<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
On Monday 07 September 2015 09:21 PM, Ang Peng Hwa (Prof) wrote:<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:D213B395.504C0%25tphang@ntu.edu.sg"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=windows-1252">
<div>
<div>Hi Parminder.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I wanted to understand the picture better before writing a
response. As I have gone and returned from the Consultation at
Pattaya, I feel more able to respond.</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Dear Peng Hwa,<br>
<br>
I read your email several times, because you call it a response to
my email, but I still could not see the response. As you will see
from the trailing emails, I deliberately sent two different emails
raising two sets of issues - one set more important, primary, and
substantively clear and precise, and the other kind of subsidiary,
although also quite important. I requested that the first set be
addressed separately so that there is no loss of focus from the
primary set of the most important and, to repeat, precise and clear
issues of transparency and accountability. I repeat them;<br>
<br>
<span id="OLK_SRC_BODY_SECTION">(1) who is funding this
'consultation'<br>
<br>
(2) on what criteria participants were determined, and invitations
sent, and by whom - were all concerned people invited (that, in my
view, would be a consultation)<br>
<br>
(3) On what criteria funding for participation was provided, and
by whom, and who decided it..</span><br>
<br>
(Let me also stress the issue of it being a 'consultation' and an
'Asia Pacific consultation' at that which greatly increases the
salience of the above points.)<br>
<br>
The only response I can understand to this request is either to
agree that these questions of transparency and accountability are
important, and add your voice to them, or disagree and hold them to
be not important or necessary. I really am not able to see from your
email which of the two possible responses are you indicating. I will
request you to clarify this . Thanks. <br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:D213B395.504C0%25tphang@ntu.edu.sg"
type="cite">
<div>
<div> Fwiw, the outcome document is available at <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://wsis10.asia/index.php/outcomes">http://wsis10.asia/index.php/outcomes</a>.</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Yes, I saw it. Notably, it says " Accountability and transparency
must also be applied to other stakeholder groups, including but not
limited to the private sector..." and "Transparent and accountable
procedural rules that empower marginalised voices and those who lack
technical expertise need to be developed."<br>
<br>
!!??<br>
<br>
I want to be very respectful to those who evolved this document, but
seriously, I am fully confounded.... Can one get away by saying and
claiming anything, while publicly acting in quite the opposite
manner (this is with regard to the organisers), that too in the
civil society space that is supposed to be the morality holder of
the society. Maybe you have some comments on this.<br>
<br>
Best regards<br>
parminder<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:D213B395.504C0%25tphang@ntu.edu.sg"
type="cite">
<div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>
<div>Your questions remind me of a similar set of criteria you
asked of me re the APrIGF when we held the meeting first in
HK and then Singapore. So it’s with that sense of deja vu
that I’m writing this email.</div>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I will not go into the details of your questions. (One long
reply can only beget another.) Instead, I will focus on what I
consider to be the larger issues.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>
<div>1. I think that such bottom-up initiatives should be
encouraged.</div>
</div>
<div>It is a lot of work to get going a meeting that attempts to
represent AP views. In this consultation, there were forces
working against it happening, because of fears that the group
might raise sensitive issues. (I hope it did.) You probably
mean well but some cheerleading with some gentle nudges
(instead of harrumphs) should the group stray would be more
encouraging to current and future initiatives.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>2. There is a tension between legitimacy and efficacy. </div>
<div>They are not in total contradiction because a
non-legitimate outcome will likely not be efficacious. But I
hope you can see how trying to cross all the “T"s and dotting
the “I"s may mean not moving forward in such situations. For
example Edmon and I were so enthused about getting the APrIGF
going so that there would be some form of feedback from
Asia-Pac to the IGF in 2010 that it took us two years for the
APrIGF MSG (a culturally appropriate term) to have me elected
as Chair. Before that, as Edmon was leading the event in HK,
he chaired the meetings that year; and when I did Singapore, I
chaired the meetings for that year. There was sufficient
buy-in from the AP organisations in our nascent stage that the
APrIGF was able to move forward. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>3. So how does one recognise legitimacy?</div>
<div>I don’t see one size fitting all. It is a mix of process
and outcome, of being open and inclusive and being transparent
in processes and outcomes. But also in achieving at least a
reasonable outcome. The ultimate test is acceptance by the
Internet community. In the present case, the acceptance of the
Pattaya key messages. (Google obviously has questions about
legitimacy; it asks, "Did you mean: pattaya massages?”)</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>4. In the interest of transparency, I declare that the
organisers paid for my budget airline ticket from Singapore to
Bangkok, the transfers to and from Bangkok airport and the
stay in Pattaya. The transfers in Singapore, the tips to the
drivers and tips to the staff who serviced my hotel room were
paid by me. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>
<div>Regards, </div>
<div>Peng Hwa</div>
</div>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<span id="OLK_SRC_BODY_SECTION">
<div style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt;
text-align:left; color:black; border-bottom:medium none;
border-left:medium none; padding-bottom:0in; padding-left:0in;
padding-right:0in; border-top:#b5c4df 1pt solid;
border-right:medium none; padding-top:3pt">
<span style="font-weight:bold">From: </span><<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org">governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org</a>>
on behalf of Parminder Singh <<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:parminder@ITforChange.net">parminder@ITforChange.net</a>><br>
<span style="font-weight:bold">Reply-To: </span>"<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a>"
<<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a>>,
Parminder Singh <<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:parminder@ITforChange.net">parminder@ITforChange.net</a>><br>
<span style="font-weight:bold">Date: </span>Wednesday, 2
September 2015 3:01 pm<br>
<span style="font-weight:bold">To: </span>"<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a>"
<<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a>>,
BestBitsList <<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:bestbits@lists.bestbits.net">bestbits@lists.bestbits.net</a>>,
Anja Kovacs <<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:anja@internetdemocracy.in">anja@internetdemocracy.in</a>><br>
<span style="font-weight:bold">Subject: </span>Re:
[governance] [bestbits] Taking place next week: Asian Regional
Consultation on the WSIS+10 Review - remote participation
available<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF"><font face="Verdana">Hi Anja<br>
<br>
There were two levels of issues that I had raised. First
(which I call as category 1) is simple, direct, objective
and fully-self contained, public interest information
about what is supposed to be a public interest activity. I
have covered this aspect in the email I sent just now.<br>
<br>
The second (category 2) is connected, but a slightly lower
level issue because it involves judgements, and judgements
about judgements, about who was invited, who was funded,
who was informed in time enough to consider participating,
and so on....( In fact, this part is also greatly helped
by a full declaration of the decision process, the group
involved in making the judgements, and so on, which basic
info is part of category 1 above.)<br>
<br>
I do not want to mix issues of category 1 and 2, so that
the clarity of category 1 issues, and the basic and
objective imperatives involved, may not get diluted. So
please provide me</font><font face="Verdana"> separately</font><font
face="Verdana"> the fully objective information </font><font
face="Verdana">under category 1 </font><font
face="Verdana">sought in my earlier email .<br>
<br>
Meanwhile, this email will deal with some admittedly
judgemental issues that are involved, which while being
not fully objective are still a worthy subject of public
debate. Please see inline....<br>
<br>
</font><br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On Tuesday 01 September 2015
11:52 PM, Anja Kovacs wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div>Hi Parminder,<br>
<br>
</div>
I have not discussed this with my co-organisers, but
as the person who first came up with this idea and
also the one to send the message to which you
responded, I am happy to provide some answers.
<br>
<br>
</div>
<div>Perhaps first a note on what we are trying to do
here. As we all know, the modalities explicitly made
the Review a government-led process. Also, details on
the way in which the informal consultations with other
stakeholders would be facilitated remained extremely
scanty even eight months before the review was
supposed to take place. Even when the Review process
was formally announced, it wasn't clear to what extent
inputs from stakeholders other than governments would
be taken into account. This meeting is an attempt to
be proactive in that situation, trying to amplify
voices from our region to make sure that concerns from
this region actually find resonance in New York -
something that, seeing how far removed we are from
there, isn't guaranteed at all.
<br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Sure... I note the term <i>'amplify voices</i>' and the
neutrality of the platform which is thus suggested.... Hope
you note it too, and your responses are informed with this
fact . (The
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.wsis10.asia/index.php">conference website</a>
carries this blurb "Amplifying Asian Voices in the WSIS + 10
Process" - which raises the important public interest
question about who determines and filters what are 'Asian
Voices')<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div><br>
</div>
<div>The organisations that are co-organising this
meeting are organisations that all got enthused by
this prospect, and were willing to put part of their
organisational budgets, of their staff's time and
minds, or of all of these up to make this event
happen.</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Who funded what - especially in terms of actual money....
Lets not generalise clear and objective issues and
questions. What you refuse to answer, you should just say
so.
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>No funding was secured specifically for this
meeting (though I tried). What this meant is that the
funding pool was limited, and difficult decisions
indeed did have to be made.</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Who made the decisions, what was the process... This being
after all an "Asia Regional Consultation" whereby the
outputs of it will also carry that label.
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>What we aimed for was to have a balanced
representation across Asia's sub-regions as well as a
group that could address a mix of issues from a range
of perspectives.
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
'Balanced representation'.... and 'mix of issues from a
range of perspectives' :) . You must be joking.... One cant
just write anything, just because it sounds good and is of a
general nature.... Can you show how is it balanced and
admits a range of perspective, about which more below...<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>A direct engagement with the WSIS+10 Review process
over the past two years was definitely seen as a plus,
but not a must.
<br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Sure. Then maybe engagement with WSIS for 12 years would be
a big plus plus plus ... but it did not seem to count here
among a 'range of perspectives' and 'balanced views'.....
You need to justify with facts all the good and general
things you are writing here if we are to have a meaningful
dialogue and not just confuse people.<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div><br>
As is bound to happen in such circumstances, there are
indeed people who would be able to offer valuable
inputs to the meeting but who we were not able to
offer funding.</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Just wanted to understand the 'process'.. Who was actually
making the decisions. <br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>Luckily, some of those are able to self-fund their
attendance.</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
But then they at least need to know about the event, which I
first heard about exactly 10 days before the meeting from
your email below -- this even when we were in conversation
over another issue, in fact a meeting my organisation is
organising in Delhi on the 5th of Sept to which we invited
you, but you said you cannot come, even at that stage not
revealing why you could not - which I now gather was bec
you had this Asia Consultation meeting on the 5th. Anja, the
meeting plans and dates were clearly kept under wraps till
the very last minute - so I do not understand this 'self
funding' business either.... Other than it being another
link in the long chain of general, good sounding,
statements, which are not very well founded on facts, and
thus do not contribute to a serious and useful discussion.
Maybe some people could have self funded (although I could
not have) if they knew about this meeting... But the
problem is that a so called 'Asia Regional Consultation' of
a UN process is being held even without sufficient notice to
people (all of 10 days)...<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>In addition, we tried to alleviate the restrictions
imposed by the limited funding by deciding to provide
remote participation, so as to allow all those
interested in participating to do so. The full
modalities of how this will work is something that we
are still working out: as this is intended to be a
working meeting, ensuring that remote participation is
substantive is not a given. We are doing our very best
to try and pull off successfully what I think is a
first in our region for a meeting of this kind.
<br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
I am not sure what you mean by first of this kind.... The
original WSIS process had publicly funded regional review
meetings, in both its phases...
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Your claim that nobody from the Just Net Coalition
has been invited is of course not correct. One
organisation was on our shortlist from day one.
Another is attending on its own force, and we are very
happy that they, as well as others, have been able to
draw on their own resources to attend this event and
contribute to its success.
<br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
But perhaps you could have put the info on the Just Net
Coalition elist, so that all would know, also also engaged
with other JNC members especially those who were most active
in WSIS + 10 engagement including developing JNC's statement
towards it. That reminds me - the resource page of your
proposed 'Consultation', which carry a number of
contributions to the WSIS + 10 process of NGOs and even of
non-NGOs, chose to specifically censor the contribution of
Just Net Coalition. This says a lot to your commitment to
'balanced views' and 'range of perspectives'. <br>
<br>
(Well, very interestingly, I now see that JNC's contribution
has been added now after I wrote the email yesterday, but
<i>it wasnt there till yesterday</i>, and I did take the
enclosed print out which shows that it wasnt . Anja, another
specific question, is it not true that the JNC contribution
was not there on your list of contributions page till
yesterday? )<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div><br>
</div>
<div>On APRCEM, thanks for the heads-up. I am glad to
hear that they are now intending to work on issues
related to science and technology as well,</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
They have worked in this area for quite some time..<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>and that they are even engaging with the Internet
Social Forum initiative on this. Though I am on an
email list that is dedicated to discussing the
Internet Social Forum, I don't seem to be able to
locate that information there. Do please feel free to
pass on the message about this event to them though.
If any representative of APRCEM would be interested in
attending, either in person or remotely, they are very
welcome to do so, as are you.<br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Dont you think this is very late for meeting in 3 days! But
again, the real issues here are structural ones around civil
society processes and transparency/ accountability, and not
about individuals...
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Hope this clarifies.<br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
My apologies, but it doesnt. <br>
<br>
Best, parminder <br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Regards,<br>
</div>
<div>Anja<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<br>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On 31 August 2015 at 18:47,
parminder <span dir="ltr"><<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net"
target="_blank">parminder@itforchange.net</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex; border-left:1px #ccc solid;
padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF">Dear organisers of the <b>Asian
Regional Consultation on the WIS+10 Review,<br>
<br>
</b>With your permission I have some questions
to ask you. I know this is a treacherous
territory, given an extra ordinary (and
completely inappropriate) sensitivity to being
asked questions by some groups, but my
apologies, I cannot but ask them in pursuance of
my public interest work, however distasteful it
may be even for me to get into this thing....<br>
<br>
This is being called a 'consultation' and
further an 'Asian Regional' consultation, on
what is a global governance process, and so some
questions arise in my mind:<br>
<br>
(1) who is funding this 'consultation'<br>
<br>
(2) on what criteria participants were
determined, and invitations sent, and by whom -
were all concerned people invited (that, in my
view, would be a consultation)<br>
<br>
(3) On what criteria funding for participation
was provided, and by whom, and who decided it..<br>
<br>
Thanks for answering these public interest
questions...<br>
<br>
I may declare that my interest got evoked from
the knowledge that no member of the Just Net
Coalition has been invited... IT for Change is
among very few groups in Asia Pacific which has
been engaged with the WSIS process from the
start, and very thoroughly engaged. Further,
there is in fact an <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.asiapacificrcem.org/"
target="_blank">
Asia Pacific Regional CSO Engagement Mechanism</a>,
which describes itself as<br>
<br>
<blockquote>"APRCEM is a civil society platform
aimed to enable stronger
cross constituency coordination and ensure
that voices of all sub-regions of Asia Pacific
are heard in intergovernmental processes in
regional and global level. The platform is
initiated, owned and driven by the CSOs, and
has been set up under the auspices of UN-ESCAP
and seeks to engage with UN agencies and
Member States on the Post-2015 as well as
other development related issues/processes. "<br>
</blockquote>
In fact the APRCEM also has an Science and
Technology Constituency which works as an active
network (of which IT for Change is a member)
which has begun to work closely with the Just
Net Coalition (many JNC members also being its
members) and the Internet Social Forum
initiatives, which shows its interest in
Internet issues... As far as I know no member of
this network, or the network as a whole, has
been involved in this so-called "Asia Regional
Consultation' which being on a UN process this
group would be natural constituency... All of
which makes me wonder, and so my questions..<br>
<br>
<br>
parminder <br>
<div>
<div class="h5"><br>
<br>
<div>On Wednesday 26 August 2015 08:21 PM,
Anja Kovacs wrote:<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>
<div class="h5">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>Dear all,<br>
<br>
</div>
The Internet Democracy Project, Bytes
for All, APNIC, the Association for
Progressive Communications, ISOC, Global
Partners Digital and ICT Watch are
together organising an
<b>Asian Regional Consultation on the
WIS+10 Review</b> from 3 to 5
September in Pattaya, Thailand.
<br>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The Asian Regional
Consultation on the WSIS+10 Review
will bring together experts from
different backgrounds and from around
the Asian region who are concerned
about issues concerning ICTs,
sustainable development, human rights
and Internet governance, to ask: <b>what
are the issues that our governments
need to squarely address in the
process of the review?
<br>
</b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The meeting is
timed so as to be able for the group
to comment on the non-paper that will
have been released by the
co-facilitators of the review process
in late August (inputs into that paper
can be made by all stakeholders and
are due on 31 July).<span> The group
will take stock of the extent to
which priorities for the Asian
region have been reflected in the
non-paper, and will work together on
formulating a joint comment on the
non-paper</span> (comments on the
non-paper will be due in
mid-September, and will be drawn on by
the co-facilitators to formulate a
zero-draft).
<span>The group will also look forward
to consider which further inputs
could be made or actions could be
taken strategically to ensure that
priorities from the Asian region are
fully taken onto board in the final
WSIS+10 Review outcome documents.
</span>If there are other processes
the group believes this work could
usefully feed into, these might be
taken into consideration as well.
</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>The meeting is
conceived as a highly interactive
working meeting that is geared
towards producing a joint submission
to the next input round on the
Review outcome document.
</b>Participants will be drawn from
all non-government stakeholder groups,
and will have a wide and rich variety
of backgrounds, both in terms of
professional expertise and
geographical location. What unites
all, however, is a shared commitment
to a free and open Internet and to the
use of technology to benefit the
development and human rights of all in
our region.
<br>
</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>We're very happy
to let you know that remote
participation will be available.
</b>For more information on remote
participation and the event in
general, please see the
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.wsis10.asia/"
target="_blank">event website</a>.
Or follow us on Twitter @WSISAsia
#wsis10.<br>
</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">We look forward to
your inputs into this event. Do please
let me know if you have any comments
or questions.<br>
</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Warm regards,</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Anja<br>
</p>
<br>
<div>
<div><br>
-- <br>
<div>Dr. Anja Kovacs<br>
The Internet Democracy Project<br>
<br>
+91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.internetdemocracy.in/"
target="_blank">www.internetdemocracy.in</a><br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset></fieldset>
<br>
</div>
</div>
<pre>____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:bestbits@lists.bestbits.net" target="_blank">bestbits@lists.bestbits.net</a>.
To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits" target="_blank">http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits</a></pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
<br>
____________________________________________________________<br>
You received this message as a subscriber on the
list:<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:bestbits@lists.bestbits.net">bestbits@lists.bestbits.net</a>.<br>
To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits</a><br>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
<br clear="all">
<br>
-- <br>
<div class="gmail_signature">Dr. Anja Kovacs<br>
The Internet Democracy Project<br>
<br>
+91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.internetdemocracy.in/"
target="_blank">www.internetdemocracy.in</a><br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre>____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a>
To be removed from the list, visit:
<a moz-do-not-send="true" 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 moz-do-not-send="true" 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 moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.igcaucus.org/">http://www.igcaucus.org/</a>
Translate this email: <a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a></pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</span>
<hr>
<font color="Gray" face="Arial" size="2">CONFIDENTIALITY: This
email is intended solely for the person(s) named and may be
confidential and/or privileged. If you are not the intended
recipient, please delete it, notify us and do not copy, use, or
disclose its contents.<br>
Towards a sustainable earth: Print only when necessary. Thank
you.</font>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>