[governance] ITU & ICANN in Cairo

[Jeffrey A. Williams]

Parminder and all,

  I fear it may already be too late in as far as ICANN, the ITU, and
the IETF are concerned.  Same may be said in respect to W3C
as well.

  What third world countries represented in ICANN, the ITU, and
the IETF are likely all there is going to be and at the levels of
effectiveness that will be for decades to come.  I can't say for the IG.

Parminder wrote:

> >>I was telling to many people from developing countries who were
> fighting for Internet governance: "Before you get the governance, get
> the Internet first."
>
> >Yes, that allows various interests to give shape to the internet in a
> manner that is most advantageous for commerce and government. After
> that any >process of debate on Governance wouldn't be able to reverse
> the practices established.
>
> Sivasubramanian,
>
> You make an important point. The above assertion about focusing on
> getting the Internet before seeking a role in IG, which seems to have
> some obvious force in its utter simplicity, has been much abused in
> the IG space.
>
> Many already entrenched in important positions vis a vis IG have made
> this assertion often. I don’t know whether you followed the clamor
> early last year when CIRs were sought to be discussed in the IGF, how
> so many voices suddenly begun to claim that the IGF should be looking
> mostly at the issue of spreading Internet access, and that the really
> disadvantaged people weren’t really bothered with such IG issues at
> all. Such patronizing and patently anti-democratic statements bothered
> some of us a lot.
>
> On the other hand, while admittedly the situation regarding access to
> the Internet is really dismal in so many parts of the world, what is
> unfortunate is that many people who seek to represent the interests of
> disadvantaged groups themselves fall into the simplistic trap of
> valorizing access and capacity building over IG. This represents the
> ‘basic needs versus governance stakes and rights’ dilemma much
> discussed in development literature. Both are important and as you
> say, if the disadvantaged groups do not stake their rightful claim to
> IG now, soon it will be too late, and they will be condemned to live
> with an Internet, and an information society, whose architecture is
> already cast by the dominant market and statist interests.
>
> Parminder
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> From: Sivasubramanian Muthusamy [mailto:isolatedn at gmail.com]
>
> Sent: Sunday, November 09, 2008 1:42 PM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder
> Cc: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de
> Subject: Re: [Gov 586] Re:ITU and ICANN - a loveless forced marriage
> Re: [governance] ITU & ICANN in Cairo
>
> Hello Wolfgang Kleinwaehter and All,
>
> Here are my comments on the Speech at the ICANN Meeting in Cairo, 6
> November 2008 by Hamadoun Toure, Secretary General of the ITU. When I
> read what I wrote, I am surprised that some of these comments sound
> intense. Part of what is written might not even be fair, but I am
> posting it as written. Please take this sufficiently factored down,
> because I was not there at Cairo to "feel" his speech. The comments
> are based on my impressions from the speech transcript. It is based on
> the superficial knowledge that the ITU places the interests of the
> Telecom companies and the Governments paramount.
>
> Also, I have picked up portions of the Secretary General's speech for
> comments. In this critique, what is missing are positive remarks that
> are due. It is positive as a gesture on the part of the ITU Secretary
> General to have extended an arm to work with ICANN and to pronounce a
> desire to be committed to the mutli-stakeholder approach. But in this
> message I have chosen to read between the lines of the Secretary
> General's transcript, just to raise some points for discussion.
>
> Comments:
>
>
> since 1865, since the creation of the telegraph. And we are very proud
> of the way the organization has been able to adapt itself over the
> years and decades and centuries, from telegraph to telephone to
> teletypewriters, to radio and television. We are talking about digital
> broadcasting now. And very soon, 3D television. We are talking about
> the emergence of new technologies.
>
> ITU adopts itself to own all inter-human communication in any form.
>
> I was telling to many people from developing countries who were
> fighting for Internet governance: "Before you get the governance, get
> the Internet first."
>
> Yes, that allows various interests to give shape to the internet in a
> manner that is most advantageous for commerce and government. After
> that any process of debate on Governance wouldn't be able to reverse
> the practices established.
>
> ICANN is just ten years old but it's done a great job.
>
> Yes, ITU is older. We notice that the ITU has governed Communications
> around the world for over 143 years.
>
> we had a very successful WSIS. For the first time, a UN body was
> organizing a summit, where you didn't have demonstrations outside.
>
> Business and Government kept the Civil Society locked out in several
> international conventions that were either in the Governments'
> Diplomatic Territory or Business' Commercial Territory. The Internet
> is Civil Sphere and the Governments were the latecomers. What ought to
> have been said here is that the Civil Society included Government and
> Business and not vice versa.
>
>
> Every time a Web browser establishes a secure connection to a server,
> ITU's work on PKIs, public key infrastructures, and encryption keys,
> is used. Our pioneering work on electronic authentication enabled
> jurisdictions around the world to recognize e-mail as legal documents
> and to give legal studies to electronic signatures.
>
> I can't help notice that most of the work that the ITU has done
> relates to "authentication", "security" etc. to enable "jurisdiction".
> Isn't the ITU working on making the Internet what it is not?
>
> We [ITU and ICANN] just have to learn to know each other better so
> that we can like each other and work together. And the main reason why
> I'm here is that is my motto: "
>
> This sounds dangerous. The DOC-supervised ICANN and the
> inter-governmental ITU aligned together !
>
>
> IGF is just going around and around, avoiding the topics, and becomes
> sometimes a waste of time.
>
> I agree. I fully agree. One reason is the limitation of the UN mandate
> to the IGF. IGF does not even have recommendary 'powers' and the IGF
> process is in a sense a huge distraction away from the policy changes
> and new Internet legislations that get enacted in bits and pieces
> (leading to an untold comprehensive whole) in different parts of the
> world - for e.g. the move by UK to direct ISPs to retain traffic
> records for two years. IGF requires a complete re-redesign.
>
> Next year, ITU willorganize the World Policy Forum, which addresses a
> number of Internet-related public-policy issues, ranging from
> cybersecurity and data protection to multilingualism and the ongoing
> development of Internet.
>
> World Policy Forum? For the ITU to psychologically claim its stake as
> the ICT super-authority?
>
> I hope you will not tell me here, "Don't talk about Internet." ....
> we need to talk about it. And you shouldn't see us as an enemy. I
> always said that I have enough on my plate in ITU and there is no need
> to add more.
>
> I don't get the feeling that ITU is content with its sphere of
> influence.
>
> If you want an Internet connection for a business or a house, they
> will ask you first if you have a telephone line.
>
> Why do I need an ITU regulated and monitored phone line to qualify for
> Internet Access? Why isn't the Community doing enough to bring in
> alternate technologies?
>
>
> During the debates of the WSIS, when people were talking about
> Internet governance, I was telling them, "Get Internet first before
> you talk about getting the governance of it." I was giving simple
> example, comparing Internet and telecommunications to trucks or cars
> and highways. It's not because you own the highways that you're going
> to own all the trucks or cars running on them, and certainly not the
> goods that they are transporting, or vice versa. It's a simple
> analogy.
>
> Great. The road analogy isn't all that perfect as an analogy for the
> Internet. I will let it go to say that those who owns the roads get to
> decide who rides and who doesn't and gets to decide what to charge as
> toll fee.
>
>
> .... the relationship between the Internet and the telecommunication
> world... And they are condemned to work together. It's a condemned
> marriage. So better enjoy it. If you know that you're not going to get
> divorced in any case because you're condemned to live together, you
> better find a way to enjoy each other, and have kids in the process.
>
> The Internet CAN technically divorce the telecoms or even scale up to
> include telecoms services as part of the internet. It is a condemned
> marriage alright, but if one partner is too difficult and drives the
> other to the wall, a divorce isn't technically infeasible.
>
> It has been alleged in some corners of the ITU that ITU wishes to
> govern the Internet. And I have specifically said that I categorically
> deny that.
>
> When someone in government or someone connected to government "denies"
> something, it is always true.
>
> And I say today again to you, it is not the case. My intention as
> Secretary-General of ITU is not to govern the Internet. But we need to
> work together, because there are developing countries that are in need
> of access. At the end of this year, we'll have four billion mobile
> telephones in the world. While we try to bridge the gap in telephony,
> we have to ensure that no new gap is created in Internet and no new
> gap is created in broadband for us to help other sectors to meet the
> Millennium Development Goals. Therefore, there is a need for these two
> societies to work together. Almost half of the people in this room are
> very active participants in the ITU. And, therefore, I think there is
> room for us to know each other and to understand.
>
> ITU's role as a multilateral forum for debate is to serve as a source
> of impartial expert information and guidance, just as we have done for
> nearly 145 years. We strive to help all parties work together to
> clarify the issues and build consensus on the most effective ways of
> promoting the evolution and uptake of this powerful resource. And we
> have that capability. We are proud of that culture. It's the only
> organization where you will have countries that are at war on other
> fronts, are supporting each other with common resolutions, without the
> people supporting those resolutions being fired. I'm proud to say that
> we are the only organization where you have Iran supporting "his
> friends", I quote, of the United States, or vice versa and the people
> who have supported that are still alive. It happens on a daily basis.
> We never had any Palestinian-Israeli crisis inside the ITU. They share
> spectrums. So we are in a position to work with everyone, because we
> have a technical approach to issues.
>
> Impressive. But aren't you bidding to take over the internet by saying
> all this ?
>
>
> ITU is also actively encouraging the industry-wide move to IPv6.
> Again, looking on the Web all of last week, I've seen numerous attacks
> on the ITU for having pronounced the world IPv6.This is a concern for
> all of us. Every mobile phone will have an IP address, every fridge,
> every car, it's an inevitable thing.
>
> What concerns me is the fact that IPV6 seems to have obviated (or made
> impossible) Network Address Translation. This means that everything
> that I ever say on the Internet is linked to my unique, unchangeable
> IPV6 address. My computer has an unchanging, permanent IPV6 address.
> My refrigerator and my MP4 player will have a traceable IPV6 address.
> Where is my privacy? Perhaps I will be able to borrow my
> refrigerator's IPV6 address to send an email to my top secret girl
> friend and in case my wife gets hold of that message I could blame it
> on the refrigerator? (this comment in particular without in-depth
> knowledge of the technical architecture of IPV6)
>
> In 2005, WSIS mandated ITU to take a lead role in building confidence
> and security in the use of ICTs. I put in place a high-level expert
> group last year to study the issue and report to the council, with the
> final report this year. We are gaining a momentum as we move steadily
> towards agreements on an international set of principles and
> best-practice approaches that countries around the world can follow to
> promote cybersecurity.
>
>
> Security concerns are center stage on the ITU agenda, pushing the need
> to build (user) Confidence out of view. What has ITU done on the
> privacy front, to protest against legislations such as directives by
> UK to ISPs to retain email logs for two years or directives by
> governments to facilitate recording of mobile phone conversations?
>
> Estonian network was down for two days. .. And during the uprising
> between Georgia and Russia, we have noticed a large number of botnets
> or cyber attacks between the two countries. That is scary. ...
>
> Thank you for drawing attention to the fact that it is sometimes
> Governments that cause or engineer some of the major cyber incidents?
>
> Our children, who spend most of their time in cyberspace, are not
> taught the basic behaviours in the cyberspace. When they go out in the
> street, we tell them, "Be careful. Don't talk to strangers, don't
> accept candy from someone you don't know. It could be a drug that
> could kill you." But they're out there in cyberspace without telling
> them what to do or how to behave.
>
> Yes, we will make them paranoid.
>
>
> The potential of the Internet to accelerate social and economic
> development in the world's poorest regions is perhaps its greatest
> asset. I hope you will support ITU in our ongoing effort to see that
> everyone everywhere has a chance to benefit from that potential for
> the betterment of our planet, and for humankind, for all humankind.
>
> Sounds rhetorical.
>
> We will never counter terrorism if we don't have a harmonized way of
> tracing back the IP address. ...
>
> How would I trust the Law and Order agencies to restrict use of these
> technologies only against terrorists and criminals and not against the
> unsuspecting citizens ?
>
> ZAHID JAMIL, DNS Resolution Center Pakistan:
>
> I am a lawyer from Pakistan. Your Excellency, I heard you talk about
> the important role that ITU can play in everything from IPv6, the
> coordination of the IP-based networks, cybersecurity, privacy, data
> protection, cybersecurity, cyberterrorism, multilingualism, IDNs, a
> whole bunch of things. My only question is, to what extent do you
> think ITU would have any restrictions, because it seems it would
> probably become the regulator in convergence of everything. So is
> there a limitation you can see as far as the ITU's scope?
>
> Touche'
>
> WOLFGANG KLEINW?HTER, University of Aarhus
>
> what is the future of civil society in the ITU? ITU has nearly 200
> member states and more than 700 private sector members. When civil
> society becomes an equal partner in this setting?
>
> Is it really possible to believe that the Civil Society would be
> represented at the ITU so broadly as to balance the 191 member srates
> and 700 private sector companies? ITU is ITU. It could come to the IGF
> to represent business and government. If Civil Society focuses its
> effort on getting better represented at the ITU, some day the IGF
> could become a part of the ITU.
>
> HAMMADOUN TOURE, Secretary General of the ITU
>
> Government is in an advisory role. Advisory role! You advise me and I
> am free to take your advice?
>
> Advice from Government always comes with the subtle posture of  "It is
> just an advice or a suggestion, but remember where it comes from"
>
> During the WSIS process, we had a problem that some member states have
> genuinely raised. We have countries like China. During a PrepCom in
> Japan we spent three days out of four not working because there were
> some so-called civil society, NGO that were government officials from
> Taiwan. The Chinese delegation came with their photos and information
> on them from the Web that they are government officials, and they
> registered as NGOs. It's a problem.
>
> Thank you for bringing that up. This is really an issue about how the
> Civil Society is constituted at least in parts. We need to clean up a
> little bit.
>
> HAMMADOUN TOURE, Secretary General of the ITU
>
> Now, let's be clear. Government cannot get into individual people's
> privacy.
>
> Please, don't.
>
>
> ......  I'm telling you my intention is not, from ITU, to try and take
> over Internet.
>
> When someone in government or someone from an inter-governmental
> organization talks of an absence of an intention, there is always an
> intention.
>
> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy
> On Sun, Nov 9, 2008 at 11:20 AM, Parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>
> wrote:
> >Interested in analysis of how we can avoid this. Certainly some
> parties wish to avoid meaningful discussion, and are we diplomatically
> sweeping under the carpet >all the important issues (lest anyone take
> offence?)
>
> Ian, you point to an important issue, and danger.
>
> Some of us have been arguing for long that the IGF is civil society's
> best bet in many ways. It is a new-age organization that is relatively
> representative of people and groups across the world, and still has
> been able to maintain some distance from strong statist control on the
> one side and corporate control on the other.
>
> However, many others in the civil society, including within the IGC,
> have been over-cautious in putting our weight behind strengthening the
> IGF in all ways that we can – whether the issue has been of some
> substantive (and not merely advisorial) capacity of the core IGF group
> (currently named MAG) or doing substantive inter-sessional work and
> giving some kind of real, if non-binding, outputs on key IG issues.
>
> I think that we as a group may need to revisit our positions on this
> issue, or al least discuss them to see if new directions need to be
> taken in view of current and emergent realities.
>
> It is a fact that the IGF may be in real trouble, and in the danger of
> being sidelined as an annual conference that no one of any real
> importance takes any note of. We must review what would it mean in
> terms of civil society and progressive interests. In light of such a
> review we may need to have clearer common positions of how we want to
> engage with the IGF, and how we want to see it evolve. Such a review
> is an even more urgent imperative in view of the forthcoming process
> of IGF review which will start in earnest immediately after the IGF,
> Hyderabad. What gets said and discussed at Hyderabad may have some
> important implications for this review.
>
> Parminder
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> From: gov-bounces at wsis-gov.org [mailto:gov-bounces at wsis-gov.org]On
> Behalf Of Ian Peter
> Sent: Sunday, November 09, 2008 11:02 AM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Dr. Francis MUGUET'
>
> Cc: 'WSIS Civil Soc. WG on Information Networks Governance'
> Subject: [Gov 586] Re:ITU and ICANN - a loveless forced marriage Re:
> [governance] ITU & ICANN in Cairo
>
> The telling statement from ITU being "I am personally of the opinion
> that the IGF is continuously going round in circles and avoiding
> issues – it is becoming more and more a waste of time."
>
> Interested in analysis of how we can avoid this. Certainly some
> parties wish to avoid meaningful discussion, and are we diplomatically
> sweeping under the carpet all the important issues (lest anyone take
> offence?)
>
> My fear here is that the outcomes if IGF doesn't succeed in addressing
> the real issues are worse than those if it does succeed. Balkanisation
> or globalisation? Take your pick….
>
> Ian Peter
>
> PO Box 429
>
> Bangalow NSW 2479
>
> Australia
>
> Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773
>
> www.ianpeter.com
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> From: Dr. Francis MUGUET [mailto:muguet at mdpi.net]
> Sent: 09 November 2008 15:44
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Wolfgang
> Cc: WSIS Civil Soc. WG on Information Networks Governance
> Subject: ITU and ICANN – a loveless forced marriage Re: [governance]
> ITU & ICANN in Cairo
>
> Dear Wolfgang
>
> Interesting to notice a press analysis of Tour? speech, most notably
> about the IGF.
>
> The statement from Tour?as not been unnoticed.
>
> Coming back to what we do with ICANN, we also participate actively in
> the work of Internet Governance Forum, which was established as the
> result of the multistakeholder deliberations at the WSIS. I personally
> believe that the IGF is just going around and around, avoiding the
> topics, and becomes sometimes a waste of time. We need to address
> issues frankly and try to solve them. And that's why I thought I
> should be here to talk to you here, so that we learn to know each
> other better. Next year, ITU will organize the World Policy Forum,
> which addresses a number of Internet-related public-policy issues,
> ranging from cybersecurity and data protection to multilingualism and
> the ongoing development of Internet. I hope you will not tell me here,
> "Don't talk about Internet." It's an issue for everyone.
>
> Best Francis
>
> ---------------------------------
> http://www.heise-online.co.uk/news/print/1119147 November 2008, 12:30
>
> ITU and ICANN – a loveless forced marriage
>
> ITU Secretary General Hamadoun Tour?as called for better collaboration
> between the International Telecommunication Union[1] (ITU) and
> the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers[2] (ICANN).
> "Our members have unnecessarily attacked and criticised each other and
> I think we should put an end to that," said Tour?n Thursday at the
> 33rd ICANN meeting in Cairo. According to Tour?the two organisations
> need to get to know each other better and learn to love each other, as
> telecommunications and the internet are ultimately condemned to a
> "forced marriage".
>
> Despite the outstretched hand, the ITU Secretary General did not spare
> the criticism in his first appearance at an ICANN meeting. Tour?ade it
> clear to the assembled experts that he saw his organisation as playing
> the dominant role in the forced marriage and made his opinion of the
> other party clear – provocatively describing ICANN's Governmental
> Advisory Committee as purely cosmetic.
>
> The depth of the chasm between the two – the UN organisation, which
> has its roots in the telecommunications world, and the
> quasi-internet-regulator ICANN – was stressed by a series of further
> statements in the half-hour talk given by the head of the ITU.
> Tour?epeatedly spoke of the "war" between the two organisations.
> According to Tour?who was elected in 2006, "The best way to win a war,
> is to prevent it."
>
> In the course of his 'marriage proposal', he referred extensively to
> the ITU's outstanding role. Key topics for his organisation, he noted,
> include the internationalisation of domains, something with which
> ICANN is currently engaged, the transition to IPv6[3], standardisation
> for the all-IP Next Generation Network[4] (NGN), cyber-security, the
> fight against online terrorism and child protection online.
>
> Tour?ejected concerns that the ITU was appointing itself as global
> regulator of internet resources and processes, "The ITU has clear
> boundaries. We do not perform the operative business." However, he
> underlined the organisation's demand, set out in its Cybersecurity
> Agenda[5], to be responsible for a global framework in the fight
> against online terrorism and criminality. He also defended the
> controversial IP traceback[6] standard proposal. "There is not one
> country which isn't doing it, it's just that each country is doing it
> differently," said Tour?/font>
>
> Tour?lso rejected criticism that the ITU operates behind closed doors.
> He stated that the organisation has around 700 sector members from the
> telecommunications industry and also admits NGOs as members. Tour?lso
> praised the ITU's openness – a nod to the World Summit on the
> Information Society[7] (WSIS). The summit, organised under ITU
> auspices, is, according to Tour?the first UN summit at which civil
> society has also been invited to sit at the table, rather than
> demonstrating outside.
>
> In the same breath, Tour?xpressed strong criticism of the Internet
> Governance Forum[8] (IGF), which was called into being by the WSIS, "I
> am personally of the opinion that the IGF is continuously going round
> in circles and avoiding issues – it is becoming more and more a waste
> of time." Therefore, the ITU is planning a global forum for internet
> policy next year as a rival event.
>
> Tour?lso fired a further undiplomatic broadside at the work performed
> by governments within ICANN. "The Governmental Advisory Committee is
> ICANN's weak point," said Tour?His criticism was directed at the
> advisory function of the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) in
> developing rules for the domain name system. "If someone gives me
> advice, I am free to take it or leave it." The ICANN's GAC is
> therefore nothing more than "cosmetic", noted Tour?orthrightly.
>
> In a short statement following Tour? speech, the Brazilian government
> representative on the GAC demanded, in the name of his and the
> Argentinian government, the "strengthening of the GAC". Latvian
> diplomat Janis Karklins, re-elected as GAC chairman, by contrast noted
> that the ITU and ICANN operated according to very different political
> models, "From the viewpoint of an international organisation, the
> ICANN model may appear weak, because governments are merely advisory,
> whilst in an international organisation they run the show." ICANN is,
> he opined, based on the novel idea of collaboration between interested
> parties. He noted that both models have their advantages and
> disadvantages, and that governments need to learn to operate within
> both models.
>
> (Monika Ermert)
>
> (lghp[9])
>                 <hr size=2 width="100%" align=center>
> URL of this Article:
> http://www.heise-online.co.uk/news/111914
>
> Links in this Article:
>   [1] http://www.itu.int/
>   [2] http://www.icann.org
>   [3]
> http://www.heise-online.co.uk/news/OECD-member-states-throw-their-weight-behind-IPv6--/110960
>
>   [4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Next_Generation_Networking
>   [5] http://www.itu.int/osg/csd/cybersecurity/gca/
>   [6] http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10040152-38.html
>   [7] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WSIS
>   [8] http://www.intgovforum.org/
>   [9] mailto:lghp at heise-online.co.uk
>
> Dear friends
>
>
>
> find attached the statement of ITU DG Toure during the recent ICANN meeting in Cairo and the discussion. This was a very interesting dialogue on the concept and understanding of the principle of "multistakeholderism". A very good piece whith very clear and frank language which will certainly provoke discussion and could be an interesting starting point for a new conceptual debate on what "multistakholderism" is, why we witness a clash of cultures in Internet policy development and how the old model of an hierachical top down IG organisation and the new model of a network bottom up MS organisation can or can not collaborate and coexist in the global diplomacy of the 21st century.
>
>
>
> Wolfgang
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
>
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
>
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
>
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
>
>
> --
>
>
>
> Internal Virus Database is out of date.
> Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
> Version: 8.0.169 / Virus Database: 270.6.21/1669 - Release Date:
> 9/12/2008 2:18 PM
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
>
>
> --
> http://www.linkedin.com/in/sivasubramanianmuthusamy
>
>    ----------------------------------------------------------------
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>

Regards,

Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 284k members/stakeholders strong!)
"Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" -
   Abraham Lincoln
"YES WE CAN!"  Barack ( Berry ) Obama

"Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is
very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt

"If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B;
liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by
P: i.e., whether B is less than PL."
United States v. Carroll Towing  (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947]
===============================================================
Updated 1/26/04
CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS.
div. of Information Network Eng.  INEG. INC.
ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail
jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com
My Phone: 214-244-4827

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance