No subject
Thu Jan 13 08:49:26 EST 2022
what seems to have happened within civil society re: copyright/IP these
last few weeks:
1) Civil society went into this hoping to keep copyright and IP "out" of
the language, both civil society language + NETmundial outcome doc
language, as a strategy to avoid the inclusion of "protection" clauses.
2) However well-intentioned, I think this was an unwise strategy, since
there had already been so much discussion on the copyright-IP-connected
text in the draft NETmundial outcome doc, overwhelmingly dominated by
rights-holders or their advocates, all in favour of explicitly
protectionist language - which is to say it seemed inevitable that this
would be lobbied strongly. A wiser strategy, given the run-up to
NETmundial, would have been for civil society to have had a clear
pro-sharing, anti- unilateral imposition of arbitrarily restrictive
copyright position to stick to.
3) Some text to this effect was suggested by me and others at the April 22
meeting but was later discarded or lost. The text that was eventually used
to articulate the civil society position discounted the importance of a
stand against restrictive copyright/IP application, and seemed to have been
written with a view to pre-empting what some saw as the eventual negotiated
outcome of NETmundial.
4) Somehow (I say this because I don't understand it, and the few who
participated in the process can't either; I won't assume bad faith, but I
will assume an inadequate understanding of the issues at stake by some of
the civil society people involved in drafting) the civil society *position*
- uninfluenced by negotiation, in effect a statement of principles,
released on April 23, 2014 (one full day before the NETmundial official
outcome doc was negotiated and released) - contained inexcusable language
around copyright, essentially endorsing a protectionist position on IP, in
effect giving *in* to a negotiation with rights-holders and/or NETmundial
*before a negotiation was even had*. (
http://bestbits.net/netmundial-proposals/)
5) Since there are several of us in civil society who have worked within
FOSS, on copyright, IP and access to knowledge, since there are more of us
who lived through the SOPA/PIPA discussions and participated in actions
against them and have a strong understanding of the catastrophic effects of
restrictively wielded IP rules, *and* since the IP-connected sections of
the draft NETmundial outcome document were by far the most-commented
sections in that text, *and* given that many of us in civil society feel
that the IP issue in Internet governance ranks up there with surveillance
and net neutrality as an overarching, immediate threat to online freedom
across the world, the civil society position on this issue was shockingly
inadequate, harmful and just plain bad.
6) You *must* therefore find a better process to represent constituent
positions in any joint submission or statement in the future. I came to
NETmundial fully expecting to be disappointed by the official NETmundial
outcome document (as I was), because that's the way things are. But I did
not expect to be even more disappointed by the pre-negotiation,
pre-outcome, civil society position statement - and I was. Deeply.
7) I am unmoved by congratulatory statements that this meeting was "not so
bad" and a "good start" or whatever: there were far too few of us who
participated in protest actions at the meeting, and civil society was more
anodyne than called for. (On a related note: the surveillance protests with
Snowden masks were on the cover of every single Brazilian newspaper the
next day). I'm relatively new to Internet governance, but not to activism
around issues connected to the Internet. As an activist, I understand my
role as having to be better prepared, more informed, more forceful, more
sharp, more clever and more ingenious than anything governments and
business can come up with, given that I command none of the vast resources
of money and power they have. I'd urge this group to seriously consider
complementing its more thoughtful interventions with dramatic, unreasonable
action if it wants to not only get a seat at the table but actually be
*heard*.
All those distinguished master's degrees we've painstakingly accumulated
won't be diminished by being a little cheeky :)
Good wishes,
Achal
On 30 April 2014 00:50, Mishi Choudhary <mishi at softwarefreedom.org> wrote:
> Thanks Jeremy,
>
> I had missed out on this traffic to understand how this all worked but I
> would still like thorough discussions on this issue for future if others
> agree.
>
>
> On 04/29/2014 07:20 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>
> On 29 Apr 2014, at 5:35 pm, Anriette Esterhuysen <anriette at apc.org> wrote:
>
> The deadlock was broken by us using text that was suggested, or proposed
> by Jeremy Malcolm on the second day. I can't remember exactly what Jeremy
> had said, but is input implied that some protection for authors would be
> acceptable.
>
>
> I lost my verbatim note of what I said due to a crash, but from
> Pranesh's log of the transcript (at
> https://prakash.im/text-netmundial-day1.html) here it is as delivered:
>
> THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. MY NAME IS JEREMY---- ON AN ENABLING ENVIRONMENT
> FOR INNOVATION AND CREATIVITY, WHICH AS YOUR CO-CHAIR NOTED GENERATED THE
> MOST COMMENTS OF ANY PARAGRAPH. DUE TO THE MISCONCEPTION THAT REFERENCE TO
> PERMISSIONLESS INNOVATION WAS ABOUT THE USE OF CREATIVE CONTENT WITHOUT
> PERMISSION.
> NOW VORRING'S WHEN WE THINK OF INNOVATION, APART FROM SCIENTISTS, WE THINK
> OF ARTISTS AND PERMISSIONLESS INNOVATION IS SOMETHING THAT SHOULD BE A
> FAMILIAR CONCEPT TO ARTISTS BECAUSE THERE IS NO PERMISSION REQUIRED
> TO WRITE A SONG OR A PLAY OR A NOVEL. YOU JUST DO IT. AND INNOVATION ON THE
> INTERNET SHOULD WORK THE SAME WAY. NOW INNOVATION IS ALWAYS SUBJECT TO THE
> RULE OF LAW. THAT GOES WITHOUT SAYING. I DON'T, THEREFORE, THINK IT'S
> NECESSARY TO SPELL OUT ALL THE LEGAL LIMITS TO INNOVATION THAT MAY EXIST,
> OF WHICH INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS ARE JUST ONE. THOUGH IF WE WERE TO
> ADD THE WORDS "CONSISTENT WITH THE OTHER PRINCIPLES IN THIS DOCUMENT," I
> DON'T SEE WHAT HARM THAT COULD DO.
> THAT DOES, HOWEVER, RAISE THE SECONDARY POINT OF WHETHER IP RIGHTS SHOULD
> BE ADDED TO THE LIST OF HUMAN RIGHTS, AS SOME HAVE CONTENDED.
> AGAIN, I DON'T SEE HOW THAT IS NECESSARY BECAUSE THE LIST OF RIGHTS IS
> ALREADY EXPLICITLY NONEXCLUSIVE, AND NOTHING THAT WE AGREE AT NETmundial
> CAN DETRACT FROM WHAT'S ALREADY IN THE UDHR.
> SO I WOULD OPPOSE ADDING A POINT ON IP, BUT IF ONE WAS ADDED NEVERTHELESS
> IT WOULD, AT THE VERY LEAST, BE NECESSARY TO QUALIFY IT TO REFLECT THE NEED
> TO BALANCE PRIVATE IP RIGHTS WITH THE BROADER PUBLIC INTEREST.
> INDEED, PARAGRAPH 27 OF THE UDHR ITSELF BALANCES IP RIGHTS WITH THE RIGHT
> TO PARTICIPATE IN THE CULTURAL LIFE OF THE COMMUNITY, SO WE SHOULD MENTION
> THAT, ALONG WITH THE RIGHTS TO EDUCATION, FREEDOM OF
> EXPRESSION AND INFORMATION, AND THE RIGHT TO PRIVACY.
> I CAN SEND SOME PARTICULAR TEXT SUGGESTIONS, BUT WE -- WE DO -- AS A -- AS
> A STARTING POINT, WE OPPOSE THE ADDITION OF A RIGHT TO IP.
> SO IN CONCLUSION, WE DO SUPPORT THE RETENTION OF
> PERMISSIONLESS INNOVATION, AND WE BELIEVE THAT MINIMAL, IF ANY, CHANGES ARE
> NECESSARY TO CLARIFY THAT THIS IS NOT INTENDED TO OVERRIDE INTELLECTUAL
> PROPERTY RIGHTS --
> [TIMER SOUNDS ]
> -- THANK YOU.
>
> So, in the end, this text was not too bad. And we managed to keep
> 'permissionless innovation' in another part of the document. The BAD news
> is that the text on internet intermediary liability which was only
> finalised after the high level committee meeting is the same OECD text
> which civil society opposed in 2011. France and the US were insisted it be
> included. It is text that links intermediary liability to economic growth
> and that opens the doors to intermediaries being made responsible for
> enforcing copyright. For me that was a huge, huge blow.
>
> I am not in a position to respond to your other questions as I was not
> involved in finalising the civil society inputs.
>
>
> There was no plan to produce a text, consensus or otherwise, out of the
> pre-meeting. This was something that happened spontaneously because some
> of the organisers decided to do it. They did a good job, but one of the
> things that was lost was context - such as degrees of consensus around
> particular text (there was not a consensus on everything) and whether some
> text is a "last resort" position, etc. Part of the context that was lost
> for the IP text was that it was a "last resort" for how we could balance
> out the IP language if it was included by industry. So it is correct of
> you (Achal) to say that this proposing protection of IP rights is not a
> civil society position. I considered the text from the pre-meeting as more
> of a rough roadmap or guide for our interventions, rather than as an agreed
> text. Similarly the closing statement, which also happened spontaneously,
> cannot be considered as representing a civil society consensus.
>
> --
> 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|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.
>
>
>
> --
> Warm Regards
> Mishi Choudhary, Esq.
> Legal Director
> Software Freedom Law Center
> 1995 Broadway Floor 17
> New York, NY-10023
> (tel) 212-461-1912
> (fax) 212-580-0898www.softwarefreedom.org
>
>
> Executive Director SFLC.IN
> K-9, Second Floor
> Jangpura Extn.
> New Delhi-110014
> (tel) +91-11-43587126
> (fax) +91-11-24323530www.sflc.in
>
>
--089e01493cb4ecd4ae04f83d74c4
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr"><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div>From my understand=
ing (through=20
Anriette, Jeremy, Mishi and others) this is what seems to have happened=20
within civil society re: copyright/IP these last few weeks:<br><br>
</div>1) Civil society went into this hoping to keep copyright and IP=20
"out" of the language, both civil society language + NETmundial o=
utcome=20
doc language, as a strategy to avoid the inclusion of "protection"=
;=20
clauses.<br>
<br></div>2) However well-intentioned, I think this was an unwise=20
strategy, since there had already been so much discussion on the=20
copyright-IP-connected text in the draft NETmundial outcome doc,=20
overwhelmingly dominated by rights-holders or their advocates, all in=20
favour of explicitly protectionist language - which is to say it seemed=20
inevitable that this would be lobbied strongly. A wiser strategy, given=20
the run-up to NETmundial, would have been for civil society to have had a
clear pro-sharing, anti- unilateral imposition of arbitrarily=20
restrictive copyright position to stick to.<br>
<br></div>3) Some text to this effect was suggested by me and others at=20
the April 22 meeting but was later discarded or lost. The text that was=20
eventually used to articulate the civil society position discounted the=20
importance of a stand against restrictive copyright/IP application, and=20
seemed to have been written with a view to pre-empting what some saw as=20
the eventual negotiated outcome of NETmundial.<br>
<br></div>4) Somehow (I say this because I don't understand it, and the=
=20
few who participated in the process can't either; I won't assume ba=
d=20
faith, but I will assume an inadequate understanding of the issues at=20
stake by some of the civil society people involved in drafting) the=20
civil society *position* - uninfluenced by negotiation, in effect a=20
statement of principles, released on April 23, 2014 (one full day before
the NETmundial official outcome doc was negotiated and released) -=20
contained inexcusable language around copyright, essentially endorsing a
protectionist position on IP, in effect giving *in* to a negotiation=20
with rights-holders and/or NETmundial *before a negotiation was even=20
had*. (<a href=3D"http://bestbits.net/netmundial-proposals/" target=3D"_bla=
nk">http://bestbits.net/netmundial-proposals/</a>)<br>
<br></div>5) Since there are several of us in civil society who have=20
worked within FOSS, on copyright, IP and access to knowledge, since=20
there are more of us who lived through the SOPA/PIPA discussions and=20
participated in actions against them and have a strong understanding of=20
the catastrophic effects of restrictively wielded IP rules, *and* since=20
the IP-connected sections of the draft NETmundial outcome document were=20
by far the most-commented sections in that text, *and* given that many=20
of us in civil society feel that the IP issue in Internet governance=20
ranks up there with surveillance and net neutrality as an overarching,=20
immediate threat to online freedom across the world, the civil society=20
position on this issue was shockingly inadequate, harmful and just plain
bad. <br>
<br></div>6) You *must* therefore find a better process to represent=20
constituent positions in any joint submission or statement in the=20
future. I came to NETmundial fully expecting to be disappointed by the=20
official NETmundial outcome document (as I was), because that's the way=
=20
things are. But I did not expect to be even more disappointed by the=20
pre-negotiation, pre-outcome, civil society position statement - and I=20
was. Deeply. <br>
<br></div>7) I am unmoved by congratulatory statements that this meeting
was "not so bad" and a "good start" or whatever: there=
were far too few
of us who participated in protest actions at the meeting, and civil=20
society was more anodyne than called for. (On a related note: the=20
surveillance protests with Snowden masks were on the cover of every=20
single Brazilian newspaper the next day). I'm relatively new to Internet
governance, but not to activism around issues connected to the=20
Internet. As an activist, I understand my role as having to be better=20
prepared, more informed, more forceful, more sharp, more clever and more
ingenious than anything=C2=A0 governments and business can come up with,=20
given that I command none of the vast resources of money and power they=20
have. I'd urge this group to seriously consider complementing its more=
=20
thoughtful interventions with dramatic, unreasonable action if it wants=20
to not only get a seat at the table but actually be *heard*. <br>
<br>All those distinguished master's degrees we've painstakingly ac=
cumulated won't be diminished by being a little cheeky :)<br><br></div>=
Good wishes,<br>Achal<br><br></div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><br><div =
class=3D"gmail_quote">
On 30 April 2014 00:50, Mishi Choudhary <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"ma=
ilto:mishi at softwarefreedom.org" target=3D"_blank">mishi at softwarefreedom.org=
</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin=
:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
=20=20
=20=20=20=20
=20=20
<div bgcolor=3D"#FFFFFF" text=3D"#000000">
<div>Thanks Jeremy,<br>
<br>
I had missed out on this traffic to understand how this all worked
but I would still like thorough discussions on this issue for
future if others agree.<br>
<br>
<br>
On 04/29/2014 07:20 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type=3D"cite">
=20=20=20=20=20=20
On 29 Apr 2014, at 5:35 pm, Anriette Esterhuysen <<a href=3D"mailt=
o:anriette at apc.org" target=3D"_blank">anriette at apc.org</a>>
wrote:<br>
<div><br>
<blockquote type=3D"cite">
=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20
<div bgcolor=3D"#FFFFFF" text=3D"#000000"><font face=3D"Arial">The
deadlock was broken by us using text that was suggested,
or proposed by Jeremy Malcolm on the second day. I can't
remember exactly what Jeremy had said, but is input
implied that some protection for authors would be
acceptable.<br>
</font></div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I lost my verbatim note of what I said due to a crash, but
from Pranesh's log of the transcript (at <a href=3D"https://p=
rakash.im/text-netmundial-day1.html" target=3D"_blank">https://prakash.im/t=
ext-netmundial-day1.html</a>)
here it is as delivered:</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR.=C2=A0MY NAME IS JEREMY---- ON AN
ENABLING=C2=A0ENVIRONMENT FOR INNOVATION AND CREATIVITY, WHICH
AS=C2=A0YOUR CO-CHAIR NOTED=C2=A0GENERATED THE MOST COMMENTS OF A=
NY
PARAGRAPH.=C2=A0DUE TO THE MISCONCEPTION=C2=A0THAT REFERENCE=C2=
=A0TO
PERMISSIONLESS INNOVATION WAS ABOUT THE USE OF=C2=A0CREATIVE
CONTENT WITHOUT PERMISSION.=C2=A0<br>
NOW VORRING'S WHEN WE THINK OF INNOVATION, APART FROM
SCIENTISTS, WE=C2=A0THINK OF ARTISTS AND PERMISSIONLESS=C2=A0INNO=
VATION
IS SOMETHING THAT SHOULD=C2=A0BE A FAMILIAR CONCEPT TO ARTISTS
BECAUSE THERE IS NO PERMISSION=C2=A0REQUIRED TO=C2=A0WRITE A SONG=
OR A
PLAY OR A NOVEL.=C2=A0YOU JUST DO IT.=C2=A0AND=C2=A0INNOVATION ON=
THE
INTERNET SHOULD WORK THE SAME WAY.=C2=A0NOW=C2=A0INNOVATION IS=C2=
=A0ALWAYS
SUBJECT TO THE RULE OF LAW.=C2=A0THAT GOES WITHOUT SAYING.=C2=A0I
DON'T,=C2=A0THEREFORE, THINK IT'S NECESSARY=C2=A0TO SPELL=
OUT ALL THE
LEGAL LIMITS TO=C2=A0INNOVATION THAT MAY EXIST, OF WHICH
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS ARE=C2=A0JUST ONE.=C2=A0THOUGH IF WE=
WERE
TO ADD THE WORDS "CONSISTENT WITH THE OTHER=C2=A0PRINCIPLES =
IN THIS
DOCUMENT," I DON'T SEE WHAT=C2=A0HARM THAT COULD DO.=C2=
=A0<br>
THAT DOES, HOWEVER, RAISE THE SECONDARY POINT OF WHETHER IP
RIGHTS=C2=A0SHOULD BE ADDED TO THE LIST OF HUMAN RIGHTS,=C2=A0AS =
SOME
HAVE CONTENDED.=C2=A0<br>
AGAIN, I DON'T SEE HOW THAT IS NECESSARY BECAUSE THE LIST OF
RIGHTS=C2=A0IS ALREADY EXPLICITLY NONEXCLUSIVE, AND=C2=A0NOTHING =
THAT WE
AGREE AT=C2=A0NETmundial CAN DETRACT FROM WHAT'S ALREADY IN T=
HE
UDHR.=C2=A0<br>
SO I WOULD OPPOSE ADDING A POINT ON IP, BUT IF ONE WAS
ADDED=C2=A0NEVERTHELESS IT WOULD, AT THE VERY LEAST, BE=C2=A0NECE=
SSARY
TO QUALIFY IT TO=C2=A0REFLECT THE NEED TO BALANCE PRIVATE IP RIGH=
TS
WITH THE BROADER PUBLIC=C2=A0INTEREST.=C2=A0<br>
INDEED, PARAGRAPH 27 OF THE UDHR ITSELF BALANCES IP RIGHTS
WITH THE=C2=A0RIGHT TO PARTICIPATE IN THE CULTURAL LIFE OF
THE=C2=A0COMMUNITY, SO WE SHOULD=C2=A0MENTION THAT, ALONG WITH THE
RIGHTS TO EDUCATION, FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION=C2=A0AND=C2=A0INFORMAT=
ION,
AND THE RIGHT TO PRIVACY.=C2=A0<br>
I CAN SEND SOME PARTICULAR TEXT SUGGESTIONS, BUT WE -- WE DO
-- AS A=C2=A0-- AS A STARTING POINT, WE OPPOSE THE ADDITION=C2=A0=
OF A
RIGHT TO IP.=C2=A0<br>
SO IN CONCLUSION, WE DO SUPPORT THE RETENTION OF
PERMISSIONLESS=C2=A0INNOVATION, AND WE BELIEVE THAT MINIMAL, IF
ANY,=C2=A0CHANGES ARE NECESSARY=C2=A0TO CLARIFY THAT THIS IS NOT
INTENDED TO OVERRIDE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY=C2=A0RIGHTS --=C2=A0<b=
r>
[TIMER SOUNDS ]=C2=A0<br>
-- THANK YOU.</div>
<br>
<blockquote type=3D"cite">
<div bgcolor=3D"#FFFFFF" text=3D"#000000"><font face=3D"Arial">So,
in the end, this text was not too bad. And we managed to
keep 'permissionless innovation' in another part of t=
he
document.=C2=A0 The BAD news is that the text on internet
intermediary liability which was only finalised after the
high level committee meeting is the same OECD text which
civil society opposed in 2011. France and the US were
insisted it be included. It is text that links
intermediary liability to economic growth and that opens
the doors to intermediaries being made responsible for
enforcing copyright.=C2=A0 For me that was a huge, huge blow.=
<br>
<br>
I am not in a position to respond to your other questions
as I was not involved in finalising the civil society
inputs. <br>
</font></div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
<div>There was no plan to produce a text, consensus or otherwise,
out of the pre-meeting. =C2=A0This was something that happened
spontaneously because some of the organisers decided to do it.
=C2=A0They did a good job, but one of the things that was lost was
context - such as degrees of consensus around particular text
(there was not a consensus on everything) and whether some text
is a "last resort" position, etc. =C2=A0Part of the conte=
xt that was
lost for the IP text was that it was a "last resort" for =
how we
could balance out the IP language if it was included by
industry. =C2=A0So it is correct of you (Achal) to say that this
proposing protection of IP rights is not a civil society
position. =C2=A0I considered the text from the pre-meeting as more =
of
a rough roadmap or guide for our interventions, rather than as
an agreed text. =C2=A0Similarly the closing statement, which also
happened spontaneously, cannot be considered as representing a
civil society consensus.</div>
<br>
<div>
<div style=3D"text-indent:0px;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:star=
t;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-wrap:break-word;word-spacing:=
0px">
<div style=3D"text-indent:0px;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:st=
art;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-wrap:break-word;word-spacin=
g:0px">
<div style=3D"text-indent:0px;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:=
start;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-wrap:break-word;word-spac=
ing:0px">
<div style=3D"text-indent:0px;letter-spacing:normal;text-alig=
n:start;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-wrap:break-word;word-sp=
acing:0px">
<div style=3D"text-indent:0px;letter-spacing:normal;font-va=
riant:normal;text-align:-webkit-auto;font-style:normal;font-weight:normal;l=
ine-height:normal;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;font-family:Helvet=
ica;word-wrap:break-word;word-spacing:0px">
<div style=3D"text-indent:0px;letter-spacing:normal;font-=
variant:normal;text-align:-webkit-auto;font-style:normal;font-weight:normal=
;line-height:normal;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;font-family:Helv=
etica;word-wrap:break-word;word-spacing:0px">
<span style=3D"border-collapse:separate;border-spacing:0px">
<div style=3D"font-size:12px;text-align:-webkit-auto;=
word-wrap:break-word"><span style=3D"border-collapse:separate;border-spacin=
g:0px">
<div style=3D"word-wrap:break-word">
<div>--=C2=A0</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 hre=
f=3D"http://e164.org" target=3D"_blank">e164.org</a>|awk
-F! '{print $3}'</div>
</div>
</span><br>
</div>
WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You
are strongly recommended to enable encryption at
your end. For instructions, see <a href=3D"http://jer=
e.my/l/pgp" target=3D"_blank">http://jere.my/l/pgp</a>.</span></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<pre cols=3D"72">--=20
Warm Regards
Mishi Choudhary, Esq.
Legal Director
Software Freedom Law Center
1995 Broadway Floor 17
New York, NY-10023
(tel) 212-461-1912
(fax) 212-580-0898
<a href=3D"http://www.softwarefreedom.org" target=3D"_blank">www.softwarefr=
eedom.org</a>
Executive Director=20
<a href=3D"http://SFLC.IN" target=3D"_blank">SFLC.IN</a>
K-9, Second Floor
Jangpura Extn.
New Delhi-110014
(tel) +91-11-43587126=20
(fax) +91-11-24323530
<a href=3D"http://www.sflc.in" target=3D"_blank">www.sflc.in</a>
</pre>
</div>
</blockquote></div><br></div>
--089e01493cb4ecd4ae04f83d74c4--
More information about the Bestbits
mailing list