<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=Windows-1252">
</head>
<body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: 18px; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;">
<div>
<div>Hi Parminder.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>By response, I meant a big-picture response as opposed to replies to the specific questions, which I am not able to answer them as I was not involved in the decisions.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>My big picture response is based on my previous experience with you re the first few APrIGFs.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I note that APC has responded since your email and you have called it exemplary. I take it that you are satisfied.</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>Parminder Singh <<a href="mailto:parminder@ITforChange.net">parminder@ITforChange.net</a>><br>
<span style="font-weight:bold">Date: </span>Wednesday, 9 September 2015 3:04 pm<br>
<span style="font-weight:bold">To: </span>Ang Peng Hwa <<a href="mailto:tphang@ntu.edu.sg">tphang@ntu.edu.sg</a>>, "<a href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a>" <<a href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a>>,
BestBitsList <<a href="mailto:bestbits@lists.bestbits.net">bestbits@lists.bestbits.net</a>>, Anja Kovacs <<a 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" 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">
<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>
</div>
</div>
</span>
</body>
</html>