[bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of "Connecting the Dots Conference"
Michael Gurstein
gurstein at gmail.com
Tue Mar 10 21:28:58 EDT 2015
David,
The issue is not simply about not being able to reach consensus although of
course, that is one significant issue of conflict. Others include disputes
over internal rules governing stakeholder groups, rules governing MS
processes themselves, rules governing the creation of stakeholder decision
frameworks and so on and so on. These issues aren't necessarily about
differences of opinion concerning the (policy) issues at hand so much as
they are about managing decision structures which are organized on the basis
of "interests" rather than (for example) "constituencies". Since MS
processes are inherently "interest" based then the resolution of
disputes/conflicts tends to be a matter of who is stronger, richer, more
powerful, (or perhaps in the technical sphere-more knowledgeable,
technically proficient etc.) and thus can ensure that their "interests"
prevail. The "fairness" principle that one could invoke in a democratic
context makes little sense in an interest based stakeholder context.
You asked for examples of disputes/conflicts within MS processes which were
not reasonably (or dare I say fairly) resolved and I previously in this
discussion at least twice pointed to several including:
https://gurstein.wordpress.com/2013/03/20/multistakeholderism-vs-democracy-m
y-adventures-in-stakeholderland/
One from the much vaunted and now almost sanctified Sao Paulo NM meeting:
I should also note that the much vaunted model multistakeholder process at
the NetMundial event in Brazil did more or less precisely the same
thing--giving over to an unrepresentative and more or less completely
non-transparent academic (stakeholder) grouping -- GIGAnet -- responsibility
for "academic" participation in the various NM structures.
GIGAnet then went on to assign all of the relevant places to GIGAnet
insiders over the objections of the academic component of the Community
Informatics community (a grouping numbering some 1500 of which perhaps 40%
are academics or researchers with a professional interest in ICTs and
Development, a subject more or less completely absent in the GIGAnet
membership).
These actions were confirmed by the silence of the NM organizers (the
unreasonableness and unfairness of this was brought firmly to their
attention on several occasions). The direct consequence of this was that
the NM meeting and subsequent document more or less completely ignores the
significant issues involved in ICTs and Development and which moreover were
as I'm sure you know, the fundamental driver of WSIS of which the NM was
meant to be some sort of a lineal descendent.
And as a third example perhaps I could point to the basis of this discussion
itself, the purportedly "multistakeholder process" for developing the
Outcome Statement of the UNESCO conference.
an aside, if anyone is still wondering how MS decision processes might
actually operate in practice, one need only reflect on the processes of
decision making that went into this purportedly multistakeholder Output
Document -- the highly questionable and completely non-transparent selection
of the editorial committee (from a small circle of the Internet Governance
elite), where potentially critical but equally qualified participants were
excluded, where dissenting voices and positions were suppressed, with a
complete lack of accountability to presumed constituencies or "stakeholder"
groups, and where the outcome was presented quite falsely as a "consensus"
document and output of the associated meeting."
Also, you asked for a positive example. let me try to give you one that just
passed by my field of vision. I'm working with some groups in the
Philippines and elsewhere in the area of Open Government data. The intent
here is multiple but in this particular context the intent is to get access
to government data to facilitate grassroots advocates in intervening into
processes concerning the allocation of education funds. The Government of
the Philippines has evidently enacted legislation that mandates what they
are calling a process of "constructive engagement" which is activity by
government to work in partnership with and to facilitate and support the
activities of civil society (and presumably the private sector) to
accomplish objectives which are agreed upon to be in the public interest.
Here the democratic processes has resulted in the definition of rules which
will allow for the effective engagement of public servants with the range of
stakeholder groups, in this, case concerned with grassroots education
budgeting. I'm not sure how applicable the lessons (or modalities) here are
applicable to IG issues (and of course, I've oversimplified a quite complex
and somewhat localized set of processes) but I'm struck at how this
democratic governmental system is finding ways of responding to some of the
dilemma's amd complexities which MSism is purporting to resolve but within
an overall framework which is both democratic and one that ensures an
overall control in support of the public interest.
M
From: David Cake [mailto:dave at difference.com.au]
Sent: March 9, 2015 11:30 PM
To: Michael Gurstein
Cc: Shawna Finnegan; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net;
governance at lists.igcaucus.org
Subject: Re: [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of "Connecting
the Dots Conference"
On 6 Mar 2015, at 7:20 am, Michael Gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com
<mailto:gurstein at gmail.com> > wrote:
Further before entering into these kinds of "games" I want to know how they
will work under conditions of conflict and stress and not just in conditions
of presumed harmony and good will. My observation is that MS processes do
not work very well at all when there is conflict which is a major problem
given that the basis of the approach is one where participants are involved
specifically because they come from different contexts with presumably
different interests which will inevitably result in conflicts of various
kinds.
It is certainly true that multi-stakeholder processes do not work well in
situations in which consensus absolutely cannot be reached. Conflict and
consensus are different things, however - getting a group of conflicted
parties together knowing that they only way they can ensure their priorities
are represented in the final outcome is by being part of a consensus is a
very good mechanism for resolving conflict.
My observation is that when a MS process is subject to conflict or stress
it immediately reverts to a defensive and control mode where privileged
insiders close ranks, extrude the conflict (and its individual sources) and
proceed as though nothing had occurred - in this way they are achieving
consensus (which is of course the goal) but a consensus which reflects
nothing more than the capacity of insiders to find a way of reconciling (and
satisfying) insider's interests and eliminating the need to respond to
divergent positions and interests.
It would be helpful if you could point to examples where you
think this has occurred.
I'm not disagreeing per se, there are cases where the situation
you describe, or something like it occurs, though I wouldn't characterise it
the same way. For example, when one participant threatens to walk away from
a process because they don't get the outcome they want, then sure, other
participants may close ranks to minimise damage to the forum itself, in
which all have some investment - but this isn't always negative.
I would say the answer here is to ensure that such fora are open
enough that the power of 'insiders' is minimised, and those who feel their
interests would be harmed are able to remedy their concerns by becoming
participants.
Finally, I see no evident mechanisms to prevent elite capture--capture by
elites within individual stakeholder groups since these groups have in most
cases no obvious internal structures for ensuring appropriate levels of
effective accountability/representivity, and capture by social/economic
elites since these have the resources to participate and "manage" these
processes in a way which no non-economic elite will be able to do in the
absence of some form of external (state based) structures of enforcing
accountability, transparency etc.
I always find the way in which this form of analysis makes civil society
participants (many of whom are doing so on a volunteer basis and supporting
themselves by other means, and most of whom are chronically under funded and
overworked) part of a social/economic elite that have captured the process
for their own purposes.
But of course I agree that we could improve effective
accountability and representability, though I acknowledge that the latter is
proving difficult in practice.
But the real issue here is the obvious massive statist bias here
- why should we assume that states, many of which have a long history of
corruption, and many of which clearly have enormous problems with
transparency, are the only effective means of enforcing accountability and
transparency? Again, we are asked to believe that states are the only
effective means of ensuring these things, but when processes like the TPPA
and TTIP are shown as clear massive failures of transparency and
accountability, I doubt we will have an answer.
In the sphere of Internet Governance we are talking about decisions which
ultimately will impact billions and even trillions of dollars of value. Do
you really think that an under or non-resourced civil society (or government
such as those found in many LDC's for that matter) will be able to resist
the kind of resources which can and will be deployed to game those decision
making processes in favour of elite and dominant interests.
I say only that we will have more chance of getting a better
result from open transparent processes than we do from government led trade
processes.
There has to be more than a negative critique of
multi-stakeholder processes here - there needs to be a contrasting positive
example. So far, the obvious examples of government led processes in the
same policy area are pretty much all clearly worse. You have to show an
example decision making process that is clearly better, not imagine a
process that you think would be better if it existed.
Regards
David
I think you may have too high expectations for democracy. The US government
(along with Canada, the UK, and many other colonizing global powers) has
been violating human rights and destroying societies long before
'multi-stakeholder' started to look like a paradigm.
[MG] Yes, no question but that suggests to me the need to redouble efforts
to make democratic governance more effective and responsive rather than
tossing it out on the faint hope that something (anything) might be better.
Multi-stakeholder governance is, in my opinion, an extension of democratic
pluralism.
[MG] A form of pluralism perhaps, but I fail to see where the "democratic"
comes in. perhaps you could explain.
Powerful interests capture multi-stakeholder processes in much the same way
as democratic processes.
[MG] Yes, very likely but with democratic processes there is at least the
possibility of rectification. With legitimized control by powerful
(corporate) interests there is no possibility that I can see at
rectification. Those interests are in fact legally obliged (under current
law) to maximize their individual interests whatever the collective good. I
can lobby my government, organize protests and voter campaigns to (possibly)
achieve desired ends - how exactly do I influence Google or Disney or. for
Google I can't even find a phone number let alone how I might possibly
impact on a decision that they have made or are making. But I agree that we
need new and more effective means for achieving democratic accountability
and better and more inclusive and responsive structures of democratic
decision making-but tossing out hard won rights and gains that have been
achieved over a thousand years and much much blood and struggle for an
undefined "pig in a poke" doesn't seem to me to be a very good social trade
off to be making.
Going back to a previous comment you made in this thread, I am surprised to
read that you would advocate for any conventional civil society grouping to
shun an organization that did not actively endorse democracy as a
fundamental principle. Justice is a fundamental principle. Democracy is a
system of government. In practice, that system has been used as a tool to
placate us and legitimize powerful interests.
[MG] See above but also it is necessary to separate the mechanics and
structures of democratic governance from the norms and principles of
democracy. Individual instances of supposed democratic governance may have
failed or been misused or misdirected but that doesn't mean that the
aspiration of the people towards self-governance, empowerment, and social
justice is not an appropriate aspiration which is to be lightly and
cavalierly rejected in favour of governance by self-selected (and ultimately
self-serving) elites.
I very much agree that decisions made by civil society organizations now,
even if through non-action, will have significant consequences long-term.
And I agree that sometimes civil society need to walk out of negotiations.
Perhaps we should have red lines. That is an important discussion to have.
[MG] yes..
BTW, I am hearing you arguing in favour of Multistakeholder governance as an
appropriate mode for Internet (and presumably) other areas of governance.
Is this the official position of APC?
M
Shawna
On 15-03-05 01:50 PM, Michael Gurstein wrote:
> Thanks Shawna/Anriette, and welcome to this discussion...
>
> Just a couple of things...
>
> An individual or organization with convictions is judged by its
> willingness to say "no", to walk away when those convictions have been
> trampled upon... In this case the rejection of "democracy" as a
> qualifier for Internet Governance is I think a clear challenge, to
> one's convictions concerning the significance of democracy in the
> context of Internet Governance. APC could (and in my opinion
> should) walk away from situations where there is a clear denial of
> democracy as a fundamental governance principle.
>
> Similarly, the acceptance or rejection of choices is a clear
> indication of preferences... In this case the acceptance of
> "multistakeholderism" where "democracy" had been rejected is a clear
> indication of what appear to be the preferences of those who signed on
> to, or otherwise accepted the Outcome Statement. Thus where there is a
> clear choice, MSism is evidently the preferred option for those who
> signed on to this agreement.
>
> And please be aware that this is not trivial...
>
> The USG has made it quite clear in a variety of contexts that they see
> MSism as their preferred paradigm for global governance in the wide
> variety of areas going forward (notably of course not in
> security/surveillance). Thus accepting the elimination of "democracy"
> as a necessary element of Internet Governance is a pre-figuration of
> what we can expect in the range of other areas requiring global
> decision making in the future. Is this APC's preferred position?
>
> The manner in which MSism operates in practice is a form of governance
> by elites. A prioritization of MSism by APC and others means that the
> necessary explorations of how democratic governance can most
> effectively operate in the Internet age is deferred if not completely
> ignored, of course further empowering the elites and the 1%. Again is
> this APC's preferred position?
>
> So decisions made by APC now, even if they are done through non-action
> rather than action will contribute to very significant consequences in
> the longer term and again I repeat my question -- "has APC (and others
> who are so blithely jumping on the MS
> bandwagon) debated and then agreed to favour notions of
> multistakeholderism over a commitment to democracy as part of their
> own normative structures...?
>
> Best,
>
> M
>
>
> -----Original Message----- From: Shawna Finnegan
> [ <mailto:shawna at apc.org> mailto:shawna at apc.org] Sent: March 5, 2015 11:23
AM To: Michael
> Gurstein Cc: <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>
bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> ;
> <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org> governance at lists.igcaucus.org
<mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org> Subject: Re: [bestbits] Remarks at
> UNESCO Closing Ceremony of "Connecting the Dots Conference"
>
> Dear Michael,
>
> While I am not active in these lists, I do try to follow the
> discussion, and would like to take the opportunity to respond to your
> question about whether APC has debated and agreed to favour notions of
> 'multistakeholderism' over a commitment to democracy.
>
> In the 3+ years that I have worked with APC, my experience has been
> that we debate the strengths and weaknesses of various
> multi-stakeholder spaces on an ongoing basis, and discuss whether it
> is strategic to engage in those spaces. At the same time, we support
> our members to advocate for changes in laws and policies, and actively
> engage in intergovernmental bodies, such as the UN Human Rights
> Council.
>
> Moreover, when there is opportunity to contribute to ongoing
> discussion about multistakeholder processes and 'enhanced
> cooperation', APC has emphasized that multi-stakeholder participation
> is a means to achieve inclusive democratic internet
> governance:
>
> "Multi-stakeholder participation is not an end in itself, it is a
> means to achieve the end of inclusive democratic internet governance
> that enables the internet to be a force, to quote from the Geneva
> Declaration, for "the attainment of a more peaceful, just and
> prosperous world."
>
> (from our submission:
>
<http://www.apc.org/en/system/files/APC_response_CSTD_WGEC_10092013.pdf>http
://www.apc.org/en/system/files/APC_response_CSTD_WGEC_10092013.pdf
> )
>
> There is no agreement to favour notions of 'multistakeholderism'
> over a commitment to democracy because the dilemma is false. APC
> engages where we see the opportunity to positively affect change.
>
> Shawna
>
> On 15-03-05 08:04 AM, Michael Gurstein wrote:
>> Pardon my "tone" Anriette, but I find a UN document signed off on by
>> significant elements of Civil Society which excludes reference to
>> "democracy" in favour of the vague and non-defined terminology of
>> "multistakeholderism
>> <
<https://gurstein.wordpress.com/2014/03/26/the-multistakeholder-model-neo-li
beralism-and-global-internet-governance/>
https://gurstein.wordpress.com/2014/03/26/the-multistakeholder-model-neo-lib
eralism-and-global-internet-governance/>"
>>
>>
>
>>
and which equally excludes references in any way supportive of social
>> justice along with a rationalization of this because of "lack of
>> space" and presumptions of "conceptual baggage", as quite "demeaning"
>> of all those who were in any way a party to this travesty.
>>
>>
>>
>> This combined with the non-transparency of the selection of the
>> responsible parties and of their deliberative activities and equally
>> of the provenance of the funding support provided for the Civil
>> Society component who were able to attend this event and thus provide
>> the overall framework of legitimacy for this output document should I
>> think raise alarm bells among any with a degree of independent
>> concern for how normative structures are evolving (or "being
>> evolved") in this sphere.
>>
>>
>>
>> BTW, has APC debated and then agreed to favour notions of
>> multistakeholderism over a commitment to democracy as part of its own
>> normative structures as I queried in my previous email?
>>
>>
>>
>> M
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message----- From:
>> <mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net>
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: March 5, 2015 2:36 AM To:
>> <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org> governance at lists.igcaucus.org
<mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org> Cc:
<mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
<mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>
>> Subject: [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of "Connecting
>> the Dots Conference"
>>
>>
>>
>> Dear all
>>
>>
>>
>> Just an explanation and some context.
>>
>>
>>
>> I was on the 'coordinating committee' of the event. Our role was to
>> review comments on the draft statement and support the chair and
>> secretariat in compiling drafts.
>>
>>
>>
>> The final UNESCO outcome document did include the vast majority of
>> text/proposals submitted by civil society beforehand and onsite.
>>
>>
>>
>> This includes text submitted by Richard Hill on behalf of JNC
>> (Richard made several editorial suggestions which improved the
>> text) and text from Anita Gurumurthy from IT for Change (which
>> greatly improved weakened language on gender in the pre-final draft).
>>
>>
>>
>> The text on 'social and economic rights' were not excluded for any
>> reason other than it came during the final session and the
>> Secretariat were trying to keep the document short and linked
>> directly to the Study.
>>
>> It was decided to elaborate on the links to broader rights, and to
>> UNESCO needing to work with other rights bodies, in the final study
>> report rather than in the outcome statement.
>>
>>
>>
>> Again, not ideal from my perspective, but that was the outcome of the
>> discussion.
>>
>>
>>
>> It is a pity that 'democratic' was not added, but it was never really
>> an option. I personally, and APC, support linking democratic to
>> multistakeholder and we were happy that this happened in the
>> NETmundial statement. And reading Norbert's text below (thanks for
>> that Norbert) I would like to find a way to make sure that the
>> meaning of democratic However, in the UN IG context there is a very
>> particular angle to why "democratic multistakeholder" is so
>> contentious. In the Tunis Agenda the word "democratic" is directly
>> linked with the word "multilateral" - every time it occurs. This
>> means that people/governments who feel that 'multilateral' can be
>> used to diminish the recognition given to the importance of
>> multistakeholder participation, and take the debate back
>> intergovernmental oversight of IG, will not agree to having
>> 'democratic'
>>
>> in front of multistakeholder.
>>
>>
>>
>> In the context of these UN type negotiations it will be code for
>> reinserting multilateral (in the meaning of 'among governments') into
>> the text.
>>
>>
>>
>> At the NETmundial we had to fight for 'democratic multistakeholder',
>> but because it is a 'new' text we succeeded.
>>
>>
>>
>> The thing with documents that come out of the UN system is that they
>> are full of invisible 'hyperlinks' to previous documents and
>> political struggles that play themselves out in multiple spaces.
>>
>>
>>
>> I actually looked for a quote from the Tunis Agenda that we could
>> insert (at Richard's suggestion) to see if I could find a reference
>> to democratic that is not linked to 'multilateral' but I could not
>> find this quote, and I showed this to Richard and warned him that
>> unfortunately 'democratic' will most likely not be included.
>>
>>
>>
>> I can confirm that the editing group did consider this seriously, but
>> that the number of objections to this text were far greater than the
>> number of requests for putting it in.
>>
>>
>>
>> This is simply in the nature of consensus texts that are negotiated
>> in this way.
>>
>>
>>
>> There was also much stronger text on anonymity and encryption as
>> fundamental enablers of online privacy and freedom of expression in
>> the early draft. But it had to be toned down on the insistence of the
>> government of Brazil as the Brazilian constitution states that
>> anonymity is illegitimate.
>>
>>
>>
>> Civil society never succeeds in getting everything it wants in
>> documents we negotiate with governments. We have to evaluate the
>> gains vs. the losses.
>>
>>
>>
>> In my view the gains in this document outweighs the losses.
>> Supporting it means that we have UN agency who has a presence in the
>> global south who will put issues that are important to us on its
>> agenda, which will, I hope, create the opportunity for more people
>> from civil society, particularly from developing countries, to learn,
>> participate and influence internet-related debates with
>> policy-makers.
>>
>>
>>
>> Michael, as for your tone, and your allegations. I don't really know
>> what to say about them. They are false, they are destructive and they
>> demean not only the work of the civil society organisations or
>> individuals you name, but also the work - and what I believe to be
>> the values - of the Just Net Coalition.
>>
>>
>>
>> Anriette
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 05/03/2015 11:46, Norbert Bollow wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 5 Mar 2015 02:27:14 +0100
>>
>>> Jeremy Malcolm < <mailto:jmalcolm at eff.org%20%3cmailto:jmalcolm at eff.org
<http://eff.org/> > jmalcolm at eff.org <mailto:jmalcolm at eff.org>
<mailto:jmalcolm at eff.org>>
>>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>
>>>> On Mar 4, 2015, at 7:54 PM, Michael Gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com
<mailto:gurstein at gmail.com>
>> < <mailto:gurstein at gmail.com> mailto:gurstein at gmail.com>>
>>
>>>> wrote:
>>
>>>>>
>>
>>>>> Perhaps we could have an explanation from Jeremy and others on the
>>
>>>>> drafting committee as to when and how "democracy" and "social and
>>
>>>>> economic rights' became unacceptable terms in a document meant to
>>
>>>>> have global significance?
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> With pleasure. This is why:
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> <http://igfwatch.org/discussion-board/unesco-resists-jncs-attempt-to>
http://igfwatch.org/discussion-board/unesco-resists-jncs-attempt-to
>>>> -
>>>>
>>>>
t
>>
>>>> urn-democracy-against-ordinary-internet-users
>>
>>>
>>
>>> I would like to hereby state clearly that what Jeremy claims is
>>> JNC's
>>
>>> view of "democratic multi-stakeholderism" is not an actual position
>>> of
>>
>>> JNC.
>>
>>>
>>
>>> For JNC, "democratic" simply means: democratic.
>>
>>>
>>
>>> We insist that just like governance at national levels must be
>>
>>> democratic (which has been internationally accepted as a human
>>> right,
>>
>>> even if there are countries where this is not currently implemented
>>
>>> satisfactorily), any and all global governance must also be
>>> democratic.
>>
>>>
>>
>>> JNC's foundational document, the Delhi Declaration, states this as
>>
>>> follows:
>>
>>>
>>
>>> Globally, there is a severe democratic deficit with regard to
>>
>>> Internet governance. It is urgently required to establish
>>
>>> appropriate platforms and mechanisms for global governance of the
>>
>>> Internet that are democratic and participative.
>>
>>>
>>
>>> We are opposed to any kind of system in which multistakeholderism is
>>
>>> implemented in a way that is not democratic.
>>
>>>
>>
>>> We are *not* opposed to participative mechanisms for global
>>> governance
>>
>>> of the Internet. In fact we explicitly demand, in our foundational
>>
>>> document, mechanisms for global governance of the Internet which are
>>
>>> democratic *and* participative.
>>
>>>
>>
>>> This demand has nothing whatsoever to do with what Jeremy claims is
>>
>>> our goal, which he describes as "limited type of government-led
>>
>>> rulemaking". That would clearly *not* be participative.
>>
>>>
>>
>>> We insist that Internet governance must be democratic *and*
>>
>>> participative.
>>
>>>
>>
>>> Is that so hard to understand???
>>
>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>> The above-mentioned post of Jeremy also links, twice, to an earlier
>>
>>> blog post of his, and he claims that he has there "revealed ... the
>>
>>> agenda of the Just Net Coalition". That post happens to be quite
>>> full
>>
>>> of factually false assertions. I have now published my response
>>> (which
>>
>>> had previously been communicated in a non-public manner) at
>>
>>>
>>
>>> <http://justnetcoalition.org/reply-jeremy-malcolm>
http://justnetcoalition.org/reply-jeremy-malcolm
>>
>>>
>>
>>> Greetings,
>>
>>> Norbert
>>
>>> co-convenor, Just Net Coalition
>>
>>> <http://JustNetCoalition.org <http://justnetcoalition.org/> >
http://JustNetCoalition.org <http://justnetcoalition.org/>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>
>>> <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org> governance at lists.igcaucus.org
<mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
>>> < <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
>>
>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>
>>> <http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing>
http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>>>
>>
>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>
>>> <http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance>
http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>
>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>
>>> <http://www.igcaucus.org/> http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>>>
>>
>>> Translate this email: <http://translate.google.com/translate_t>
http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________ You
>> received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>> <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> 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>
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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20150310/09271eac/attachment.htm>
More information about the Bestbits
mailing list