[bestbits] [governance] Whether to participate in NETmundial Initiative - RFC
Carlos Afonso
ca at cafonso.ca
Thu Nov 20 13:04:22 EST 2014
Where is it stated that the declaration of São Paulo (principles and
roadmap of NETmundial) are "final"??
--c.a.
On 11/20/14 10:47, Renata Avila wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> I do not write often in this list, but, as I made it clear earlier at
> the closing ceremony of Net Mundial Initiative, I am really concerned at
> any effort adopting the Net Mundial ¨final¨ outcome as such, as final.
> Mrs. Rousseff started her crusade as an effort to tackle or at least,
> somehow, regulate the pervasive surveillance from a group of governments
> against all citizens. The result was a monster, the process was flawed,
> the language against massive surveillance was weak, the introduction the
> language to please the copyright lobby really undermined solid,
> multiyear efforts of the copyright reformists, too. Adopting such
> document, which so far is just the result of an event outside the
> regular events around Internet Governance is simply dangerous and silly,
> because in no way is a big victory for two of the most important battles
> for the future of our knowledge societies, of our free societies. A
> rigid exam, or even an exam at first sight of the outcome document will
> show that it certainly fails to adopt the highest human rights standards.
>
> The other issue was participation. As you can see in the brilliant work
> by CIS India http://ajantriks.github.io/netmundial/index.html and the
> attached maps, the voices from the global south, especially the poorest
> countries from Africa and Latin America, where largely missing in the
> debates. It was a North lead debate. It was a highly specialised debate,
> but, paradoxically, with terrible flaws as there were Internet
> Governance experts, but, except for the very good contributions of
> privacy experts like Jacob Appelbaum and Copyright experts like Mishi,
> there was a vast lack of expertise, or at least no unity in key demands.
>
> So for me, in spite of the good faith of the Brazilians, any effort that
> will marry with the Net Mundial Final Document as such, as final, is
> flawed and has very little reform or even information potential for
> Civil Society. Because we will not be asking for and promoting the
> adoption of higher but lower standards, because the whole exercise lacks
> the voices and concerns for the very actors which will be the most
> affected by the adoption of such principles and roadmap as the one
> forward and because, again, very few of those who are not represented
> will be able to afford the time and resources that such initiative
> demands. So it will be again, a conversation among few.
>
> There is also the public v. private interest here, but that issue has
> been discussed extensively. My concern is basically the legitimacy we
> are giving to such disastrous outcome, reaching and promoting a new low.
>
> * This is a personal opinion and in no way reflects the opinion or
> position of the Web Foundation.
>
> Renata
>
>
>
> On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 6:20 AM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global
> Journal <jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net
> <mailto:jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net>> wrote:
>
> Jeanette,
>
> Thanks for sharing Anja's skepticism. But Anja has expressed, more
> importantly in my opinion, precise questions and given detailed
> information that ignited her skepticism. Where are the answers to
> her questions? Anriette has made suggestions: where are the
> reactions? Talking about relevant actors: is WEF a relevant actor?
> WEF is a network of corporations, big ones. Shouldn't civil society
> engage instead the smaller entrepreneurs, who creates much more jobs
> that the WEF membership? What is the criteria to say that it is
> worth to engage WEF rather than other groupings? WEF has a high
> media added-value. I agree, but then just ask for a tribune in
> Davos, to start with.
>
> You question the qualified and trustworthy candidates, fine, but you
> totally ignore to answer the pending questions by many of us: what
> is this all about? Is this process worth the effort and, if NUY lab
> is already elaborating the written conclusions of the initiative, do
> we need to bother to write the conclusions of it with any qualified
> and trustworthy candidate. If so, you should revise your judgement
> and buy the argument (no copyright on this!) that those who are
> willing to get involved are doing this for career purposes. Some
> have already got their career boosted at ICANN and a few other cool
> places, might feel that it would be smart for those without a
> comfortable seat to join the carrousel of vanities.
>
> Thanks
> JC
>
>
> Le 20 nov. 2014 à 12:43, Jeanette Hofmann a écrit :
>
>> Hi all, I share Anja's skepticism but also Anriette's more
>> principled stance on participating in new processes. We need to
>> communicate with relevant actors in this field. Ultimately I think
>> the pragmatic question is if we find a sufficient number of
>> qualified and trustworthy candidates who are willing to contribute
>> on our behalf in the NMI. Whether or not we have experienced
>> people who want to participate is a valuable indicator in itself,
>> don't you agree? (I don't buy the well-known argument that those
>> who are willing to get involved do this for career purposes.)
>> Jeanette
>>
>> On 20 November 2014 11:49:06 CET, Ian Peter
>> <ian.peter at ianpeter.com <mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com>> wrote:
>>> Thanks Nnenna.
>>>
>>> Yes, it is disappointing when we cannot tolerate differences of
>>> opinion.
>>>
>>> Anriette expressed respect for the JNC position, as have many others.
>>> It would be good if this respect for differing opinions was
>>> reciprocated.
>>>
>>> The most substantial side effect for civil society discourse when
>>> someones personal opinion is attacked rather than respected is that
>>> people stop expressing themselves for fear of being attacked. It
>>> would
>>> be good if we concentrated on issues and arguing points of view. And
>>> some voices have already been silenced on this issue.
>>>
>>> We are not all going to agree on this one. But perhaps we can
>>> agree to
>>> respect differences of opinion.
>>>
>>> Anriette has devoted the last 25 or so years of her life to building
>>> APC as “ an international network and non profit organisation that
>>> wants everyone to have access to a free and open internet to improve
>>> our lives and create a more just world”. No, she is not
>>> abandoning the
>>> pursuit of social justice.
>>>
>>> Ian Peter
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> From: Nnenna Nwakanma
>>> Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2014 9:26 PM
>>> To: michael gurstein
>>> Cc: Anriette Esterhuysen ; Anja Kovacs ; Governance ; Best Bits
>>> Subject: Re: [bestbits] [governance] Whether to participate in
>>> NETmundial Initiative - RFC
>>>
>>> Wow! This "new reality" called Civil Society is beginning to amaze me
>>> the more. Because someone thinks "Let us give something a shot, it is
>>> not perfect, but it is making an effort" then it is being
>>> construed as
>>> abandoning the pursuit of social justice?
>>>
>>>
>>> If there was a human being who fought for social justice, it was
>>> Nelson
>>> Mandela. And it is him who said:
>>> "If you want to make peace with your enemy, you have to work with
>>> your
>>> enemy. Then he becomes your partner."
>>>
>>>
>>> I will rest my case for now
>>>
>>>
>>> Nnenna
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 10:13 AM, michael gurstein
>>> <gurstein at gmail.com <mailto:gurstein at gmail.com>>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> So Anriette, I’m taking from your argument that because the NMI
>>> offers
>>> some possibility, however remote for the advancement of human rights,
>>> you are completely abandoning perhaps irrevocably, the pursuit of
>>> social justice.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> M
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net
>>> <mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net>
>>> [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net
>>> <mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net>] On Behalf Of Anriette
>>> Esterhuysen
>>> Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2014 11:18 PM
>>> To: Anja Kovacs; Nnenna Nwakanma
>>> Cc: Governance; Best Bits
>>> Subject: Re: [bestbits] [governance] Whether to participate in
>>> NETmundial Initiative - RFC
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Dear all
>>>
>>> I have been fairly silent on this issue and APC is consulting our
>>> members about it at present. We have been really busy in APC with
>>> project meetings, evaluations, planning, and also the African
>>> School on
>>> IG, so apologies for not participating.
>>>
>>> Anja, thanks for asking for the view of Brazilian colleagues. I have
>>> also asked people off list and thus far I get the sense that while
>>> there are concerns, there is also a sense that it is worth giving the
>>> process a try.
>>>
>>> I felt that the the letter that Ian and the CSCG wrote was excellent,
>>> and I feel that having them in place has put us in a stronger
>>> position.
>>> I also feel that JNC's decision to not be part of the process is
>>> legitimate and clear.
>>>
>>> I do see the pros and cons of participation a bit differently
>>> from how
>>> Ian had put them in an earlier message...perhaps not quite as 'black
>>> and white'.
>>>
>>> My feeling at this point is that some of the strong concerns we
>>> expressed at the time of the NETmundial Initiative Launch in late
>>> August have actually been addressed.
>>>
>>> I don't particularly like the process... I would have liked more
>>> transparency and consultation around the redesign of the process and
>>> its mechanisms.
>>>
>>> But I really do care about the NETmundial outcomes, and I believe we
>>> should do our best to take it forward, to intergovernmental
>>> spaces, at
>>> national level, and through the IGF. This might sound pretty
>>> naive to
>>> many but I still believe that the only sustainable path to inclusive
>>> democratic multistakeholder internet policy and regulation is through
>>> closer connections between multistakeholder and intergovernmental
>>> processes and mechanisms.
>>>
>>> I am at the airport and about to board.. so should be fast.
>>>
>>> My view would be that civil society participates in the NMI with the
>>> following:
>>>
>>> - a set of indicators and criteriat that are important to us
>>> - a limited timeframe
>>> - agreed milestones including for a point at which we assess
>>> whether we
>>> continue or not
>>>
>>>
>>> My proposal would be try and make the process work, and to link it
>>> closely to the IGF and for civil society e.g. at Best Bits meeting to
>>> get together prior to the 2015 IGF and then to assess whether our
>>> particpation has had impact, whether we have been able to
>>> influence the
>>> process and whether it meets the criteria important to us.
>>>
>>> This is a risk of course. And we could legitimise a process that
>>> turns
>>> out not to be worthy of it. But I think it is a risk worth
>>> taking, and
>>> we can always withdraw.
>>>
>>> Not trying is a greater risk as it could result in the most
>>> progressive, to date, agreement on principles that respect human
>>> rights
>>> inclusive processes in internet governance simply fizzling out. I
>>> think that backtracking in that way on what we all achieved
>>> through the
>>> NETmundial would be a huge loss to changing how we think about, and
>>> implement, internet governance.
>>>
>>> Anriette
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 19/11/2014 21:59, Anja Kovacs wrote:
>>>
>>> Dear all,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> A question. If any of the Brazilians on these lists could perhaps
>>> shed
>>> some light on why their government has decided to support this
>>> initiative, and how they see it, that could possibly be very
>>> helpful? I
>>> have had great respect for Brazil and its work in the past, and can't
>>> help but wonder whether I'm missing something here.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> For the moment, however, knowing what I know, I am still not in
>>> favour
>>> of civil society networks giving this their stamp of approval (though
>>> as earlier, I also don't have an issue with individual organisations
>>> who want to participate to continue doing so and report back to the
>>> wider community). A WEF-ICANN alliance, even if backed by the
>>> Brazilian
>>> government, is just not the place I want to see emerge as a new power
>>> centre in Internet governance - even less so as they have already
>>> given
>>> themselves some fixed seats.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I've in particular been wondering what this selection and committee
>>> means seeing that some of the initiatives the NMI would "foster"
>>> clearly are already on the way. For example, I (and I know many
>>> others
>>> on this list too) have already been contacted by the Governance
>>> Lab at
>>> NYU to give feedback on a proposed NETmundial Solutions map that
>>> would
>>> be developed under the flag of the NMI. It's difficult not to
>>> feel like
>>> the only thing we and others would be doing is simply to rubberstamp
>>> things that would happen anyway - but because we okay them,
>>> somehow the
>>> structure and the initiatives it gives birth to gain a legitimacy
>>> that
>>> they would not have had without. An unwise use of our power, I would
>>> say (that they would go ahead without us anyway is something that a
>>> representative from the WEF made clear enough to me in an informal
>>> conversation in October. Some of the individual initiative, such as
>>> that map, might have value, but about the structure as a whole, I am
>>> not so certain)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I would feel far more comfortable if we would instead start exploring
>>> the constructive ways of going ahead with our own work suggested by
>>> Amelia and others. I would love to hear more about what they're
>>> thinking, and how we could operationalize this ourselves and take it
>>> forward.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks and best,
>>>
>>> Anja
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 19 November 2014 01:12, Nnenna Nwakanma <nnenna75 at gmail.com
>>> <mailto:nnenna75 at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Dear Governance and Best Bits listers, and especially African Civil
>>> Society members here.
>>>
>>> My opinion is that Civil Society should participate. It is okay to
>>> table our "fears" and let NMI know that our participation may be
>>> withdrawn if XYZ is not met.
>>>
>>> I think it is fine for certain networks to say "No", but in Africa, I
>>> dont think we should miss out.
>>>
>>> NMI may also just make a public call for CS who wants to
>>> participate.
>>> From the launch, I already saw that some CS persons were already very
>>> interested in the NMI.
>>>
>>> I see it is okay if one network or list or platform decides NOT to
>>> participate but we cannot ask others not to.
>>>
>>> Me, I am in favour of Governance and BB lists nominating people.
>>> And at
>>> the same time, saying that it is important for African S to
>>> participate.
>>>
>>> All for now
>>>
>>> Nnenna
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 6:06 PM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global
>>> Journal <jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net
>>> <mailto:jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Jeremy,
>>>
>>> Thanks for your email.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Looking after pathologies is certainly a noble cause, but as we
>>> both do
>>> not belong to the medical corpus, maybe it would simply be wise to
>>> terminate this, and cool down a bit. Even though we are in real
>>> politics.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Go after the arguments put on the table is probably of better effect
>>> and impact.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> What I wanted to say using quotes from an array of observers or
>>> participants is that the initiative has more than a troubling set of
>>> definitions, expectations and leading to an overall confusion. It
>>> looks
>>> more or less like "un chèque en blanc" to illegitimate grouping of a
>>> wealthy elite (the three players of NMI have deep pockets, and
>>> friends
>>> with deeper pockets). I am not even trying to clarify the obvious
>>> tactics behind all their gesture. I had an intermezzo as a consultant
>>> for 10 years in my life, and can more than easily read the partition
>>> behind all of that smoking screen. In the army, you always call some
>>> troopers from the "génie" when you need a screen of smoke to cross a
>>> street, a bridge or a simple line. No, let's stay on what is at stake
>>> such as
>>>
>>> - why part of civil society in Busan accepted the fact that the US
>>> refused to discuss mass surveillance?
>>>
>>> - why is the IGF not the best bet for civil society to keep maturing
>>> and growing?
>>>
>>> - why is encryption, I know EFF is working hard on this topic,
>>> insufficiently at the center of the IG debate? Isn't encryption
>>> part of
>>> the mass surveillance issue? So then why to please the US, in Sao
>>> Paulo, then in Busan by refusing to really go after it? Mass
>>> surveillance has nothing to do with IG they told us.
>>>
>>> - why civil society not more vocal on the Google Tour against the EU
>>> decision to protect personal data, considering rightly in my
>>> view, that
>>> search engines are touching at personal data, beyond the simple links
>>> they assembled in their result pages? This is a real good debate for
>>> CS.
>>>
>>> - why not to discuss the IETF and its roles in the IG? More important
>>> than IANA for example?
>>>
>>> - why CS seems deprived of imagination and innovative ideas when it
>>> comes to create a new coordinating body/system, as the ICANN is
>>> saying
>>> the political aspects of IG is beyond its mandate? How can we help
>>> ourselves to have these ideas popping out of CS minds? Looking at all
>>> the NGOs we are currently ranking, I am positively impressed with
>>> their
>>> innovative abilities, much more powerful than classical corps. They
>>> also create more "values".
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I am not naive, and have probably a few answers in mind.
>>> Nevertheless,
>>> CS should really act differently. The NMI story is relevant of the
>>> weakness that anyone can perceive among CS, and this is not to blame
>>> JNC or anyone else. A leadership crisis wrote someone today.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Remember the preparation of Net Mundial? Did the ICANN handle CS in a
>>> satisfactory fashion? Haven't we seen the trailer? We had to twist
>>> their arm every minute to get info, to get principles, to simply
>>> get it
>>> not that bad. Why is it so difficult for the 'nice guys" not to go
>>> directly after the right ideas, proposals and suggestions when
>>> launching an open, honest, transparent debate? Instead they keep
>>> creating distrust with their committees, high level panel, advisory
>>> boards... Trust is critical. "Please energize me! should we all
>>> cry. We
>>> are all losing. Terrifying, I would say.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> So why don't you and other leaders of CS decide to meet, have a
>>> debate
>>> and launch a true CS initiative, calling governments, citizens and
>>> corporations to join in a effort to rebalance the growing
>>> asymmetry we
>>> live in since the mid-nineties? In the face of History, and our
>>> fellow
>>> citizens, we are failing, because CS is not united. To do that you do
>>> not need any WEF. You only need to trust, share, and confront the
>>> realities that are taking away our rights. This is what should be
>>> done,
>>> now, instead of wasting our time and little money to debate about the
>>> comfortable sofas of the WEF.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Somehow BB is a failure, as it has not delivered to its own mandate.
>>> JNC is not getting more isolated, it is growing and reaching more and
>>> more people. We should not care about that. We should care about
>>> having
>>> a collective action that would oblige governments, corps and the
>>> current mandarins to take more progressive steps. Multistakeholderism
>>> when it comes to convene and consult many participants is certainly
>>> nice. This has often been done, long before we began to put in our
>>> mouth the MS narrative. When it comes to make decisions at least
>>> on the
>>> public policy level, MS simply doesn't work. If the coders had to go
>>> through MS to make decision, they would have simply gone nowhere.
>>> Only
>>> a few guys fixing better than other few guys technical issues doesn't
>>> equate a political model. It could work, but then it would lead
>>> to some
>>> social disaster, a disruption that would unleash violence.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> JNC has no monopole of ethics, but because we are poor enough,
>>> our bias
>>> is somehow limited. We are paid by no government, no corporation, no
>>> barons. We are simple citizens, with a profound democratic
>>> concern (to
>>> avoid another asymmetric wars), and we are ready to go into
>>> rationales
>>> as long as we are not characterized as psychotics or lunatics.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> There is no way that we can really have a strong impact as civil
>>> society participants if we do not go after unity. And we all
>>> agree that
>>> we should pay more respect to each others, as long as we do not have
>>> hidden agenda, and gentle philanthropes putting their money in the
>>> debate. That would be fair.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> JC
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Le 18 nov. 2014 à 17:55, Jeremy Malcolm a écrit :
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Nov 18, 2014, at 1:49 AM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global
>>> Journal <jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net
>>> <mailto:jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I leave to Norbert co-convenor at JNC to answer your first email.
>>> On a
>>> personal note, I would appreciate you to elaborate about the "dumping
>>> on civil society colleagues" you are referring to,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Within the next few days I’m going to write a separate blog post
>>> about
>>> this at igfwatch.org <http://igfwatch.org>, because JNC’s
>>> pathologies are off-topic for this
>>> list.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The WEF/ICANN/CGIbr project is not in lack of clarity. If I do listen
>>> to non JNC members:
>>>
>>> - Wall Street Journal reporter: "The NetMundial wants to spread
>>> Internet Governance more evenly across the developing world".
>>> (Ask Drew
>>> Fitzgerald about the source for that understanding of what is the WIB
>>> Initiative)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Which is roughly opposite to what JNC is saying.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> - McCarthy at The Register: "ISOC has blasted efforts from some
>>> quarters to create a "UN Security Council”
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> A fatuous analogy, do you take it at face value?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> - Eileen Donahoe, ... Virgilio Almeida, ... Richard Samans, ... Fadi
>>> Chehadé: ...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> None of these statements support the characterisation of the
>>> Initiative
>>> as in your letter as “being ’the’ mechanism for global [Internet]
>>> governance”.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Based on these official and public statement, I can only read JNC
>>> statement as an interesting analysis and agree with JNC reluctance to
>>> participate or endorse such following-up (hijacking might be to
>>> blunt)
>>> of the NetMundial meeting. Nor the WEF, ICANN, or CGIbr are owners of
>>> what was stated ultimately in Sao Paulo, with all due reserves by
>>> different participants.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I’ve also said, and maintain, that I regard the NETmundial Initiative
>>> (particularly the naming thereof) to be a hijacking of the NETmundial
>>> meeting. On this much we agree.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> So instead of trying to grab a comfortable seat in that convoy ...
>>> should for once, Civil Society ... acknowledges the serious concerns
>>> seen in the making of, and in the diverse objectives presented by the
>>> WEF, ICANN and CGIbr.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Ian has taking a more neutral position, but for my part personally I
>>> certainly have
>>> (http://igfwatch.org/discussion-board/netmundial-initiative-takes-a-top-down-approach-to-implementing-the-netmundial-principles).
>>> What prompted my last email was not that JNC opposes the NETmundial
>>> Initiative, but that it has to do this by impugning the motives of
>>> other civil society groups and falsely attributing them with their
>>> endorsement of the Initiative.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Also for the avoidance of doubt, nobody else endorsed my rant
>>> which was
>>> sent in a personal capacity (though I have subsequently received, off
>>> list, two emails in support, as well as one against).
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> By the way, could you explain us (subscribers of the BestBits list):
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I do not have time to respond to the rest of your mail right now
>>> because I am speaking at a conference today and will be boarding a
>>> flight a few hours later. But I write this brief response just
>>> because
>>> you suggested in most recent mail that I was ignoring you - I’m not.
>>> Anyway, others can respond to the balance of your questions
>>> rather than
>>> me monopolising the conversation.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> Jeremy Malcolm
>>>
>>> Senior Global Policy Analyst
>>>
>>> Electronic Frontier Foundation
>>>
>>> https://eff.org
>>> jmalcolm at eff.org <mailto:jmalcolm at eff.org>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> :: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World ::
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> Dr. Anja Kovacs
>>> The Internet Democracy Project
>>>
>>> +91 9899028053 <tel:%2B91%209899028053> | @anjakovacs
>>> www.internetdemocracy.in <http://www.internetdemocracy.in>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ____________________________________________________________You
>>> received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.To
>>> <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.To> unsubscribe or change
>>> your settings,
>>> visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -- `````````````````````````````````anriette esterhuysenexecutive
>>> directorassociation for progressive communicationspo box 29755,
>>> melville, 2109, south africaanriette at apc.orgwww.apc.org
>>> <mailto:africaanriette at apc.orgwww.apc.org>
>>>
>>>
>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>
>> --
>> Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org <mailto: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:
> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>
>
>
>
> --
> *Renata Avila *
> Global Campaign Lead, Web We Want <https://webwewant.org/>
> Human Rights - Intellectual Property Lawyer
> +44 7477168593 (UK)
>
> *World Wide Web Foundation | 1110 Vermont Ave NW, Suite 500, Washington
> D.C. 20005 USA **| **www.webfoundation.org*
> <http://www.webfoundation.org/>* | Twitter: @webfoundation*
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>
More information about the Bestbits
mailing list