Extending Rights to the Internet: (Was RE: [governance] Example
William Drake
william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch
Fri Nov 27 11:45:24 EST 2009
Not that it matters in this particular rhetorical space but of course
there was no "comparison" drawn between access to the net and access
to Mexican food. There was rather a point being made about the general
"principle" that companies should be obligated to sell a (any)
consumer product in a given foreign market and if they don't we can
call them authoritarian. To note that this makes no sense in no way
implies a lack of concern about broadening and democratizing access in
developing countries.
Bill
Sent from my iPhone
On Nov 27, 2009, at 17:03, Meryem Marzouki <meryem at marzouki.info> wrote:
> I still don't find this qualification of the comparison neither
> fair, nor relevant. There are many confusions in this discussion.
> Your example of Iran and non authorized use of US credit cards there
> is another confusion: this is, most probably, a consequence of the
> american embargo against Iran (see e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanctions_against_Iran#Ahmadinejad_government
> ), which is another, different, issue.
>
> Speaking of money transfers and electronic transactions, FYI, in
> many countries where there is not even such embargo - and I can
> again refer to Tunisia here - people cannot even buy anything
> because their currency is not quoted on the international market and
> because there are restrictions on currency exchanges, due to
> national economic and financial regulation and policy, itself fully
> understandable in order to keep the country balance of payment/
> treasury (or whatever this is called in English) manageable. How
> would you call this? A human rights issue? A consumer issue?
> Anything else?
>
> And regarding Fouad's last email, I still don't find it neither
> fair, nor relevant, to transform a comparison between Amazon Kindle
> for PC and Mexican Food into a comparison between IA and Mexican
> Food, whatever "IA" means (if it is Internet Access, then IA is not
> subject to Amazon Kindle for PC availability, if it is "Internet
> Authoritarianism", then I still don't know what this could mean).
> Finally, I've never been impressed by the attempts to disqualify a
> given point of view by a (false and irrelevant, anyway) general
> reference to "members from the developed world", just like if your
> country of residence at a given time in your life, your citizenship
> or whatever, would determine your way of thinking.
>
> Meryem
>
> Le 27 nov. 09 à 15:43, Parminder a écrit :
>
>> Meryem
>>
>>
>> I started my email by saying we may not want to use the terms
>> 'authoritarianism' or 'human rights' here.
>>
>> The reference to Mexican food in Geneva came after a round where
>> the term 'authoritarian' had been kind of muted out of the
>> discussion, and Micheal had made a clear case of 'access to the
>> tools that allow for or facilitate the use of the Internet
>> especially when those tools are linked into some sort of
>> monopolistic position with respect to the use of the Internet
>> should surely fall under that rubric".
>>
>> Speaking of Mexican food in Geneva in this context, and also with
>> new examples like paypal being added to the kindle one, is in my
>> view insensitive and inconsiderate to the basic set of concerns
>> being expressed.
>>
>> Also, at least i did not say 'authoritarian nonsense' :) ...
>>
>> In the global digital space, which is a new global social space,
>> private monopolistic controls are a huge issue, perhaps 'the'
>> issue, and it is obvious that this is what was being discussed at
>> this stage, along with corresponding issue of debilitating
>> exclusions..
>>
>> I would not consider non-availability of one set of goods or others
>> in a country as a comparable example. What is more comparable is
>> what I found to some shock when I visited Iran a few years back.
>> Credit cards do not work there because the companies are mostly US
>> and they follow a kind of embargo. Many people came to meeting I
>> went for without enough cash, and they had to use credit cards in
>> black (illegal overseas transactions) to get cash. And of course
>> normal business in Iran would be hugely affected, locally, as well
>> as globally. it is this kind of basic enabling services that need
>> to be treated at a very different level than simple goods. And as
>> digital world gets more and more enmeshed in our lives, these
>> monopolies, and imperialistic powers behind it, is the issue at
>> stake, and begins discussed. Correspondingly, it is the deep
>> exclusions and new dependencies that will develop that are of
>> concern.
>>
>> I know you do agree to these concerns generally, but do not agree
>> to frame them as a human rights issue. I can agree. But when you
>> say, it may not be even be an issue of 'consumer rights' i may not
>> agree. As you said in an earlier email, it may not be so much that
>> I want to use a particular commercial software as a right, as of
>> open standards and inter-interoperability with local options that
>> can be developed. That is a certainly a huge consumer right issue.
>>
>> Best, Parminder
>>
>>
>>
>> Meryem Marzouki wrote:
>>>
>>> Parminder,
>>>
>>> I fully agree with you that regulation of giant corporates - not
>>> only at global but also at regional and national levesl in
>>> countries where they operate or have subsidiaries - as you
>>> formulate it is an issue of foremost importance and that it is
>>> much needed. This issue has in addition to be dealt with in
>>> various fora and framework, not only those related to Internet
>>> governance, as the "Proposal for a WTO Agreement on the Supply of
>>> Knowledge as a Global Public Good" example forwarded by Michael
>>> shows.
>>>
>>> However, it's not fair to interpret as "inappropriate",
>>> "inconsiderate", and "a smack of insensitivity" an - ironical, I
>>> admit - comment of the very specific and minor consumer issue as
>>> the one brought by Fouad with the example of Amazon Kindle
>>> software for PC not being available in Pakistan. By minor, I mean
>>> that it's an inconvenience, not a violation of human rights nor an
>>> obstacle to development, not even a breach of any consumer rights
>>> (consumer rights does not include any "right to consume").
>>>
>>> The irony of the comment (comparison with unavailabity of good
>>> Mexican food in Geneva) was simply proportional to the exageration
>>> in calling "authoritarianism" the fact that a given commercial
>>> product is not available in a given country. Words matter, because
>>> they express concepts and there unadequate use might lead to the
>>> dilution of these concepts and the softening of problems that
>>> really matter, by equating them to minor issues. I am sure this
>>> was certainly not Fouad's intention, but we should be cautious on
>>> this kind of process: they are intentionally used far too often,
>>> and it's so easy to get traped.
>>>
>>> I lived during the first 25 years of my life in Tunisia, my other
>>> country of culture and citizenship and my country of birth, still
>>> have family there and visit them regularly. You cannot imagine the
>>> number of goods and services that are not available there (not
>>> even speaking of affordability), for various reasons: market not
>>> wide enough for some goods or services, too expensive or not worth
>>> to be imported (the Tunisian Dinar is not quoted on the
>>> international currency market) and many other commercial or
>>> financial reasons as already suggested in this discussion.
>>> Conversely, there are also Tunisian goods and services that I
>>> cannot find elsewhere in the world. Too bad, but so what?
>>>
>>> As far as I'm concerned, I keep the word 'authoritarianism' for
>>> cases when, e.g. a book cannot be found in Tunisia (or is taken by
>>> the police in your luggage when you enter the country) for
>>> censorship reasons, not when I cannot find it easily in any
>>> Tunisian bookshop simply because no one besides me would be
>>> interested in reading (and thus buying) it.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>> Meryem
>>>
>>> Le 27 nov. 09 à 13:30, Parminder a écrit :
>>>
>>>> Hi All
>>>>
>>>> Getting late into something which as Carlos said is an
>>>> interesting discussion...
>>>>
>>>> Even if we agree to not apply the terms authoritarianism and
>>>> human rights here, the underlying issue is of great importance
>>>> suggesting urgent need for global Internet policy making, and
>>>> developing institutions that are adequate to that purpose. The
>>>> issue also suggests that existing global policy institutions do
>>>> not cover a good deal of new ground that is opened up with this
>>>> global phenomenon of Internet becoming an important part of more
>>>> and more aspects of our social lives...
>>>>
>>>> It is fine to say that this is a consumer rights issue, and i
>>>> agree with Meryem that the real issue is that there should be
>>>> enough alternative software/ devices and interoperability should
>>>> be ensured... But the point is, who ensures that. Economically
>>>> less powerful (developing) countries do not have the muscle to
>>>> regulate these unprecedentedly huge global digital companies,
>>>> and so they have to simply submit. The developed countries often
>>>> see strong economic interest in not disturbing the 'imperialist'
>>>> designs of these companies which are almost all based in these
>>>> countries and bring them a lot of economic benefits and
>>>> sustaining advantage (the framework of a new wave of neo-
>>>> imperialism).
>>>>
>>>> Who then regulates these giant corporates, whose power now rivals
>>>> that of many states? There seem to be a clear and strong
>>>> tendency, shared by much of civil society in the developed world
>>>> - IGC not being immune to it - that Internet (and its digital
>>>> ecosystem) should be left unregulated, mostly. At least there
>>>> seems to be no urgency to do anything about global Internet
>>>> policy arena. The fear of statist control on the Internet has
>>>> become all that ever counts in any discussion on global Internet
>>>> governance/ policy-making. (This has become almost a red-herring
>>>> now.) This is problematic for developing countries, and to the
>>>> collective interests of the people of these countries, (the
>>>> right to development) which are in great danger of losing out as
>>>> the (non-level) digital playground is being set out, without due
>>>> regulation in global public interest. To get the right global
>>>> governance institutions and outcomes to address this vital
>>>> issue, in my opinion, is what should centrally constitute the
>>>> 'development agenda in IG'.
>>>>
>>>> I would consider it very inappropriate, and very inconsiderate,
>>>> to compare such real problems that developing counties
>>>> increasingly face, and will face in future to an even greater
>>>> extent, like the non-availability of 'basic' and enabling
>>>> software like e-readers, with non-availability of Mexican food
>>>> in Geneva... It is even more inappropriate to speak of people of
>>>> 'certain persuasion' who in WTO arena oppose certain
>>>> multinational invasion of unprotected markets in developing
>>>> countries, as being a sentiment and act in opposition to raising
>>>> the issues of necessary provision of basic enabling software/
>>>> devices on fair and open standard terms to people of developing
>>>> countries. Our organization has joined protests on many WTO
>>>> issues, but do clearly sympathize with the present issue under
>>>> consideration. They proceed from very different logics, but have
>>>> a convergence in the fact that (1) global economy (and
>>>> society) have to regulated in global public interest , and (2)
>>>> the interest of developing countries is often different from that
>>>> of developed countries. Appropriate global regulatory and
>>>> governance systems have to be built which take into account these
>>>> differentials, without being formulaic about it. That in my
>>>> understanding constitutes the development agenda in global forums.
>>>>
>>>> Many other examples of commercial digital services have been
>>>> given - like paypal etc - denial of which can have a very
>>>> strong exclusionary effect of people and groups... Exclusion has
>>>> to be seen and addressed in its real, felt forms and not by
>>>> simplistic comparisons, which smack of insensitivity.
>>>>
>>>> Think of Microsoft suddenly refusing to give Windows related
>>>> services to a country (I know many would take it as a blessing,
>>>> but there are strong issue there still), or Skype not being
>>>> available in a country which would cut its residents off many a
>>>> global tele-meetings (including civil society ones). Or, Google,
>>>> especially after it has all of us doing every second online
>>>> activity on its platform, cutting off its services to a
>>>> country... this surely isnt about Mexican food in Geneva.
>>>>
>>>> Parminder
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Michael Gurstein wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Bien sur!
>>>>>
>>>>> M
>>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: Meryem Marzouki [mailto:meryem at marzouki.info]
>>>>> Sent: Thursday, November 26, 2009 10:35 AM
>>>>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>>>> Subject: Re: Extending Rights to the Internet: (Was RE:
>>>>> [governance] Example
>>>>> of Corporate Internet Authoritarianism -
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> My English skills probably need improvement:
>>>>> First of all, it's not about participating in *a* debate, but
>>>>> participating in *the democratic debate* (this means, at least in
>>>>> French, full democratic participation).
>>>>> Second, it's about the "full exercize of democracy and of one's
>>>>> fundamental rights", which means full democratic participation AND
>>>>> full exercize of fundamental rights". To my knowledge, education/
>>>>> health/development are part of fundamental rights, aren't they?
>>>>> Meryem
>>>>>
>>>>> Le 26 nov. 09 à 19:03, Michael Gurstein a écrit :
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> But opportunities to "participate in a debate" on something (e.g.
>>>>>> education/health/development) is rather narrower (and less
>>>>>> significant
>>>>>> certainly) than an opportunity to actually have an
>>>>>> education/health/development, or have I missed something.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Mike
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>> From: Meryem Marzouki [mailto:meryem at marzouki.info]
>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, November 26, 2009 9:52 AM
>>>>>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>>>>> Subject: Re: Extending Rights to the Internet: (Was RE:
>>>>>> [governance] Example
>>>>>> of Corporate Internet Authoritarianism -
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi Mike,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I thought this was covered by the "and one's fundamental
>>>>>> rights" in
>>>>>> the second part of the sentence. By "full exercize of
>>>>>> democracy" I
>>>>>> meant in this context participation in the democratic debate.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Le 26 nov. 09 à 18:36, Michael Gurstein a écrit :
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks Meryem,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I agree with your reformulation of my rather awkward initial
>>>>>>> formulation...
>>>>>>> My one caveat (and here I'm again demonstrating my lack of
>>>>>>> familiarity with
>>>>>>> the "Rights" discourse) is that the statement "access to the
>>>>>>> Internet as a
>>>>>>> necessary requirement for the full exercize of democracy"
>>>>>>> seems to
>>>>>>> me rather
>>>>>>> too narrow in that one could add/substitute
>>>>>>> "development"/"health"/"education"/and so on for your
>>>>>>> terminology of
>>>>>>> "democracy".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Meryem: "I would rather state it differently: access to the
>>>>>>> Internet as a
>>>>>>> necessary requirement for the full exercize of democracy and
>>>>>>> one's
>>>>>>> fundamental right requires that there are accessible tools that
>>>>>>> allow for or
>>>>>>> facilitate the use of the Internet."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Mike
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> From: Meryem Marzouki [mailto:meryem at marzouki.info]
>>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, November 26, 2009 8:54 AM
>>>>>>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [governance] Example of Corporate Internet
>>>>>>> Authoritarianism -
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I agree with Carlos and Bill here. Even beyond this
>>>>>>> discussion, it's
>>>>>>> strange how often I've seen recently people - or organizations -
>>>>>>> speaking of consumer rights as human rights (i.e. fundamental
>>>>>>> rights). The
>>>>>>> fact that there exist national, regional, international
>>>>>>> legislation giving rights to consumers (w.r.t. to goods and
>>>>>>> services
>>>>>>> providers) does certainly not mean that this is a fundamental
>>>>>>> right!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Regarding Michael's interpretation that: "If access to the
>>>>>>> Internet
>>>>>>> is a necessary requirement for participation in an "Information
>>>>>>> Society" then access to the tools that allow for or facilitate
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> use of the Internet especially when those tools are linked
>>>>>>> into some
>>>>>>> sort of monopolistic position with respect to the use of the
>>>>>>> Internet
>>>>>>> should surely fall under that rubric.", I would rather state it
>>>>>>> differently: access to the Internet as a necessary requirement
>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>> the full exercize of democracy and one's fundamental right
>>>>>>> requires
>>>>>>> that there are accessible tools that allow for or facilitate
>>>>>>> the use
>>>>>>> of the Internet". In other words, the requirement is not to
>>>>>>> access
>>>>>>> tools provided in a monopolistic position, but that there
>>>>>>> should be
>>>>>>> no monopolies, i.e. alternative tools should exist and be
>>>>>>> accessible,
>>>>>>> allowing access to and production of information as well as full
>>>>>>> participation.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Going back to Fouad's initial example: the point is not that
>>>>>>> Amazon's
>>>>>>> Kindle software for PC is not accessible in Pakistan (though
>>>>>>> it might
>>>>>>> be an inconvenience for some), but rather that you couldn't
>>>>>>> read a
>>>>>>> given book unless using Amazon's Kindle software for PC. Which
>>>>>>> is not
>>>>>>> the case, apparently, since I can read the mentioned report
>>>>>>> (http://
>>>>>>> report.knightcomm.org/) through other means, e.g. with my
>>>>>>> browser, on
>>>>>>> a MacIntosh, connected from Paris.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Conclusion: it's a pure (and minor, I would say but this is a
>>>>>>> personal opinion) consumer issue: someone wants to buy a product
>>>>>>> which is not available in his/her country. See Bill's problem in
>>>>>>> getting good Mexican food in Geneva, which those who know Bill
>>>>>>> would
>>>>>>> qualify as a much more preoccupying problem;))
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>> Meryem
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Le 26 nov. 09 à 14:30, Carlos A. Afonso a écrit :
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Wow, what a strange discussion. Let's contribute to it: how
>>>>>>>> about
>>>>>>>> iTunes
>>>>>>>> or AppleTV only working in developed countries (one cannot
>>>>>>>> purchase
>>>>>>>> media without having a credit card account in the USA or some
>>>>>>>> other
>>>>>>>> developed country)? How about only now Sony introduces the PS2
>>>>>>>> (PS2, an
>>>>>>>> obsolete gadget) in Brazil, and has no plans to introduce the
>>>>>>>> PS3?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I think the whole discussion is biased by a focus on being
>>>>>>>> able to
>>>>>>>> consume (superfluous or not) stuff anywhere, whatever the big
>>>>>>>> companies
>>>>>>>> create to make us think we have to have it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --c.a.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> McTim wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 11:18 AM, William Drake
>>>>>>>>> <william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Hi Michael,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 25, 2009, at 6:50 PM, Michael Gurstein wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I think that Bill's casual dismissal of this issue is not
>>>>>>>>>>> appropriate.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> There's a difference between disagreeing with something and
>>>>>>>>>> being
>>>>>>>>>> inappropriate.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The logic here is surely the same as the overall logic of a
>>>>>>>>>>> "Right to the
>>>>>>>>>>> Internet" (remembering that I claim no expertise in the
>>>>>>>>>>> domain
>>>>>>>>>>> of discussion
>>>>>>>>>>> around "Rights"...
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Really? "Right to the Internet" is the same as declaring any
>>>>>>>>>> company that doesn't sell a product in a given country to be
>>>>>>>>>> "authoritarian."? Sorry, but this strikes me as fuzzy
>>>>>>>>>> logic, and
>>>>>>>>>> not the computer science kind.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It used to be that when a transnational firm entered a
>>>>>>>>>> developing
>>>>>>>>>> country's market folks of certain persuasions would decry
>>>>>>>>>> this as
>>>>>>>>>> imperialist etc. But now if a firm does not enter a market
>>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>> can also call them names normally associated with governments
>>>>>>>>>> that brutalize their populations to retain political power?
>>>>>>>>>> Maybe you should notify all the groups working against WTO
>>>>>>>>>> agreements etc that they have it backwards and are promoting
>>>>>>>>>> authoritarianism, whereas what they really should be doing is
>>>>>>>>>> demanding that every company everywhere be required to sell
>>>>>>>>>> everything everywhere else.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Fouad says Amazon is authoritarian because it "dictates who
>>>>>>>>>> buys
>>>>>>>>>> or isn't allowed to buy from its website;" presumably, this
>>>>>>>>>> would
>>>>>>>>>> apply to other companies and distribution channels as well.
>>>>>>>>>> Let's leave aside the many reasons why a company might not
>>>>>>>>>> serve
>>>>>>>>>> a given market---costs, level of effective demand,
>>>>>>>>>> distribution,
>>>>>>>>>> local partner requirements, regulatory/policy uncertainty/
>>>>>>>>>> unfavorability, the prospects of fraud (as Carlton notes),
>>>>>>>>>> etc
>>>>>>>>>> etc---since I guess normal business considerations don't
>>>>>>>>>> matter.
>>>>>>>>>> All that does by Fouad's standard is can I buy what I want,
>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>> if not, they're equivalent with, say, the Burmese junta.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I can't get real Mexican food at Geneva grocery stores. I
>>>>>>>>>> couldn't buy a Coke at the Sharm airport, only Pepsi. I
>>>>>>>>>> can't
>>>>>>>>>> watch most US TV shows over the net in Switzerland. I
>>>>>>>>>> can't see
>>>>>>>>>> most non-Hollywood US films, e.g. indies, at Geneva movie
>>>>>>>>>> theaters. But I want these things. So am I a victim of
>>>>>>>>>> authoritarianism?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I'm sorry to hear that Kindle for PC is not currently
>>>>>>>>>> available
>>>>>>>>>> in Pakistan. Perhaps it would make sense to actually find
>>>>>>>>>> out
>>>>>>>>>> why this is so and see if anything can be done to encourage
>>>>>>>>>> change? Might be more productive than misplaced
>>>>>>>>>> sloganeering.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> +1
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I knew if I waited long enough, someone would spend the time
>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>> say this!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> BTW, Fouad, can you not use a proxy service?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Carlos A. Afonso
>>>>>>>> CGI.br (www.cgi.br)
>>>>>>>> Nupef (www.nupef.org.br)
>>>>>>>> ====================================
>>>>>>>> new/nuevo/novo e-mail: ca at cafonso.ca
>>>>>>>> ====================================
>>>>>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>>> 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
>>>>>
>>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>>> 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
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>> 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
>>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> 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
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20091127/d45654ab/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
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
More information about the Governance
mailing list