multistakeholder (MS) model where private sector seeks equal role with
governments in public policy making becomes a key problem - and the
equation simply does not square.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">I have never personally advocated for a generalised equal footing
approach. Roles and responsibilities of stakeholders and of governments
with or vs. other stakeholders will vary depending on the decision that
is being made. There is good text on this in the NETmundial statement.
In practice that is what an effective public policy framework should
facilitate. I also don't get that having multistakeholder approaches to
internet governance are mutually exclusive with public authorities
having distinct roles on regulating certain aspects of corporate
behaviour. What I would caution against is having internet governance in
its entirely, and all aspects of the multiplicity of
processes/behaviours and uses of the internet under the direct authority
of governments.
It really depends on the issues under discussion/being decided.
The recent FCC decision on NN is a good
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">case in point, It was not a multistakholder decision, it was a decision
based on an intense public consultation and a committed political stand
of the Democratic Party, I think, chiefly of the incumbent US President
(God bless his soul!). Thinking about it, the earlier decision of FCC,
2-3 years back, which both exempted wireless from NN rules and did the
limp thing of keeping Internet in title 1 was more a 'multistakeholder'
thing. At that time, the FCC actually more or less rubber stamped an
agreement reached between Verizon and Google - as the two key
stakeholders seen on two sides of the NN debate. It was a very bad set
of NN rules. While the NetMundial document, in the MSist manner, will
want us to make public policies based on consensus among stakeholders,
the current FCC decision is not based on consensus - - even the FCC
commissioners are divided 3-2, while of course the telcos and the
republicans are dead against it.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">Yes, a good example of where public interest regulation is needed and
can set needed bottom lines. I do fear however that this decision could
give unfair advantage to certain sectors of the ICT industry, but that
is another matter, and one that regulators should be alert to.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">When one sheds democratic public systems thinking in favour of an
equal-footing MS one, one has shed all ideals like public goods with
that. Public goods thinking is based on political equality and basic
social and economic rights of all people - and democratic public policy
development is basic to it.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">I guess here is where we think differently. In my view current
democratic systems leave a lot to be desired, and I don't think they are
doing that well in achieving political equality - neither between
countries nor within countries.
For me (and I think I can speak her for others in APC too) the entire
effort in exploring new approaches to internet governance has been in
response to the failures of existing global governance systems, and of
governance at national level in most parts of the world.
We are not abandoning existing democratic public systems thinking - we
are trying to make them more democratic, more inclusive, and to find
ways of ensuring accountability for the public interest that responds to
current contexts.
This will have to take many forms - from grassroots democracy to
multistakeholder processes to more open and accountable government...
and more.
Now about the opening statement of the
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">NetMundial document, that we are talking about, it is as follows:
"NETmundial identified a set of common principles and important
values that contribute for an inclusive, multistakeholder,
effective, legitimate, and evolving Internet governance framework
and recognized that the Internet is a global resource which should
be managed in the public interest."
You want us to be happy about the mention of 'Internet.. should be
managed in public interest', I rue that 'democratic' is so sorely
missing here, in the description of the evolving Internet governance
framework (lets not blame the contributions, some of us made
contributions almost exclusively stressing the 'democratic' part).
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">Democratic does does appear in the document as a qualifier for
multistakeholder - but I understand if you wanted more. "Internet
governance should be built on democratic, multistakeholder processes,
ensuring the meaningful and accountable participation of all
stakeholders, including governments, the private sector, civil society,
the technical community, the academic community and users."
Why I am 'happy' about the notion of public interest being there is
because this is a document to which business, governments and CS and
tech community agreed to. If it was in a document signed onto by
government representatives I would not be surprised to see it there, but
I would wonder to what extent they really care about it and how we can
hold them accountable for it.
The strengths and limitations of having this term in 'multistakeholder'
set of principles are different - but it still creates common ground.
To
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">that extent the weak mention of 'to be managed in public interest' is
rather a lame effort at still garnering some legitimacy after the
glaring, and I would say deliberate, omission of the term 'democratic'
in this opening framing of IG principles section (in view of numerous
submissions stressing the 'democratic' point, see for instance here
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" 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"><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></a>
and here
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://justnetcoalition.org/it-change-jnc-intervention-netmundial"><http://justnetcoalition.org/it-change-jnc-intervention-netmundial></a>) . I
find it extremely problematic, and find no cause for celebration about
this opening text of the NM document.
In fact the original document prepared by the NM committee that was
circulated for comments contained not a single reference to the term
'democratic'. In contrast, the word stakeholder is mentioned 21 times
and multistakeholder 13 times. Perhaps you as the co-chair of the
drafting group can help us understand how and why did the contributions
stressing terms like 'democratic' were never able to find their way into
the text.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">As I was not at all involved in the NETmundial process and the drafing
of earlier version of the statement until the actual event I cannot say
much. I can share that there was general dissatisfaction with the
earlier drafts, and that as a result we (the final drafting team) tried
very hard to address those concerns.
I know one has to make compromises in drafting such texts, but
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">this does not look like a compromise, it is a complete rout. In the
final document, however, 'democratic' comes twice, first in the opening
sentence of the part on IG process principles as 'democratic
multistakeholder processes' and I have a feeling that the Indian gov rep
somehow got it inserted there in the last discussions.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">Actually, it was not placed there by a government rep.
The second
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">mention is when describing stakeholder selection processes within
stakeholder communities, and therefore is mentioned in a different
sense. In comparison the final document has 27 mentions of 'stakeholder'
and 16 of 'multistakeholder'. Do you see something here? If indeed we
are into analysing the good and bad of the NM text.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">I am not really concerned with the good and bad of the text. APC wrote a
statement on that, and I elaborate a bit more on the value of the event
in the abovementioned chapter.
I am concerned with how to move on. As you say there texts are always
compromises - e.g. we are currently working on a piece of national
legislation here in SA - it is always a case of submitting input,
winning some and losing some, and submitting again, etc.. It is not a
multistakeholder process, but I can assure you that business is
influencing it. I guess that here is also where we disagree. You believe
that government led processes are by definition better able to counter
special interests. I don't. My experience is that they manage to
influence these processes very effectively and the interests that
usually lose out are civil society and community interests.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">So lets make no mistake what the NetMundial document is about, and we
need to read its opening line, which we have been discussing, within
that context. No, it does not advances public interest, and certainly
not a public goods conception of the Internet. In fact it takes us to
privatising Internet governance itself, where governance itself does not
remain a public good, but becomes a club good with limited and exclusive
participation of some elevated people and groups close to the power
structures, who are euphemistically called as stakeholders. NetMundial
document serves the original design of the US government to thrust the
ICANN model of private governance on the larger Internet governance
space, and it achieves it with remarkable success. The purpose of the
Net Mundial document is correspondingly to supersede WSIS documents
(although the presence of some progressive governments like Brazil and
India shows some mark on the document, even as the general
progressiveness of Brazilian government was largely drowned under
CGI.Br's love for ICANN and its governance model.)
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">Civil society left a huge mark on the document. India did not, at least
not in the process I was involved in, intervene. I think possibly
because they had already decided not to support the statement. Brazil
definitely intervened.. and probably other governments were talking to
Brazil and using them to channel concerns.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">It is therefore little surprise that Net Mundial has become the Bible of
status quo ists, and WSIS documents including Tunis agenda by that
expedient consigned to history. Little surprise also that the Net
Mundial document and the connected exercise takes us towards the elitist
Net Mundial Initiative (NMI) as the new global IG framework. No further
surprise that the chief cast of the NMI, Fadi Chehadi, openly says that
if we do not set up an NMI kind of governance structure, the WSIS 10
processes may throw other kinds of governance structures at us. All of
it is of one piece, and the connections cannot be missed by anyone
willing to give it all but one sustained thought. And it all started
with that famous visit of Fadi - on US's behest - to meet the Brazilian
President. How quickly can history move under the command of the powerful,
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
I don't disagree with all of this :) But I have less faith in what the
Tunis Agenda definitions give us.. or should I say, what it will give us
as long as it is in the hands of the governments who are most adamant
about strengthening governmental oversight over all aspects of the internet.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Apologies for the longish email, but these are my political outpourings
which I could not contain when I read you write that the term 'Internet
....to be managed in public interest' of NM document's opening part is
an important baseline that we must defend. Yes, the Netmundial document
is an important baseline, but for something entirely different - for a
new neoliberal conception of global IG. It has nothing to do with real
public interest. As for 'Internet as a public good' we may just
completely forget about such idealistic things; the NM document is a
push in the direction of allowing a complete free run for global
Internet corporations to fully commercialize the Internet, with no fear
of public or regulatory 'interference'. They are now at the table, equal
to anyone else, to simply veto any such proposal. Where does the public
good remain?
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">Public good, and public interest will be defined differently by
different actors. We will always have to fight for it. Governments are
doing a very bad job at this.
In the way that the CGI.br principles formed a basis for the Marco Civil
I believe that NETmundial principles, even if they are not exactly what
all of us wanted can form a basis for establishing principles for more
democratic and inclusive and rights-centre internet policy making by
governmental, intergovernmental, private and multistakeholder bodies.
Also apologising for length of my response. I think we have the same
goal in the end Parminder - but we have, at this time and in this space,
different strategies and tactics. Rather than seeing the MS approach as
a way of selling out completely to business, I see it as an approach
that can make both business and government more accountable for
protecting and promoting the public interest - and that can give civil
society more voice. But nothing can be taken for granted. Quoting from
the NETmundial chapter I did again:
"The multistakeholder approach is not an end in itself, it is a means to
achieve the end of inclusive democratic internet governance. This
implies that these processes need to be more than just
'multistakeholder': they need to strive actively to be democratic, and
consider stakeholders, and their roles and interests in a dynamic and
flexible manner.
Multistakeholderism is not a substitute for democracy. Mechanisms
intended to strengthen the multistakeholder approach need to start from
this premise, and explore the relationship between the two.
They also need to consider the six factors identified above, that the
internet is inherently 'multistakeholder' and a global public resource,
that divides in power and influence continue to characterize internet
development, use and governance, that internet users – and those who
don't have access yet – matter, that internet policy is not just about
the internet; and, global internet governance not just about global issues."
Anriette
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Regards
parminder
On Thursday 26 February 2015 11:03 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Dear all
As one of the co-chairs of the drafting group who drafted the NETmundial
principles I know exactly how the "public interest" and "global
reesource" text got there.
Good that you submitted it Michael - I don't recall seeing your
particular submission but it was actually in other submissions as well.
There were many - beforehand and during the event itself. We also
battled text choices out on site in the drafting group which had
representatives of all stakeholder groups on it. The secretariat - and
they deserve a lot of credit - tried their best to respect submissions.
Those of us in drafting group made sure that the public interest text
was in the opening of the statement. There are also other bits of good
text which is there because of the efforts of civil society people
present - and because there were good submissions from civil society -
including from IGC.
Parminder is correct that the text 'global resource' was compromise text.
Some people, including APC, wanted global public good (it is in our
NETmundial submission - I quote: "APC has participated actively in
[snip] driven by the conviction that the internet is a global public
good and a vital enabler of social justice, development, peace,
environmental sustainability, gender equality and human rights."
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://content.netmundial.br/contribution/association-for-progressive-communications-apc-contributions-to-the-netmundial-global-multistakeholder-meeting-on-the-future-of-internet-governance/274">http://content.netmundial.br/contribution/association-for-progressive-communications-apc-contributions-to-the-netmundial-global-multistakeholder-meeting-on-the-future-of-internet-governance/274</a>
In that context though global public good was not text that anyone else
fought for, and after some options we opted for global resource
particularly as President Roussef and Neelie Kroes had used that that
term.
Also, there was a trade off as there often is in such drafting
processes, and I felt that 'managed in the public interest' was
significant.
Yes, it is vague, but it is important. As a principle it means it has to
be discussed and decisions and decision-makers have to demonstrate how
they are serving the public good.
As Norbert very importantly and correctly points out, one can absolutely
not assume that all regulation and governance that is 'public' is in the
public interest.
APC has never stopped wanting the internet to be approached, understood
and governed as a global public good. We still use this language - as we
did last year in our NETmundial submission and in various other
documents.
What we have had to acknowledge is that for many people (including
socialist economists) the concept of global public good does not apply
to the internet for fairly technical reasons used by economists when
defining public goods.
Our current 2013-16 strategy has exploring how the internet can be
understood as public good-like entity as a priority. You might remember
that about 5 years ago we asked IT for Change to write an issue paper on
the internet as a global public good but you were too busy at the time.
We have definitely not abandoned this concept. But we want to find ways
of approaching it and explaining it that make sense to lawyers
economists, activists, governments and users.
I personally believe very strongly that because the internet is a global
public good its governance cannot just be left to governments - but that
is a different discussion. That is why we explored the Aarhus Convention
because we felt that mechanisms used for transparent public interest
governance of natural resources can provide useful models for internet
governance.
There is good text in the WSIS documents and many of us have drawn on
that good text. There is also some not so good text. This is true for
the NETmundial statement as well.
We should never retreat from good text. But we should also get some good
principles and agreements adopted formally as principles for internet
governance so that we can hold governments AND other actors accountable
for applying them.
Anriette
On 26/02/2015 14:04, parminder wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">On Thursday 26 February 2015 03:02 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Michael, many in CS have worked very hard for recognition that the
internet should be governed in the public interest. For many years.
Getting that text into the NETmundial statement took work, but we
got it
there and that is why I think it is short-sighted to dismiss that text.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">Anriette, in my humble view this text about 'Internet being a global
resource that has to be managed in public interest' got in there because
people were haggling over terms like Internet as a pulbic good, or a
commons (which were indeed the politically meaningful terms) , which was
obviously resisted by the usual suspects, and moving the words like
resource and public around, the involved people reached this somewhat
meaningless phrase. I may be wrong, in which case I am open to be
corrected.
In fact 'governing something in public interest' is a bit of oxymoron,
because once a subject is recognised for public governance, as Internet
was by WSIS, it is but obvious that it will be governed in public
interest (what else ?).
Further, I am not aware of, as you say, the long struggles either of
general civil society or APC for a recognition that the Internet should
be governed in public interest - simply because it is kind of obvious .
Yes, APC was at one time very active to push the Internet as public good
agenda, although I have not heard of it in the last many years. We
should not confuse 'public good' and 'governance in public interest' ,
not that I am saying that you are confusing the two - just clarifying.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">It is a very important baseline from which we should never retreat and
on which we can build.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">For the above reason, I do not think of it at all as an important
baseline. Much much more progressive language is written in WSIS docs,
starting with Geneva Declaration of Principles. especially rights based
language, and issues like access to knowledge... These concrete
principles was much more meaningful rather than just professing a vague
'public interest'.
But of course just my view...
parminder
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap=""><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://netmundial.br/netmundial-multistakeholder-statement/">http://netmundial.br/netmundial-multistakeholder-statement/</a>
"NETmundial identified a set of common principles and important values
that contribute for an inclusive, multistakeholder, effective,
legitimate, and evolving Internet governance framework and recognized
that the Internet is a global resource which should be managed in the
public interest."
Anriette
On 26/02/2015 04:12, Michael Gurstein wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Contrary to the position of so much of CS in IG, Mr. Obama appears to
be set on developing a regulatory framework for the US that ensures
that the Internet will operate in the public interest.
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/25/technology/path-clears-for-net-neutrality-ahead-of-fcc-vote.html"><http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/25/technology/path-clears-for-net-neutrality-ahead-of-fcc-vote.html></a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/25/technology/path-clears-for-net-neutrality-ahead-of-fcc-vote.html">http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/25/technology/path-clears-for-net-neutrality-ahead-of-fcc-vote.html</a>
M
____________________________________________________________
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>
</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>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<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>
<br>
</body>
</html>