<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On Thursday 10 September 2015 03:36 PM,
Ang Peng Hwa (Prof) wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:D2177642.5117E%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>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>
</blockquote>
<br>
Dear Peng Hwa, my degree of satisfaction or otherwise with regard to
my transparency questions is clearly indicated in my email that you
refer to... Best, parmidner <br>
<blockquote cite="mid:D2177642.5117E%25tphang@ntu.edu.sg"
type="cite">
<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 moz-do-not-send="true"
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
moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:tphang@ntu.edu.sg">tphang@ntu.edu.sg</a>>,
"<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" 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>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>