[bestbits] Public interest and multi-stakeholder participation, was Re: [governance] Call for Participation: Global Congress ..
Anriette Esterhuysen
anriette at apc.org
Wed May 20 10:41:23 EDT 2015
Dear Jean-Louis
I don't personally use the 'equal footing' term. Configuration of
participation depends on the issue being discussed and accountability
involved. The term equal footing creates unnecessary confusion and can
be interpreted as saying that government and public sector actors don't
have an important role or specific responsibilities. It can also be abused.
If one is developing a national action plan on local content creation
having all different stakeholders involved 'equally' would be good, but
I would want to see particularly strong participation of people from
libraries, arts and culture and education ministries, content and
creative industries and so on. I would like to see large entertainment
companies, but also small independent producers and film makers, writers
and artists and people from cultural minorities.
I would be concerned if government or big business had a louder voice in
this discussion than other stakeholders, as that might end up silencing
some voices, and reducing diversity of views. But that does not mean
that we don't need to hear from government, or from big business.
Although I would hope they use the opportunity to listen, not just speak.
If it is a decision about how to tax global internet companies they
should have a voice in the pre-policy consultation process, but they
should not be making the decision. That is a decision that needs to be
made - transparently - by governments and intergovernmental
institutions. I would like civil society to be involved in this and I
would like public-interest economists to give input, and for the media
to be present so that we have more transparency. And I would like the
tax collection agencies to speak too.... as they know whether compliance
is likely to take place or not.
On public interest.. for me the power of this concept is that it opens a
debate. It forces a discussion on what the broadest possible public
interest is. Just having a room full of different stakeholders will
bring you diversity, but they might just all talk about what it is
matters most to them as interest or stakeholder groups. So governments
might talk about national security, operators about intermediary
liability, civil society about freedom of expression...
...but if the obligation of the discussion is to serve the broadest
possible public interest they must all make the case of WHY the position
they are advocating for will serve that interest, and state how they
understand the public interest.
And one should not make assumptions about who will argue for what. E.g
in some countries at present, small private sector content producers are
much more concerned with having a publicly funded public broadcaster
than government is. To assume that governments are in all cases the most
reliable custodians of the 'public interest' is wishful thinking.
Perhaps I am being naive, but in my view having a public-interest
orientation makes a big difference. And that is why I was so pleased
when the NETmundial statement said that internet governance should be in
the public interest.
It defines a common purpose, and a common measure - even if there will
still be different views of what serves the public interest best.
I often say to telecom regulators - am actually in an event with African
regulators this minute - that their role is not primarily to balance
interests among operators - their role is to protect and promote the
interest of users/consumers/the public.
Jean-Louis, I will not be in Geneva, but from APC there will be Shawna
Finnegan from APC staff for part of it, and Aida Mahmutovic who is on
APC's member council, representing our member in Bosnia-Herzegovina.
Warm greetings
Anriette
On 20/05/2015 15:15, Jean-Louis FULLSACK wrote:
> Dear Anriette
>
>
>
> Public interest " generally has different
>> meanings for different people and in different countries, for lawyers,
>> for activists"
>
>
>
> Don't the same remarks/restrictions apply to Multistakeholderism ? Do
> you see e.g. Burkina Faso government on "equal footing" with Google or
> other GAFA-like enterprises ? Not to mention BF Civil society orgs ?
>
>
>
> Best
>
>
>
> Jean-Louis Fullsack
>
>
>
> PS : BTW will you and/or APC take part in the next week WSIS Forum at
> Geneva ?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Message du 20/05/15 12:05
> > De : "Anriette Esterhuysen" <anriette at apc.org>
> > A : "Internet Governance" <governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
> > Copie à : "BestBitsList" <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>,
> "Forum at Justnetcoalition. Org" <forum at justnetcoalition.org>, "APC ICT
> policy advocacy" <apc.policy at lists.apc.org>, "lori at apc.org"
> <lori at apc.org>
> > Objet : Re: [governance] [bestbits] Call for Participation: Global
> Congress on Intellectual Property and the Public Interest, 2015
> >
> > Dear all
> >
> > It is really good to see the reference to the APC.glossary. So happy
> > that people are still using it. We developed it a long time ago
> when ICT
> > terms were still evolving.
> >
> > The definition of the term 'multi-stakeholder' dates back to around
> > 2004/5 when we were doing work at national level to facilitate
> > collaboration around access to infrastructure, and also when we
> produced
> > a guide to organising national WSIS consultations. So it reflects our
> > history in working in a multi-stakeholder way on ICT for development
> > issues at national level.
> >
> > I will ask the APC team to consider if the definition for
> > multi-stakeholder needs to change. How do others feel?
> >
> > And on definition of public interest... good to point out that we
> don't
> > have that in our glossary. We should add it. Public good , but we
> use it a lot in APC and therefore we should add it
> > to our glossary.
> >
> > Anriette
> >
> > APC glossary entry on 'multi-stakeholder'
> >
> > A very broad term that describes groupings of civil society, the
> private
> > sector, the public sector, the media and other stakeholders that come
> > together for a common purpose. It is often used with words like
> > “partnership” and “consultation”. In multi-stakeholder
> partnerships the
> > partners have a shared understanding that they play different
> roles and
> > have different purposes, but that they can pursue
> > collective goals through collaboration and common activities to
> achieve
> > such goals. These partnerships are voluntary, with participation
> driven
> > by the perceived benefits they may see emerging from the process. Such
> > partnerships are increasingly being used to challenge and lobby for
> > change in policy processes.
> >
> > Style information: APC uses multi-stakeholder with a hyphen between
> > “multi” and “stakeholder”.
> >
> >
> >
> > On 18/05/2015 05:45, Ang Peng Hwa (Prof) wrote:
> > > Parminder,
> > >
> > > I did not just rely on Wikipedia. (That would be another n of 1.)
> > >
> > > My point was to reply to the question: Does "multistakeholder"
> now have
> > > a stable definition?
> > >
> > >>The first entry is a Wiki where Norbert Bellow is quoted and
> where he
> > > distinguishes between types even.
> > >>The second entry is a glossary entry from APC.
> > >>The third entry is an ICANNWiki entry.
> > >
> > > There is another common factor in the APC and the ICANNWiki entries:
> > > there is no glossary entry for public interest in either of them.
> > >
> > > I leave you to interpret what that means.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Peng Hwa
> > >
> > > From: Parminder Singh <parminder at ITforChange.net
> > > <mailto:parminder at ITforChange.net>>
> > > Date: Monday, 18 May 2015 11:28 am
> > > To: Ang Peng Hwa <tphang at ntu.edu.sg <mailto:tphang at ntu.edu.sg>>,
> > > Williams Deirde <williams.deirdre at gmail.com
> > > <mailto:williams.deirdre at gmail.com>>, Internet Governance
> > > <governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>>
> > > Cc: BestBitsList <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
> > > <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>>, "Forum at Justnetcoalition. Org"
> > > <forum at justnetcoalition.org <mailto:forum at justnetcoalition.org>>
> > > Subject: Re: [governance] Call for Participation: Global Congress on
> > > Intellectual Property and the Public Interest, 2015
> > >
> > > Peng Hwa
> > >
> > > Since you seem to rely on wikipedia, before declaring that although
> > > 'everyone knows what knows what multi stakeholder is' 'public
> interest
> > > is a problematic concept' (both direct quotes from your email)
> did you
> > > look up 'public interest' in wikipedia? Well, here it is
> > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_interest
> > >
> > > A comparative assessment of the two entries in wikipedia -
> respectively
> > > on MSism (multistakeholderism) and public interest - would make
> clear
> > > which one is clearer and less contested term.
> > >
> > > Which in turn clearly proves that an assertion in favour of
> 'clarity' of
> > > the MS term with respect to the 'public interest' term is not
> based on
> > > any kind of facts or on existing body of civilisational
> knoweldge . It
> > > is merely ideological, which was my prior point. And the fact that a
> > > regional IGF process takes such a bias as a given - and does not
> correct
> > > itself even when the 'error' is pointed out - makes a important
> > > political point, which is the political point that I have been
> trying to
> > > make..
> > >
> > > parminder
> > >
> > > On Monday 18 May 2015 06:45 AM, Ang Peng Hwa (Prof) wrote:
> > >> Deirdre,
> > >>
> > >> Google
> > >>
> multistakeholder.https://www.google.com.sg/search?q=multistakeholder&oq=multistakeholder&aqs=chrome..69i57j69i60l3j69i65l2.2580j0j4&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=119&ie=UTF-8
> > >>
> > >> The first entry is a Wiki where Norbert Bellow is quoted and
> where he
> > >> distinguishes between types even.
> > >>
> > >> The second entry is a glossary entry from APC.
> > >>
> > >> The third entry is an ICANNWiki entry.
> > >>
> > >> Like many words, there is a “core” meaning and moving beyond that,
> > >> more than 50 shades of greying that keeps academics employed.
> > >>
> > >> Regards,
> > >> Ang Peng Hwa
> > >>
> > >> From: Williams Deirde <williams.deirdre at gmail.com
> > >> <mailto:williams.deirdre at gmail.com>>
> > >> Date: Monday, 18 May 2015 2:04 am
> > >> To: Internet Governance <governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> > >> <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>>, Ang Peng Hwa
> > >> <tphang at ntu.edu.sg <mailto:tphang at ntu.edu.sg>>
> > >> Cc: Parminder Singh <parminder at ITforChange.net
> > >> <mailto:parminder at ITforChange.net>>, BestBitsList
> > >> <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>>,
> > >> "Forum at Justnetcoalition. Org" <forum at justnetcoalition.org
> > >> <mailto:forum at justnetcoalition.org>>
> > >> Subject: Re: [governance] Call for Participation: Global
> Congress on
> > >> Intellectual Property and the Public Interest, 2015
> > >>
> > >> "Everyone knows what multistakeholder is. That’s easy."
> > >>
> > >> Respectfully, (I'm making a comment/asking for clarification, not
> > >> trying to pick a quarrel), I have the impression that the
> problem is
> > >> that everyone /doesn't/ know, or rather that everyone doesn't
> agree.
> > >> "Multistakeholder" seems to me to have become a "Humpty Dumpty"
> word -
> > >> 'When *I* use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful
> tone,
> > >> 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.'
> > >> (from Alice Through the Looking Glass/Lewis Carroll
> > >> /http://sabian.org/looking_glass6.php)
> > >> I've begun to record, for my own benefit, when how and where
> the term
> > >> is used, and to notice those contexts in which it is not used.
> > >> Does "multistakeholder" now have a stable definition? Does
> > >> "multistakeholderism"?
> > >> Best wishes
> > >> Deirdre
> > >>
> > >> On 17 May 2015 at 11:13, Ang Peng Hwa (Prof) <TPHANG at ntu.edu.sg
> > >> <mailto:TPHANG at ntu.edu.sg>> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> >So, in fact, indeed the dominant groups involved with the IGF
> process do seem to think that 'public interest' is a problematic
> concept, and the idea of 'multistakeholder perspective' or interest
> is a positive political evolution over it!
> > >>
> > >> What a curious (mis)reading.
> > >>
> > >> First of all, I do not see how the APrIGF can be representative of
> > >> “dominant groups”. We are, at best/worst an n of 1. Nah, I would
> > >> not want to be one of the MASTERS of the UNIVERSE.
> > >>
> > >> Second, it is precisely because public interest is a problematic
> > >> concept that the APrIGF is not using that notion. We have no time
> > >> to discuss it before we roll out the meeting. Everyone knows what
> > >> multistakeholder is. That’s easy. But public interest—we could
> > >> discuss it as a panel if you wish.
> > >>
> > >> It would of course have to be next year.
> > >>
> > >> But if I say that it is next year, it is because of the deadline.
> > >> Not because, once again, that public interest is not a problematic
> > >> conception.
> > >>
> > >> Regards,
> > >> Peng Hwa
> > >>
> > >> From: Parminder Singh <parminder at ITforChange.net
> > >> <mailto:parminder at ITforChange.net>>
> > >> Reply-To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> > >> <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>"
> > >> <governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> > >> <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>>, Parminder Singh
> > >> <parminder at ITforChange.net <mailto:parminder at ITforChange.net>>
> > >> Date: Sunday, 17 May 2015 9:46 pm
> > >> To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> > >> <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>"
> > >> <governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> > >> <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>>, BestBitsList
> > >> <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
> > >> <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>>, "Forum at Justnetcoalition.
> > >> Org" <forum at justnetcoalition.org
> <mailto:forum at justnetcoalition.org>>
> > >> Subject: Re: [governance] Call for Participation: Global Congress
> > >> on Intellectual Property and the Public Interest, 2015
> > >>
> > >> Interesting theme of this series of global congresses:
> > >> 'Intellectual Property and the Public Interest' !
> > >>
> > >> Wonder if you ever thought of calling it "IP and the
> > >> multistakeholder Interest' ?
> > >>
> > >> You all have have seen the discussion I recently had with Peng
> > >> Hwa, head of the AP regional IGF process for many years, who
> > >> strongly argued that public interest perspective is a very unclear
> > >> concept but multistakeholder perspective or interest is much
> > >> easier to establish.
> > >>
> > >> The discussion started when I objected to the call for workshops
> > >> for the AP regional IGF which was categorical that every workshop
> > >> proposal must incorporate a 'multistakeholder perspective'. I
> > >> suggested that it be replaced by 'public interest'. This
> > >> suggestion was not accepted. So, in fact, indeed the dominant
> > >> groups involved with the IGF process do seem to think that 'public
> > >> interest' is a problematic concept, and the idea of
> > >> 'multistakeholder perspective' or interest is a positive political
> > >> evolution over it!
> > >>
> > >> Friends, these are serious post-democratic developments to which,
> > >> it is my duty of observe, most of the civil society involved in IG
> > >> area are either a silent or active accomplices.
> > >>
> > >> Meanwhile, of course, I wait for arguments that Internet ( unlike
> > >> intellectual property!?) is a bottom up , private, etc etc, thing,
> > >> and therefore its governance has to be different.... Well, lets
> > >> admit it, such an arugment really does not hold unless we are
> > >> intent to be misled by it - the social artefact of the Internet is
> > >> no more bottom up, private, etc that the social relationships of
> > >> trade and property, whose governance continue to be done in
> > >> democratic fashions... Time we claimed democratic governance for
> > >> the Internet as well, and rubbish the post-democratic
> > >> multistakeholderist ideas that are so solidly taking root in this
> > >> space, for which the IG civil society will have to answer to
> history.
> > >>
> > >> Would anyone agree that the proposed global congress on IP and
> > >> public interest to be held in a 'multistakeholder' way, with equal
> > >> space for the big IP holders, as one always insists for an IG
> > >> meeting... What really is the difference, other than that the
> > >> discourse in the IG space has been captured by powerful forces
> > >> before public interest actors could assert themselves. Civil
> > >> society in this area must help in re-democraticing this area, and
> > >> reclaiming 'public interest'.
> > >>
> > >> Meanwhile, my best wishes to the the organisers of this very
> > >> importanr congress.
> > >>
> > >> In fact some of us have been talking about holding a global
> > >> congress on 'Internet governance and public interest'. Happy to
> > >> talk to those who may be interested.
> > >>
> > >> parminder
> > >>
> > >> On Friday 15 May 2015 03:21 PM, Geetha Hariharan wrote:
> > >>> PFA the call for participation for the Global Congress on
> > >>> Intellectual
> > >>> Property and Public Interest.
> > >>>
> > >>> Apologies for cross-posting. Please do circulate to anyone you
> think
> > >>> might be interested.
> > >>>
> > >>> Best,
> > >>> Geetha.
> > >>>
> > >>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> > >>> From: Swaraj Barooah
> > >>> Date: Wed, May 13, 2015 at 1:05 PM
> > >>> Subject: Call for Participation: Global Congress on Intellectual
> > >>> Property and the Public Interest, 2015
> > >>>
> > >>> Dear all,
> > >>>
> > >>> We are pleased to announce the call for participation for the
> fourth
> > >>> edition of the Global Congress on Intellectual Property and the
> > >>> Public
> > >>> Interest (“Global Congress”). The theme for this year’s Congress
> > >>> will be
> > >>> “Three Decades of Openness; Two Decades of TRIPS.” We are now
> > >>> inviting
> > >>> applications to participate in the Congress, including session
> > >>> participation and presentations. We are also welcoming
> proposals for
> > >>> panels and workshops.
> > >>>
> > >>> The application form is available now at
> > >>> [http://form.jotformpro.com/form/50854976184973?] Please note
> > >>> that this
> > >>> form is for application purposes, and does not amount to
> > >>> confirmation of
> > >>> participation. The registrations for the plenary sessions,
> which are
> > >>> open to the public, will open closer to the date of the Global
> > >>> Congress.
> > >>>
> > >>> Deadlines
> > >>>
> > >>> August 1st: Priority Deadline for Applications- Applicants will be
> > >>> considered on a rolling basis, with applications made by
> August 1st
> > >>> being given first consideration. Applications after August 1st to
> > >>> receive travel assistance will be considered only under
> exceptional
> > >>> circumstances (these details will be collected in a subsequent
> form).
> > >>>
> > >>> November 1st: All applications for session participation and paper
> > >>> submissions will close on November 1st.
> > >>>
> > >>> Application Information
> > >>>
> > >>> For applications to participate/host: Applications to present
> or host
> > >>> workshops shall be considered based on the proposals to be
> > >>> submitted in
> > >>> the form.
> > >>>
> > >>> For applications to attend sessions:Applications to attend
> > >>> sessions as
> > >>> discussants will be considered based on the statement of purpose
> > >>> and/or
> > >>> any other relevant information provided by the applicant.
> > >>>
> > >>> Limited travel grants to cover accommodation and/or travel to the
> > >>> Congress will be available, with priority to those from developing
> > >>> countries.
> > >>>
> > >>> Background, Theme and Expected Outcomes
> > >>>
> > >>> The Global Congress on Intellectual Property and the Public
> > >>> Interest is
> > >>> the most significant event on the calendar for scholars and policy
> > >>> advocates working on intellectual property from a public interest
> > >>> perspective. By sharing their research and strategies, the
> network of
> > >>> experts and activists supported by the Global Congress are
> > >>> empowered to
> > >>> put forward a positive agenda for policy reform. The Global
> Congress
> > >>> began in Washington D.C. in 2011, moved to Rio de Janeiro in
> > >>> 2012, and
> > >>> was held in Cape Town in 2013. The fourth Global Congress will
> now be
> > >>> held in New Delhi, in December 2015. The event would be the
> largest
> > >>> convening of public interest-oriented intellectual property
> > >>> practitioners ever held in Asia, and would help link in the
> > >>> world's most
> > >>> populous region to these global debates around how intellectual
> > >>> property
> > >>> policy can best serve the public interest.
> > >>>
> > >>> The fourth edition of the Global Congress, which brings research,
> > >>> civil
> > >>> society, industry and regulatory and policy-making communities
> > >>> together
> > >>> for active, intense engagement on key public-interest intellectual
> > >>> property issues. Opportunities for these groups to interact are
> > >>> rare but
> > >>> valuable; and have been proven to lead to successful policy
> outcomes.
> > >>> The 4thedition of the Congress, slated to be held in December,
> > >>> 2015 in
> > >>> New Delhi seeks to be one such opportunity.
> > >>>
> > >>> The theme for the 2015 Congress is Three Decades of Openness; Two
> > >>> Decades of TRIPS-coming at a pivotal time for reflection,
> > >>> revision, and
> > >>> further strategizing. Specifically, the 2015 Congress seeks to
> > >>> produce
> > >>> three outcomes- first, the mobilization of existing scholarly
> > >>> research
> > >>> directly into the hands of civil society advocates, business
> > >>> leaders and
> > >>> policy makers, leading to evidence-based policies and practices;
> > >>> second,the collaborative identification of urgent, global and
> local
> > >>> research priorities and generation of a joint research/advocacy
> > >>> agenda;
> > >>> and third, the solidification of an inter-disciplinary,
> > >>> cross-sector and
> > >>> global networked community of experts focused on public interest
> > >>> aspects
> > >>> of IP policy and practice.
> > >>>
> > >>> Participation Opportunities
> > >>>
> > >>> Discussions at the Global Congress will be carried out in the
> form of
> > >>> plenary sessions, thematic tracks, cross-track sessions, and the
> > >>> room of
> > >>> scholars. Participation is invited for the thematic track
> sessions,
> > >>> cross-track sessions and the room of scholars.
> > >>>
> > >>> The thematic tracks at the Global Congress are: 1) Openness, 2)
> > >>> Access
> > >>> to Medicines, 3) User Rights, 4) IP and Development.
> > >>>
> > >>> Cross-track sessions will feature research that cuts across
> tracks in
> > >>> order to facilitate engagement between tracks on themes of mutual
> > >>> interest.
> > >>>
> > >>> The Room of Scholars will feature presentations of research
> > >>> outputs such
> > >>> as draft works or white papers that may not fit directly
> within the
> > >>> thematic tracks but fall within the overall theme of the Global
> > >>> Congress
> > >>> .
> > >>>
> > >>> Participation could be in the form of presenting / discussing
> > >>> conference
> > >>> papers or policy briefs, or by conducting workshops where they
> > >>> may share
> > >>> their own work and solicit feedback from peers, during the
> > >>> aforementioned sessions.
> > >>>
> > >>> The application form for participation is available now
> > >>> athttp://form.jotformpro.com/form/50854976184973?. Please forward
> > >>> this
> > >>> invitation to interested lists and individuals. For more
> > >>> information or
> > >>> questions, you may contact globalcongress2015 at gmail.com
> > >>> <mailto:globalcongress2015 at gmail.com>
> > >>> <mailto:globalcongress2015 at gmail.com>
> > >>> <mailto:globalcongress2015 at gmail.com>.
> > >>>
> > >>> Organisation
> > >>>
> > >>> The Centre for Internet and Society <http://cis-india.org/>
> > >>> <http://cis-india.org/>serves as the
> > >>> convenor of the fourth Global Congress on Intellectual
> Property and
> > >>> Public Interest, carried out in cooperation withNational Law
> > >>> University,
> > >>> Delhi <http://www.nludelhi.ac.in/> <http://www.nludelhi.ac.in/>.
> > >>>
> > >>> The implementing partners arethe <http://www.openair.org.za/>
> > >>> <http://www.openair.org.za/>American
> > >>> Assembly <http://americanassembly.org/>
> > >>> <http://americanassembly.org/>at Columbia University in New
> > >>> York,Open A.I.R <http://www.openair.org.za/>
> > >>> <http://www.openair.org.za/>., and theProgram on
> > >>> Information Justice and Intellectual Property
> > >>> <http://www.pijip.org/> <http://www.pijip.org/>at
> > >>> American University Washington College of Law in Washington DC.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> On behalf of the organizing committee,
> > >>>
> > >>> Swaraj Barooah
> > >>>
> > >>> Swaraj Paul Barooah
> > >>> Project Manager, "Global Congress"
> > >>> (Global Congress on IP and the Public Interest, 2015)
> > >>>
> > >>> Editor-in-Chief, SpicyIP.com <http://SpicyIP.com>
> > >>> <http://SpicyIP.com>
> > >>> Founder, Know-GAP
> > >>> Twitter: @swarajpb
> > >>>
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > ____________________________________________________________
> > >> > 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
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> SG50
> > >>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >> 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.
> > >> Towards a sustainable earth: Print only when necessary. Thank you.
> > >>
> > >> ____________________________________________________________
> > >> 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
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir
> > >> William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ____________________________________________________________
> > > 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
> > >
> >
> > ____________________________________________________________
> > 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