No subject
Thu Jan 13 08:49:26 EST 2022
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 withdrawn.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 esterhuysen anriette 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 esterhuysen anriette 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
--------------000106080900080007060605
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<font face="Arial">Dear all<br>
<br>
I think it is not so clear cut.<br>
<br>
We live in a time of governance processes changing, and we have
opportunities to make them more democratic.<br>
<br>
I recently had a discussion with someone in the government of
Brazil who is very active in CGI.br.<br>
<br>
I asked him whether CGI.br is a platform for policy shaping (to
use Jovan's term) or policy making. My understanding was that it
was primarily for policy shaping.<br>
<br>
He said I was wrong, and that it is in fact a multi-stakeholder
body that can make certain types of policies. Members of CGI.br
on these lists can give examples.<br>
<br>
CGI.br is a formally constituted (by act of the legislature) body
that is multi-stakeholder, and that can make certain types of
public policies, as well as make recommendations for public
policies.<br>
<br>
Membership of CGI.br is of course not informal - it is quite formal,
but it is multi-stakeholder.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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'.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
Anriette<br>
<br>
<br>
</font>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 06/03/2014 14:02, parminder wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:531863E1.7030705 at itforchange.net" type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<font face="Verdana">Joy<br>
<br>
You clarify the difference between two positions very well..<br>
<br>
So, I understand that, those who want to support the civil
society statement put on BestBits platform for endorsements hold
that non-gov participants</font><font face="Verdana">(which
includes business)</font><font face="Verdana"> should be on the
same footing as gov participants in terms of actually <i><b>making
public </b></i><i><b>policies</b></i><i><b>.<br>
<br>
</b></i>Fine. There is no room for confusion now.<br>
<br>
I think this is a anti-democratic statement. And oppose it as
ever.<br>
<br>
Meanwhile, look forward to see actual models of such policy
making, which arent there in the mentioned statement, or its
accompanying statements.<br>
<br>
parminder<br>
<br>
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. <br>
<br>
<i><b><br>
</b></i></font>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On Thursday 06 March 2014 03:25 PM,
joy wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:5318460E.7080301 at apc.org" type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
As Anriette has already noted - in relation to the APC Charter
the full quote in Theme 6.1 is:<br>
<blockquote>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.<br>
</blockquote>
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.<br>
<br>
I am happy to support the Best Bits submission: i think its 2
recommendations are simple, concise and helpful.<br>
<br>
It seems the logic of the objections being raised to endorsing
the Best Bits submission is along the lines that on the one
hand:<br>
a) governments alone make public policy including some which is
relevant to internet governance<br>
b) governments should be on an equal footing with each other
when doing so; and <br>
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) .<br>
<br>
Whereas, the Best Bits submission is premised along the lines
that <br>
a) governments and multi-stakeholder processes make public
policy which is relevant to internet governance<br>
b) therefore all stakeholders should be on an equitable footing
or parity with each other when doing so; <br>
<br>
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. <br>
<br>
<br>
Joy<br>
Joy<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 6/03/2014 9:14 p.m., Anriette
Esterhuysen wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:53182E74.5060401 at apc.org" type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
<font face="Arial">Dear all<br>
<br>
Just a clarification here on the APC Internet Rights Charter
and the use of 'multilateral'.<br>
<br>
</font>The full text in Theme 6.1 is:<br>
<br>
"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."<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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."<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
Best<br>
<br>
Anriette<br>
<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 05/03/2014 14:29, parminder
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:531718AC.3040402 at itforchange.net"
type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On Wednesday 05 March 2014
05:19 PM, parminder wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:53170F61.60305 at itforchange.net"
type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On Wednesday 05 March 2014
05:09 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:2E3D5FD7-A108-4A16-977A-2650F624CA82 at Malcolm.id.au"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=UTF-8">
On 5 Mar 2014, at 7:21 pm, parminder <<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:parminder at itforchange.net">parminder at itforchange.net</a>>
wrote:<br>
<div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
<blockquote type="cite">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"
style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px;
font-style: normal; font-variant: normal;
font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal;
line-height: normal; orphans: auto; text-align:
start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none;
white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing:
0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;">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!<br>
<br>
Now I shall come to the point, of my comments on
the proposed submission to NetMundial submitted by
Jeremy.<br>
<br>
I of course support and commend both APC
Principles and IRP Principles - which seem the
main burden of the submission.... BUT...<br>
<i><b><br>
</b></i><i><b>Can someone explain me the meaning
of "equitable multistakeholder participation"</b></i><span
class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>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.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>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: <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://pad.riseup.net/p/IG_principles">https://pad.riseup.net/p/IG_principles</a>.
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.</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
I dont greatly like flexibility between democracy and
non-democracy. <br>
<br>
So, request a clear response - do you mean <i><b>parity</b></i>
in <i><b>decision making</b></i> about <i><b>public
policies </b></i>between gov and non gov actors.... </blockquote>
<br>
<br>
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'..<br>
<br>
In fact the APC Principles doc speaks of "<font
face="sans-serif"><font style="font-size: 11pt" size="3">The
right to multilateral democratic oversight of the
Internet. Internet governance</font></font><font
face="sans-serif"><font style="font-size: 11pt" size="3">
should be multilateral and democratic.</font></font>
<title></title>
<meta name="GENERATOR" content="LibreOffice 3.5 (Linux)">
<style type="text/css">
<!--
@page { margin: 2cm }
P { margin-bottom: 0.21cm }
-->
</style>"<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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....<br>
<br>
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)<br>
<br>
Now, lets see what does your contribution - developed by
civil society actors in IG space - come up with .....<br>
<br>
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 <i><b>equitable
multistakeholder participation </b></i>" (emphasis
added)<br>
<br>
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. <br>
<br>
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. <br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
parminder<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:53170F61.60305 at itforchange.net"
type="cite">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...<br>
<br>
BTW, the German government has the following to say in its
submission to NetMundial<br>
<br>
"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."<br>
<br>
Do you for instance agree to the above formulation, or
NOT...<br>
<br>
parminder <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:2E3D5FD7-A108-4A16-977A-2650F624CA82 at Malcolm.id.au"
type="cite">
<div>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
<div apple-content-edited="true">
<div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); letter-spacing:
normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start;
text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space:
normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px;
-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; word-wrap:
break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space;
-webkit-line-break: after-white-space;">
<div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); letter-spacing:
normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start;
text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none;
white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing:
0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; word-wrap:
break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space;
-webkit-line-break: after-white-space;">
<div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); letter-spacing:
normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start;
text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none;
white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing:
0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; word-wrap:
break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space;
-webkit-line-break: after-white-space;">
<div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family:
Helvetica; font-style: normal; font-variant:
normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing:
normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2;
text-align: -webkit-auto; text-indent: 0px;
text-transform: none; white-space: normal;
widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;
-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; word-wrap:
break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space;
-webkit-line-break: after-white-space;">
<div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family:
Helvetica; font-style: normal; font-variant:
normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing:
normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2;
text-align: -webkit-auto; text-indent: 0px;
text-transform: none; white-space: normal;
widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;
-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; word-wrap:
break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space;
-webkit-line-break: after-white-space;"><span
class="Apple-style-span"
style="border-collapse: separate; color:
rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica;
font-style: normal; font-variant: normal;
font-weight: normal; letter-spacing:
normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2;
text-align: -webkit-auto; text-indent:
0px; text-transform: none; white-space:
normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;
border-spacing: 0px;
-webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none;
-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;">
<div style="font-size: 12px; text-align:
-webkit-auto; word-wrap: break-word;
-webkit-nbsp-mode: space;
-webkit-line-break: after-white-space;"><span
class="Apple-style-span"
style="border-collapse: separate;
border-spacing: 0px;">
<div style="word-wrap: break-word;
-webkit-nbsp-mode: space;
-webkit-line-break:
after-white-space;">
<div>--</div>
<div>Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B
Com</div>
<div>Internet lawyer, ICT policy
advocate, geek</div>
<div>host -t NAPTR
5.9.8.5.2.8.2.2.1.0.6.<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://e164.org">e164.org</a>|awk
-F! '{print $3}'</div>
</div>
</span><br
class="Apple-interchange-newline">
</div>
WARNING: This email has not been
encrypted. You are strongly recommended to
enable encryption at your end. For
instructions, see <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://jere.my/l/pgp">http://jere.my/l/pgp</a>.</span></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
------------------------------------------------------
anriette esterhuysen <a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:anriette at apc.org">anriette at apc.org</a>
executive director, association for progressive communications
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.apc.org">www.apc.org</a>
po box 29755, melville 2109
south africa
tel/fax +27 11 726 1692</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
------------------------------------------------------
anriette esterhuysen <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:anriette at apc.org">anriette at apc.org</a>
executive director, association for progressive communications
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.apc.org">www.apc.org</a>
po box 29755, melville 2109
south africa
tel/fax +27 11 726 1692</pre>
</body>
</html>
--------------000106080900080007060605--
More information about the Bestbits
mailing list