[governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions launched for endorsement at bestbits.net
michael gurstein
gurstein at gmail.com
Sat Mar 8 17:12:01 EST 2014
Stephanie,
I have no problem at all with what you are describing as "MSism" which I see
as a necessary and desirable enhancement of consultation processes within a
broad democratic decision-making framework.
http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2013/03/21/in-defense-of-multistakeholder-proc
esses/
Where I do have problems however are:
1. I'm never clear precisely what is meant by MSism in any particular
context since its advocates seem to pull definitions out of the air to suit
whatever supports their position of the moment. Your explication of what you
mean is very useful and I would think unproblematic but is I would suggest
not universally shared in MSist circles. Some clarity in this would be
desirable otherwise we are being asked to accept a "pig in a poke" in some
highly crucial areas. (These were the basis of the questions I posed
earlier and which to date have yet to be addressed.)
2. MSism in this, our context is not exclusively about consultation
processes but rather and more frequently about public policy decision making
processes with the notions of MSism determining who is at the table (the
various "stakeholders") and where the designated process is one of
"consensus" which means in fact that any of the "stakeholders" gets to veto
and thus largely determine the outcome decision. In this latter process how
and by whom "stakeholders" are designated (or self-designate), their
internal processes of selection (and exclusion), the overall transparency
and accountability of these processes of course, becomes absolutely crucial
since the outcome of these MS processes will be determined by those having
inputs into those processes and if those processes are flawed or corrupted
then the outputs will be flawed or corrupted.
M
-----Original Message-----
From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org
[mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Stephanie Perrin
Sent: Saturday, March 08, 2014 1:36 PM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global
Journal
Cc: Jeanette Hofmann; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
Subject: Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions
launched for endorsement at bestbits.net
If I may jump in and respond, having been a civil servant for 30 years...we
are not stupid. One does need inside information to fully understand the
impact of regulation. One of the bigger problems in government these days
is complexity, coupled with the speed of change. Coming up with, lets say,
(in order to get away from pharma for a moment) agricultural regulations,
you need to consult industry, farmers, consumers, shippers, anti-poverty
activists, environmental experts, etc. You need to understand world
markets and world impacts. You do not, as public servants, have this
knowledge fall down on scrolls from heaven. Impact assessment of your
proposed regulation has to come from the stakeholders, hopefully by talking
to them or running public calls for comment. Now here is where
multi-stakeholderism has merit over multilateralism. In true, bottom-up
multistakeholderism, if you want to contribute, you can. In multilateral or
normal government regulation making, the involvement of all stakeholders can
vary enormously, from fully transparent democratic calls for involvement, to
nothing. Some countries or even policy areas within government consult only
with industry associations, which may favour big players. Consumer and
human rights advocates may or may not be consulted, and if they are they are
sometimes hand picked. This is documented in political science literature.
My point is that in good multi-stakeholder practice, the governing or
rule-making party has less control of the outcome, because participation is
more democratic. There will always be the issue of who has the time,
money, and training to provide input, to go to the meetings, etc., but the
process is harder for big players to manipulate and hopefully is more fair
and equitable. When you multiply that over the many countries that have a
stake in Internet governance (i.e. all of them) then it seems to me very
clear that multi-stakeholderism, however flawed, stands to be a more open
and inclusive process. I would hope that civil society would see fit to
support it and make it better.
Stephanie Perrin
PS if I may, as a newcomer to this list....life is complicated, there are
indeed mostly grey areas. It would be great if we could come up with
positive proposals for how to make these systems work better, rather than
argue. I would repeat my proposal that doing broad-based impact assessment
on all Internet governance decisions, with comment periods, might help
mitigate some of the dissatisfaction with results, and improve learning.
On 2014-03-08, at 3:57 PM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal
wrote:
> Jeanette,
>
> The difficulty lies on those grey zones you are enjoying,
>
> Is your experience of civil servants - unable to prepare legislation
without drawing on external expertise - large enough for coming to
conclusion that without lobbyists, and big corps, civil servants are not
able to accomplish their task? Have you got any documentation on this? Or is
this something that is very well known, but undocumented for some reasons?
And, if any civil servants on the list, do you agree with that understanding
of civil servants poor capacities? Maybe we should ask them outside of these
governance and Best bits listing?
>
> On top of civil servants, you add that civil society has no capacity to
counterbalance big corps...
>
> At the end of the day, who has true capacity in your multistakeholder
prism?
> No civil servants, no civil society...
> So who's able?
> Corporate servants, corporate society..
>
> With such a vision, I doubt you believe in multistakeholderism: why do you
bother with civil servants and civil society?
>
> All of that sounds really like non sense. But maybe I need to join a
multistakholder meeting, so to understand more of the real life.
>
> Jeanette,
>
> All of this is really going insane.
>
> Michael is so right
>
> JC
>
>
> Le 8 mars 2014 à 21:09, Jeanette Hofmann a écrit :
>
>> I don't know how you can read this out of my comment.
>>
>> In my experience, parliaments and ministries are unable prepare
legislation without drawing on external expertise. It is an illusion to
think that legislation could take place as an autonomous process without
external influence.
>> There is also nothing dubious about lobbying as such. It has been around
since parliaments have lobbies and most lobbyists are officially accredited
with parliaments. What is problematic is that state officials often acquire
the problem perceptions and mindsets of the industies they regulate.
>>
>> Another problem I see is that civil society won't have the capacity to
intervene as much as it should to counter-balance the impact of commercial
lobbying.
>>
>> jeanette
>>
>> Am 08.03.14 15:16, schrieb michael gurstein:
>>> So it is your position that what up to this point has been ethically
dubious and in some cases downright illegal i.e. the subverting (errr..
"shaping") of public policy processes to support private interests, not only
legal but compulsory?
>>>
>>> M
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net
>>> [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Jeanette
>>> Hofmann
>>> Sent: Saturday, March 08, 2014 3:44 AM
>>> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
>>> Subject: Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial
>>> submissions launched for endorsement at bestbits.net
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Conversely, since there is considerable interest here in
>>>> multistakeholder policy making, even at national levels, would you
>>>> support pharma companies, for instance, sitting in bodies making -
>>>> actually making - health and drug policies, and big publishers in
>>>> education policy making, and so on...
>>>
>>>
>>> The problem is that the pharmaceutical companies have been doing this
for decades - but behind closed doors. National legislation is not done
without consulting with industries affected. Sometimes, particularly on the
EU level, they even write the draft legislation. Multistakeholder offers the
chance to broaden the consulation process and bring this process in the open
daylight so that everybody can see what has been going on in secret.
>>>
>>> jeanette
>>>
>>>
>>>> If not, what is the essential difference, and who decides the
'difference'?
>>>>
>>>> Of course state's extra-ordinary interest to control the Internet
>>>> may be discussed here, but the state has the same kind of desire to
>>>> control, for instance, the education system. Does it give enough
>>>> basis for multistakeholder policy making in the education at the
national level?
>>>> Be fore-warned, that is the model of policy making that we are
>>>> embracing here.
>>>>
>>>> parminder
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Apart from the difference between public policies and technical
>>>>> decisions, is also the difference between original public policy
>>>>> authority and delegated authority. These are concepts and ideas
>>>>> that are rather well worked out in the texts of political science
>>>>> and public administration.
>>>>>
>>>>> A public policy function is sovereign in the sense of not being
>>>>> subject to a higher authority (judicial review being a different
>>>>> matter) and is accompanied with legitimate coercive power for
>>>>> enforcement. Such power only lies with elected representatives in
>>>>> democracies. It cannot, for instance, be exercised by business
>>>>> representatives .
>>>>>
>>>>> (At the global level, such sovereignty is exercised in a complex
>>>>> manner whereby national legislatures often need to ratify
>>>>> international treaties, and while many of such treaties carry
>>>>> enforcement elements, the manner of their national application
>>>>> remain in a somewhat complex interplay with national political
>>>>> systems. But this system of global public policies still works.)
>>>>>
>>>>> As such CGI.Br does not and cannot consitutionally undertake
>>>>> public policy function. Happy to hear counter-arguments.
>>>>>
>>>>> There is a huge problem with deforming the clear political
>>>>> definitions regarding public policy etc and then find entry
>>>>> points for big business to exercise formal political power.....
>>>>> Once such a role is established on some areas, then this power
>>>>> migrates upwards to cover all areas of our social and political
>>>>> existence. This is what is happening now.
>>>>>
>>>>> Do note that the currently fashionable meme of 'equal footing' in
>>>>> public policy functions does not ever circumscribe the areas where
>>>>> big business can thus exercise formal political power, and where
>>>>> it cannot. The multistakeholder policy making models, for instance
>>>>> the one offered by Jeremy, applies to all areas of Internet
>>>>> policies at the global level. Soon, it will be areas of policy in
>>>>> any sector at the global level. Such efforts are of course already
>>>>> afoot. And then gradually this models is brought to the national
levels.
>>>>>
>>>>> I remain worried how few here see and fear the headlong plunge
>>>>> into a neoliberal post-democratic system that we may be taking,
>>>>> and in fact contributing so strongly to...
>>>>>
>>>>> parminder
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Membership of CGI.br is of course not informal - it is quite
>>>>>> formal, but it is multi-stakeholder.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Government has more positions which is something I have heard
>>>>>> some Brazilian civil society express concern about. But it does
>>>>>> mean that different parts of government is represented which his
important.
>>>>>> Business is represented through industry bodies, and so on.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It is an example of how governance processes can change, and how
>>>>>> public policy making can be more inclusive and multi-stakeholder
>>>>>> and go beyond the traditional 'government proposes policy - with
>>>>>> or without public consulation, follwed by legislature reviewing
>>>>>> and approving/rejecting'.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> From a CS perspective I think we need to lobby for traditional
>>>>>> models to be more inclusive, for public consultation to be
>>>>>> introduced where it does not exist, and to be improved where it
>>>>>> does. But we should also propose and promote new models where
>>>>>> policy-making is actually done in an inclusive MS space.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Anriette
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 06/03/2014 14:02, parminder wrote:
>>>>>>> Joy
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You clarify the difference between two positions very well..
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So, I understand that, those who want to support the civil
>>>>>>> society statement put on BestBits platform for endorsements hold
>>>>>>> that non-gov participants(which includes business)should be on
>>>>>>> the same footing as gov participants in terms of actually
>>>>>>> /*making public *//*policies*//*.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> */Fine. There is no room for confusion now.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think this is a anti-democratic statement. And oppose it as ever.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Meanwhile, look forward to see actual models of such policy
>>>>>>> making, which arent there in the mentioned statement, or its
>>>>>>> accompanying statements.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> parminder
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> PS: I did not think it is BestBits statement, as Joy puts it.
>>>>>>> And Joy - or is it someone else from APC - is on the steering
>>>>>>> committee on BB... I hope such mis-statements are avoided, and
>>>>>>> when pointed out withdrawn. Thanks.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> /*
>>>>>>> */
>>>>>>> On Thursday 06 March 2014 03:25 PM, joy wrote:
>>>>>>>> As Anriette has already noted - in relation to the APC Charter
>>>>>>>> the full quote in Theme 6.1 is:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Internet governance should be multilateral and democratic, with
>>>>>>>> the full involvement of governments, the private sector, civil
>>>>>>>> society and international organisations. No single government
>>>>>>>> should have a pre-eminent role in relation to international
>>>>>>>> internet governance.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This does not mean that APC thinks that multi-stakeholder
>>>>>>>> processes are not democratic or desirable. Quite the contrary
>>>>>>>> and APC has been on record in many spaces to support
>>>>>>>> multi-stakeholder
>>>>>>>> processes: these are simply one form of democratic participation.
>>>>>>>> To be fair, the Best Bits submisson cites a range of other
>>>>>>>> documents and says, taken together, certain principles relevant
>>>>>>>> to internet governance can be deduced and should be taken
>>>>>>>> forward into NetMundial, including human rights.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I am happy to support the Best Bits submission: i think its 2
>>>>>>>> recommendations are simple, concise and helpful.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It seems the logic of the objections being raised to endorsing
>>>>>>>> the Best Bits submission is along the lines that on the one hand:
>>>>>>>> a) governments alone make public policy including some which is
>>>>>>>> relevant to internet governance
>>>>>>>> b) governments should be on an equal footing with each other
>>>>>>>> when doing so; and
>>>>>>>> c) it follows that non-governmental stakeholders cannot and
>>>>>>>> therefore should not be on an equal footing with governments
>>>>>>>> this role (though they can of course be involved/consulted) .
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Whereas, the Best Bits submission is premised along the lines
>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>> a) governments and multi-stakeholder processes make public
>>>>>>>> policy which is relevant to internet governance
>>>>>>>> b) therefore all stakeholders should be on an equitable footing
>>>>>>>> or parity with each other when doing so;
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Again, I see no reason not to support the Best Bits submission
>>>>>>>> which simply proposes that whatever internet governance
>>>>>>>> principles NetMundial is considering, equitable
>>>>>>>> multi-stakholder participation and human rights (among others) are
relevant to them.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Joy
>>>>>>>> Joy
>>>>>>>> On 6/03/2014 9:14 p.m., Anriette Esterhuysen wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Dear all
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Just a clarification here on the APC Internet Rights Charter
>>>>>>>>> and the use of 'multilateral'.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The full text in Theme 6.1 is:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "Internet governance should be multilateral and democratic,
>>>>>>>>> with the full involvement of governments, the private sector,
>>>>>>>>> civil society and international organisations. No single
>>>>>>>>> government should have a pre-eminent role in relation to
>>>>>>>>> international internet governance."
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> When we drafted this text we used 'multilateral' in its
>>>>>>>>> dictionary sense as meaning the involvement of multiple
>>>>>>>>> parties and multiple countries. We did not mean it in the
'intergovernmental' sense.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In fact.. the text that follows multilateral and democratic
>>>>>>>>> defines how we understood the term: "with the full involvement
>>>>>>>>> of governments, the private sector, civil society and
>>>>>>>>> international organisations. No single government should have
>>>>>>>>> a pre-eminent role in relation to international internet
governance."
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Since then (remember we first drafted the charter in 2001) the
>>>>>>>>> term multilateral has become loaded and is often underestood
>>>>>>>>> as meaning "among governments". It was not our intention to
>>>>>>>>> suggest that. But we certainly did mean that governments
>>>>>>>>> should be involved, and that no one government should dominate
>>>>>>>>> - but in the context of the involvement of other stakeholders too.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Best
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Anriette
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 05/03/2014 14:29, parminder wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday 05 March 2014 05:19 PM, parminder wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday 05 March 2014 05:09 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5 Mar 2014, at 7:21 pm, parminder
>>>>>>>>>>>> <parminder at itforchange.net <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>>
wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> And of course, the proposed view to be submitted on 1Net's
>>>>>>>>>>>>> behalf has this all important principle, "Decisions made
>>>>>>>>>>>>> with respect to Internet governance should only be made by
>>>>>>>>>>>>> bodies that allow free and equitable access to all
>>>>>>>>>>>>> stakeholders at all points in the decision-making process."
Well of course.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Two hoots to democracy!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Now I shall come to the point, of my comments on the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> proposed submission to NetMundial submitted by Jeremy.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I of course support and commend both APC Principles and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> IRP Principles - which seem the main burden of the
submission....
>>>>>>>>>>>>> BUT...
>>>>>>>>>>>>> /*
>>>>>>>>>>>>> *//*Can someone explain me the meaning of "equitable
>>>>>>>>>>>>> multistakeholder participation"*/and whether it is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> different from what is meant in the above statement from
1Net's survey.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> If so, how.... More precisely, are you seeking that all
>>>>>>>>>>>>> stakeholders, including business reps, have equal part and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> role (as gov reps) in making decisions about public policies.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Please address this point specifically.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, you picked up on a key point. There was a discussion
>>>>>>>>>>>> of this on the pad where the text was workshopped, which
>>>>>>>>>>>> you can read for yourself:
>>>>>>>>>>>> https://pad.riseup.net/p/IG_principles. At various times
>>>>>>>>>>>> it was "parity" and "power sharing" before it became
>>>>>>>>>>>> "equitable participation", which is somewhat flexible, to
>>>>>>>>>>>> accommodate the different viewpoints that we all have about how
equal the stakeholder roles should be.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I dont greatly like flexibility between democracy and
>>>>>>>>>>> non-democracy.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> So, request a clear response - do you mean /*parity*/ in
>>>>>>>>>>> /*decision making*/ about /*public policies */between gov
>>>>>>>>>>> and non gov actors....
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It is important to note that the two main Principles docs
>>>>>>>>>> that this CS contribution refers to speak of democracy but
>>>>>>>>>> not multistakeholder governance, much less 'equitable MSism'..
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> In fact the APC Principles doc speaks of "The right to
>>>>>>>>>> multilateral democratic oversight of the Internet. Internet
>>>>>>>>>> governanceshould be multilateral and democratic. "
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Obviously, what is the main, unique, and new element in this
>>>>>>>>>> present submission - equitable multistakeholder participation
>>>>>>>>>> - does not come from the 2 key docs which are claimed to be
>>>>>>>>>> the principle inspirations.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Ok, lets next check the 3 other principles docs that are also
>>>>>>>>>> quoted as somewhat secondary inspirations - CGI.Br
>>>>>>>>>> Principles, CoE principles, and G 8 principles....
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> In these principles docs, while all f them orepeatedly and
>>>>>>>>>> emphatically speak of democracy, the MS (multistakeholder)
>>>>>>>>>> term either does not figure (CGI.Br doc) or comes in a much
>>>>>>>>>> much subsidiary fashion wrt to democracy (the other two docs)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Now, lets see what does your contribution - developed by
>>>>>>>>>> civil society actors in IG space - come up with .....
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> There is not a single mention of 'democracy' or 'democratic'
>>>>>>>>>> in this doc.... Even when you guys came up with "key
>>>>>>>>>> governance characteristics" you could think only of "
>>>>>>>>>> openness, transparency, inclusivity, accountability, and
>>>>>>>>>> /*equitable multistakeholder participation */" (emphasis
>>>>>>>>>> added)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> In all your f2f meetings, and long online deliberations, did
>>>>>>>>>> the word 'democracy' not occur to any one at all... Or did
>>>>>>>>>> it occur to someone and was contributed but did not find
>>>>>>>>>> favour in the group.... Dont know which is worse. But both
>>>>>>>>>> are bad enough for me to stay away from this doc.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> And I appeal also to others who really believe in democracy
>>>>>>>>>> not to get caught in this trap that is laid for them.... This
>>>>>>>>>> is the thin end of the wedge, which will soon usher you into
>>>>>>>>>> a brave new post democratic world, that one which the neo
>>>>>>>>>> liberals dream of.... It is a pity that a good part of civil
>>>>>>>>>> society has agreed to be the Trojan Horse for the powerful
>>>>>>>>>> warriors of the neolib order.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> See, how the term democracy is rejected, and phrases like
>>>>>>>>>> equitable multistakeholder participation (further explained
>>>>>>>>>> in the emerging contribution from 1 Net - principle 11 in the
>>>>>>>>>> survey) are getting introduced as basis of our governance.
>>>>>>>>>> And see how exactly it matches what some of us predicted is
>>>>>>>>>> the prime objective at present of the US supported status
>>>>>>>>>> quoists to get into the text of the outcomes from
NetMundial...... All of piece.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> parminder
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> And this is not a petty point... Half of the time of the
>>>>>>>>>>> WGEC got taken on this kind of discussion. This is the
>>>>>>>>>>> single most important point today, if we can clarify nd
>>>>>>>>>>> possibly agree on this point - rest is not too difficult...
>>>>>>>>>>> Lets accept what is the key point, and not skirt it...
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> BTW, the German government has the following to say in its
>>>>>>>>>>> submission to NetMundial
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> "Democratically elected governments, as the representative
>>>>>>>>>>> of the people, possess public authority including
>>>>>>>>>>> internet-related public policy issues and are supposed to be
>>>>>>>>>>> the main source for legitimacy and democratic legitimation.
>>>>>>>>>>> Hence they have to respect and protect human rights, ensure
>>>>>>>>>>> that the rule of law is respected and that relevant national
>>>>>>>>>>> legislation complies with their obligations under
>>>>>>>>>>> international law. Moreover, they need to ensure that the
>>>>>>>>>>> appropriate basic conditions both in terms of cyber-security and
technical provisions are in place.
>>>>>>>>>>> Civil society serves, and should continue to do so, as a
>>>>>>>>>>> facilitator and notably as a source of empowerment and
>>>>>>>>>>> credibility, especially at community level. The private
>>>>>>>>>>> sector and particularly the technical community
>>>>>>>>>>> significantly influence and encourage the development,
>>>>>>>>>>> distribution and accessibility of the internet, and should
>>>>>>>>>>> continue to do so. In order to fully live up to the
>>>>>>>>>>> potentials for economic growth, innovation, freedom of
>>>>>>>>>>> expression, access to information and ideas and democratic
>>>>>>>>>>> participation in a knowledge society, all stakeholders involved
need to work together."
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Do you for instance agree to the above formulation, or NOT...
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> parminder
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>> Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com Internet lawyer, ICT
>>>>>>>>>>>> policy advocate, geek host -t NAPTR
>>>>>>>>>>>> 5.9.8.5.2.8.2.2.1.0.6.e164.org <http://e164.org>|awk -F!
>>>>>>>>>>>> '{print $3}'
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are
>>>>>>>>>>>> strongly recommended to enable encryption at your end. For
>>>>>>>>>>>> instructions, see http://jere.my/l/pgp.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>> anriette esterhuysenanriette at apc.org executive director,
>>>>>>>>> association for progressive communications www.apc.org po box
>>>>>>>>> 29755, melville 2109 south africa tel/fax +27 11 726 1692
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>> anriette esterhuysenanriette at apc.org executive director,
>>>>>> association for progressive communications www.apc.org po box
>>>>>> 29755, melville
>>>>>> 2109 south africa tel/fax +27 11 726 1692
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>> http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
> http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
More information about the Bestbits
mailing list