[governance] Net neutrality on mobiles
parminder
parminder at itforchange.net
Fri Aug 13 14:54:11 EDT 2010
Dear Anriette
Very happy to discuss this very important issue.
On Friday 13 August 2010 10:47 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote:
> Dear Parminder
>
> As you know.. I don't personally like the term 'multi-stakeholderism'...
> neither in referring to policy dialogue or policy-making.
>
Great! :) My preference is for 'deep democracy'. A concept that does not
accept governments as sole custodians of public interest, and seeks to
include a variety of players, largely civil society, but will also
include private players, especially associations of private sector
players which arguably represent a public interest viewpoint. However,
there is great attention to the issue of relative power of different
players, and the effort for inclusion is chiefly and clearly oriented
towards interests that get marginalized in normal governance process.
Big corporates that are in any case very cosy with governments are
looked upon with a good deal of suspicion in using spaces created as
part of deepening democracy.
> Thanks for pointing out that you were referring specifically about
> policy making. We are not that far apart...but perhaps still some
> differences in nuance. It would be good to know how you see the private
> sector participating in policy-dialogue, and in policy-making.
>
Policy dialogue spaces need to give special consideration to voices not
often heard. I know of no country, democratic or authoritarian, where
the big corporates do not have easy access to all levels of powers. In
fact in all countries they have a much closer relationship than can be
characterized by 'easy access'. Any formal policy dialogue space
therefore should make sure that corporates are preferably only
represented by their associations and not as companies as such. However,
if at all it is necessary to get some company in because of its special
presence in the area of discussion, or because there is a desire not to
stop anyone from coming in, an extra-ordinary effort has to be made to
ensure that the major part of the policy dialogue space is allowed for
the normally less heard voices, or (as mostly the case will be) their
representatives.
And these steps I mention are to be taken seriously, and evidently. This
is not an 'also to do' list. These steps are 'the' thing. Without these
necessary steps multistakeholderism actually reduces participation of
less heard voices of marginalised people, by giving legitimacy to
dominant private interests influencing policies.
Since you have quoted examples from the ground, let me also do so from
our experience in India. First of all we too work with private sector
small scale FOSS players for our FOSS related policy work. We find
nothing wrong in it. (I can discuss this angle at more length later.) We
have lately seen two processes of ICT policy development. One of them,
ICT in schools policy, was so completely highjacked by corporates that
the minister had to step in and scrap the process. (This is rare thing
which happened because the concerned minister was an old fashioned
socialist). Another process, of open standards in egov policy, also has
been considerably highjacked by the same corporates. All this,
especially the ICT in schools policy process, was done in the name of
multistakeholderism. On the other hand, a few years back India's
National Curriculum Framework was prepared through a nation-wide old
style consultative process, with public hearings in many places across
the country, and was much more participative. It was clear that the
process had to actually reach out to public interest actors, especially
those representing less heard of voices. ('Multistakeholder' or MS
events on the other hand are mostly held by private sector money in
enclaves whose gatekeeping in open and subtle ways is done by dominant
interests.) I am not saying that old fashioned publicly funded
consultations are perfect, but I will try to keep seeking improvements
in them than take up the new ones that I see under multistakeholder
umbrella, employing concepts like multistakeholder funding etc, which
are really largely industry controlled. I can vouch for it first hand
that this is the situaion in India in ICT area. that is our experience
from the ground.
You perhaps know of e-India event, tipped as world's largest e-event or
something. This is organized by a body which started as a civil society
organization, took a lot of funder money, and now holds events largely
using funds provided by large digital companies, where the whole list of
speakers is just of gov officials and representatives of large
companies, mostly sponsors, with, hold your breath, often not a single
civil society speaker, not even the co-opting level kind which some
other MS events do.
> My experience has been that in giving ICT business voice in
> policy-making (in the consultation process, e.g. when drafting
> legislation) civil society and government are able to anticipate
> consequences which they would not otherwise have been able to.
>
> Also, by giving business voice in the policy-making process (in a
> facilitated manner) you get buy-in from the private sector which makes
> it more likely they will adhere to the policy and help implement it. In
> countries where the public sector does not have the capacity to
> implement... this is incredibly important. And in the same countries it
> becomes incredibly important to have a regulatory environment that
> ensures that the public interest is protected.
>
This is the real politik, acknowledging the powerful, argument. I dont
much like it :). I understand the 'weak state' situation, esp in Africa.
But then civil society should side with the weak state - however
perfect, trying to improve it, rather than legitimise the power of big
corporates. They will in any case do what they can. Notional opposition
to this state of affairs at least keeps us moving in the right
directions.... with some hope of democratic powers triumphing some day.
> Sometimes, depending on the specifics, the relationships between public
> sector/CS and business in a policy and regulation process will be
> cooperative, and sometimes it will be hostile.
>
> But assuming that all private sector entities do, in all cases, are not
> concerned about the public interest is not helpful.
>
This is not at all the assumption. For instance, Indian generic drug
industry is the biggest ally in struggles against stronger IP regimes in
the area of drugs.
> Sometimes they are genuinely interested, and sometimes their private
> interest can overlap with the the public interest (often the case in
> pro-competition policy).
>
> I agree that the policy discussion and the policy making processes
> should be separate.. but they should also connect. That a lot of
> internet policy is made in 'private' spaces does not help. And the
> public spaces are also problematic.
>
They should connect.... but to connect there should be sufficient policy
making space in the first place. In the area of global IG that is
largely absent, and thus the need to work for it, beyond supporting the IGF.
> In my country, sadly, the discussion and official submissions are often
> ignored as the process is finalised. Government ends up making policy
> that ignores stakeholder input (civil society, community, researchers,
> business, often all four).
>
Yes, the fight for real democracy is a long and hard one. In this we are
together. My concern is that multistakeholderism as preached and
practised today is becoming one of the biggest challenges to democracy,
Apologies for the long response. Best. Parminder
> Well.. back to work.. discussion to be continued :)
>
> Anriette
>
> On Fri, 2010-08-13 at 21:57 +0530, parminder wrote:
>
>> Building on Micheal's post below, Anriette please note that i spoke
>> about multistakeholderism as a policy making form (or forum) and not a
>> discussion forum
>>
>> to quote from my email
>>
>> "The principal> lesson for this deal is for all of us to reconsider the foggy business> of multistakeholderism as a new policy-making form,"
>>
>>
>>
>> There are many on this list who uphold multistakeholderism as a
>> policy-making forum. That is what I am rebutting.
>>
>> Also, when we only speak of policy discussion forums like with the IGF
>> without talking of the policy making forum into which this discussion
>> must feed, which has to be a public interest based democratic forum,
>> expressly excluding private interests with conflict of interest wrt
>> policy matters being considered, we are promoting both a policy deficit
>> and a democratic deficit.
>>
>> The problem is when policy discussions take the place of policy making,
>> or still worse, as Micheal says, '
>>
>> the process leading up to the policy to in some sense become the policy making itself."
>>
>>
>> This unfortunately is largely the situation of much of global IG today.
>>
>> Parminder
>>
>>
>> On Friday 13 August 2010 09:37 PM, Michael Gurstein wrote:
>>
>>> I completely agree with Anriette as far as she goes, the problem is that "discussion and processes" in many cases blur (or are anticipated as blurring) into policy making and that's where the issues arise. What should be the processes (and structures) of policy making and who should be involved in the actual making of the policy as opposed to discussion about/consultation concerning the policy?
>>>
>>> In the absence of effective (democratically anchored) policy making structures there is a tendency to allow the process leading up to the policy to in some sense become the policy making itself.
>>>
>>> Also, by focusing our (civil society's) attention and resources only on the (multi-stakeholder) processes insufficient attention is paid/resources given to building/reinforcing the broadly based democratic policy making structures.
>>>
>>> The IGF (including the regional IGF's) are useful certainly but dare I say that they still suffer rather severely from a "democratic deficit".
>>>
>>> Mike
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Anriette Esterhuysen [mailto:anriette at apc.org]
>>> Sent: Friday, August 13, 2010 7:28 AM
>>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; parminder
>>> Cc: SAMUELS,Carlton A
>>> Subject: Re: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles
>>>
>>>
>>> Dear Parminder and all
>>>
>>> I agree with Parminder on network neutrality being a very pressing issue in developing countries.. particularly in the mobile universe.
>>>
>>> My views on stakeholders participation are probably a bit different.
>>>
>>> Yesterday I participated in a conference called Tech4Africa. http://www.tech4africa.com/
>>>
>>> It was very interesting, very dynamic. Mobile, mobile broadband, mobile content featured in several sessions. Net neutrality did not get nearly enough attention.
>>>
>>> Here is my reading on how different stakeholder groups in Africa see net neutrality in Africa. These are just perceptions and it would be great if other Africans can share their perceptions:
>>>
>>> Governments:
>>> - either unaware or already in the pockets of the mobile operators
>>> - concerned with content and services and working with providers to get these to end-users without any consideration of the implications for competition/net neutrality etc.
>>>
>>> Regulators:
>>> - some beginning to think about the issue, not sure how to deal with it, often of the view that it is not yet a priority and that they should focus on reducing cost of access
>>> - some in the pocket of operators
>>> - some just not really aware of how to deal with this issue in mobile and of the view that it only applies to fixed line or internet infrastructure
>>>
>>> Businesses - large mobile:
>>> - large mobile operators area seriously investing in content and applications and in mobile broadband
>>> - partnering with development agencies and business to provide services that are making them a fortune, and benefiting users
>>> - in fact... it would not surprise me if Safaricom wins a Nobel Peace Prize for Mpesa :)
>>>
>>> Business - small and medium in the ICT sector:
>>> - many would like to get into content
>>> - some fear for their survival if they cannot get into mobile and content, particularly digital broadcasting, e.g. local producers of local content, local language content, and also public interest content
>>> - the lack of net neutrality in the mobile space is of HUGE concern to them once they understand the issues
>>> - other smaller business and also community and not-for-profit initiatives are forced to work through the large operators when they develop content for mobile... very anti-competitive.. kind of replicates what happened with government owned telco monopolies forcing everyone to use their infractructure for internet... which is still happening in some places
>>>
>>> Business can be broken into many more stakeholder and interest groups.. these are just examples.
>>>
>>> NGO/Not-for-profit/social and community enterprises:
>>> - exploring content and service and applications... currently, as i said above, they depend on the 'generosity and goodwill' of mobile operators
>>> - the difference here is that at least those who are in the content business know that lack of net neutrality is bad... the NGOs are not aware of these issues
>>>
>>> Sorry.. this is long.. but I am trying to say that real life is not as simple as you make it out to be. Interests and where groups stand on policy and regulation on for example net neutrality does not just depend on whether the 'stakeholder' is a business or a government. It is based on specific configurations of power and knowledge and opportunity at any given time.
>>>
>>> I agree with you that in the making of policy all stakeholders should not have equal power. It depends on the policy - and also on the specific public interest at stake. But assuming that government and civil society are the sole protectors of the public interest does not always hold true in my experience, not in Africa. Often in the ICT sector it is the small to medium business players whose interests come closest to that of the general public.
>>>
>>> In most African countries there are still very few civil society organisations active in the ICT or access to knowledge policy debates.
>>>
>>> Government has a specific role in making sure that policy is made openly and inclusively, and in the public interest. Government needs to be held accountable for the policy implementation, and what happens as a result of this implication. They need to be forced to fix/change policies that do not service the public interest. But hearing what all the different stakeholders have to say is always useful in my opinion. Policy making processes that listens and asks questions in public where community, business, civil society can all say their piece, results in better policy and stronger partnership in implementation.
>>>
>>> Consider also that in most developing countries government has very little capacity... even the good ones.
>>>
>>> One of the many reasons why I feel that IGF has been such an important experiment is that it is a forum for policy dialogue, not for policy making.
>>>
>>> Both policy making and policy dialogue works better with input from lots of different stakeholders. Business and civil society and those people that are usually not included enough, communities, end-users, workers, consumers.
>>>
>>> How the multi-stakeholder participation is facilitated and configured needs to be different in dialogue spaces and policy-making processes. Mechanisms to avoid the abuse of power are essential in policy-making.
>>>
>>> But I don't think we should ever undervalue the value of multi-stakeholder participation in our sector... including in policy discussion and processes.
>>>
>>> Anriette
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> This is the reason that network neutrality is really even more a
>>>> developing country issue, a big and central part of what would be
>>>> development agenda.)
>>>>
>>>> Coming back to the principal issue I wanted to raise. The principal
>>>> lesson for this deal is for all of us to reconsider the foggy business
>>>> of multistakeholderism as a new policy-making form, and clearly
>>>> understand and accept the long established distinctions between pulbic
>>>> interest and private interest.
>>>>
>>>> Companies represent private interests. That is what they are supposed
>>>> to do, and they will always end up doing so. In fact there is nothing
>>>> wrong for them to do it, as long as they are within legal boundaries.
>>>> That is the nature of the private sector, definitionally.
>>>>
>>>> On the other hand, civil society and governments are public interest
>>>> players. Both sectors at diferent times can have different problems
>>>> about their legitimacy etc, and this has to be engaged with. However
>>>> the essential difference between private interest players (businesses)
>>>> and public interest players (civil society and governments) has always
>>>> been clear, and we would be doing great disservice to the global
>>>> society if in the name of multistakeholderism we try to distinguish
>>>> this difference.
>>>>
>>>> As Carlton notes in his email
>>>>
>>>> Sober commentators have already weighed in on the implications
>>>> of what they see as Google switching sides in the NN debate.
>>>> Most have come to recognize the critical issue; when loads of
>>>> money is in play, priorities tend to follow the money. It is
>>>> quixotic to pretend otherwise.
>>>>
>>>> It is time we also stopped pretending otherwise. We should be working
>>>> for deepening democracy - a concept that challenges government's
>>>> singular authority by complementing it with other forms of interest
>>>> representation, rather than multistakeholderism, a concept which seems
>>>> built to give political respectability to private interests.
>>>>
>>>> Parminder
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Thursday 12 August 2010 11:51 PM, SAMUELS,Carlton A wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Parminder:
>>>>>
>>>>> I share the sentiments in your final paragraph even as you badly
>>>>> misread my misgivings. To report what is – and recognize the nature
>>>>> of things – can hardly be construed as endorsement. Sober
>>>>> commentators have already weighed in on the implications of what
>>>>> they see as Google switching sides in the NN debate. Most have come
>>>>> to recognize the critical issue; when loads of money is in play,
>>>>> priorities tend to follow the money. It is quixotic to pretend
>>>>> otherwise.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I cut my professional teeth in the telecommunications business, pre
>>>>> Final Modified Judgment; Judge Green’s Order that broke up Ma Bell.
>>>>> And it is from certain knowledge that I can declare that
>>>>> telecommunications companies have always had preferred customers and
>>>>> show preference in very business-like practical ways for those
>>>>> customers. Routine business transactions that hardly ever see the
>>>>> light of a [public] day. Coupled to this, they occupy a critical
>>>>> portion of the Internet ecosystem. Gut check: they are principally
>>>>> sellers of connectivity and bandwidth. And like every other seller,
>>>>> volume transactions matter. To resist acknowledging that there is a
>>>>> marketplace that has certain behaviours is untenable. At least,
>>>>> for me.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> We – civil society – are left with very few dogs in the hunt. One
>>>>> of them is to make personal statements that undergird our
>>>>> opposition. Grouch Marx was alleged to have said “I don’t want to
>>>>> belong to any club that will have me as a member”. The sentiment
>>>>> expressed has a larger embrace and this is where you’ll find me.
>>>>> Ginger’s response to Apple and Apple products is part of that piece;
>>>>> I own no Apple products and I will never buy an Iphone. Another is
>>>>> stoking public disgust. Because even the most rapacious corporation
>>>>> is mindful of its public image. Sometimes, even more so than
>>>>> politicians! [It was fascinating to watch the public contortions of
>>>>> BP in recent past!]
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> My position is that this ‘knowing’ is what fuels the big picture
>>>>> response, whether it involves politicians driven to act for fear of
>>>>> losing votes or acting in collaboration with other interests out of
>>>>> genuine belief. This is the basis for my argument that transparency
>>>>> trumps.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Carlton
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> From:parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net]
>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, August 11, 2010 8:49 AM
>>>>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>>>> Subject: Re: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Carlton
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wednesday 11 August 2010 04:36 AM, SAMUELS,Carlton A wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Ginger hit the nail squarely on its head; the crux of the NN issue
>>>>> for civil society is transparency.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> No, transparency is hardly enough. a quote from a quote in Ginger's
>>>>> subsequent email "That way, as Americans lose access to the free and
>>>>> open Internet, they can visibly watch it go away."
>>>>>
>>>>> How does it matter if I know something is happening if I have no way
>>>>> of influencing it?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The competitive free market will always devise methods, processes
>>>>> and activities intended to create advantage for one or other player. There will always be players willing to make investments to pump their wares; something for free that others are charging for is a tried and true method, ala "free" text messaging for x period.
>>>>>
>>>>> Lowering the barrier to entry or participation is another. MS
>>>>> Windows took pole position in the OS space because there were apps driving its market penetration; a readily available SDK fueled the spread. Case in point: despite the hype and sleekness of the Iphone, it wouldn't have been such a hit without those apps. And the smart decision to freely distribute its SDK. Putting some 'skin in the game' by making a popular hi-traffic app available for free is not a stretch in marketing imagination.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Even in terms of commercial regulation, why does then EU fine
>>>>> Microsoft Billions of dollars for bundling IE with its OS? And this
>>>>> when market distortions vis a vis stand alone applications like OS
>>>>> and browsers is not one tenth of what vertical integration and
>>>>> bundling would do in the network or Internet space.
>>>>>
>>>>> However, if one doesnt believe in need to watch over possible
>>>>> excesses of market power, one just doesnt. No amount of argument can
>>>>> do anything about it. One can chose to be more bothered about the
>>>>> daily new glamorous things one gets on one's i-phone and the
>>>>> Internet, or be more bothered about the structural implications of
>>>>> vertical integrations in the network space to the hopes set by the
>>>>> Internet for a more egalitarian world.
>>>>>
>>>>> You seem to be happy that Apple bundles so much goodies with its
>>>>> i-phone, McTim and Ginger are unhappy about the exclusive walls that
>>>>> the apps ecology of i-phone and other Apple products are creating,
>>>>> and therefroe refuse to use Apple products. Neither stances, in my
>>>>> view, is enough from a civil society advocacy group perspective
>>>>> which needs to probe the deeper policy issues and come up with
>>>>> responses that serve the progressive cause and advoacte them
>>>>> strongly on behalf of those who cannot be present in these forums
>>>>> but whose lives are nonetheless greatly affected by these
>>>>> developments.
>>>>>
>>>>> In any case, at least in my view, Internet is not just a market
>>>>> place, it is a social space for our non-commerical social
>>>>> interactions, it is a public media and a public sphere, it is a
>>>>> space for exercising citizenship. Perhaps without discussions on
>>>>> these deeper issues and essential nature of the Internet and what we
>>>>> take it to be, discussions on a 'simple act' of a free Internet
>>>>> based service wont go anywhere.
>>>>>
>>>>> Parminder
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Innovation tumbles over innovation, that's the law.
>>>>>
>>>>> Carlton
>>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: Ginger Paque [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com]
>>>>> Sent: Sunday, August 08, 2010 7:37 AM
>>>>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ian Peter
>>>>> Subject: Re: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles
>>>>>
>>>>> Ian and Parminder,
>>>>>
>>>>> This is an interesting point for me, but I wonder where the line is
>>>>> between advertising and other issues, like 'free benefits' which
>>>>> David mentions. For instance, when text messaging was first
>>>>> available in Venezuela, it was free. It was free for long enough to
>>>>> get everyone hooked on it. Then they started charging for it.
>>>>>
>>>>> It is difficult for me to see this as a NN issue since it sounds
>>>>> more like a 'free trial', or a 'package deal' that attracts
>>>>> customers. My serious issues with NN are lack of transparency, not
>>>>> marketing.
>>>>>
>>>>> Where do you see this 'line'?
>>>>>
>>>>> I think this is a good time to discuss NN so that we can be more
>>>>> productive in Vilnius.
>>>>>
>>>>> Best, Ginger
>>>>>
>>>>> On 8/7/2010 11:23 PM, Ian Peter wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Parminder,
>>>>>
>>>>> Unfortunately Australia has already jumped ship on this too. It is common
>>>>> practice for ISPs here (who have volume charging regimes) to create free
>>>>> zones of their partner sites which do not attract volume charges and/or
>>>>> traffic shaping when people exceed download limits. Nobody here seems to
>>>>> want to pick this up as an issue. To me, this is a distortion of a free
>>>>> market and an open Internet at the same time and should be attracting a lot
>>>>> more attention.
>>>>>
>>>>> The mobile world, as you mention, brings with it other distortions and
>>>>> potential distortions (eg built in apps and interfaces)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I agree - we should discuss.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Ian Peter
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> From: parminder<parminder at itforchange.net>
>>>>> Reply-To:<governance at lists.cpsr.org>, parminder<parminder at itforchange.net>
>>>>> Date: Sun, 08 Aug 2010 08:51:02 +0530
>>>>> To:<governance at lists.cpsr.org>,<ciresearchers at vancouvercommunity.net>
>>>>> Subject: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi All
>>>>>
>>>>> The biggest mobile operator in India, Airtel, is providing Facebook free
>>>>> of data download charges in India (apparently, only for 2 months). I
>>>>> understand this is happening in other countries too; i read about
>>>>> something similar in Russia.
>>>>>
>>>>> I consider this as an outright violation of net
>>>>> neutrality (NN).
>>>>>
>>>>> Since there are existing codes of conduct on NN in some countries like
>>>>> Norway and Brazil, I will like to know from those who know and
>>>>> understand these country specific arrangements well if such a thing as
>>>>> above will be considered a NN violation under these
>>>>> codes.
>>>>>
>>>>> If indeed developing countries are to have any chance of being a part of
>>>>> shaping and governing the future of the Internet, we should start
>>>>> testing such cases as above with the telecom regulatory authourities,
>>>>> and if needed with courts and anti-trust bodies.
>>>>>
>>>>> Parminder
>>>>>
>>>>> PS: See latest developments on NN debate in the US
>>>>> at
>>>>>
>>>>> http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/08/google-verizon-close-to-their-
>>>>> own-net-neutrality-deal.ars
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It appears that there is some move to treat wireless or mobile based
>>>>> Internet on a different level vis a vis NN than
>>>>> wired Internet.
>>>>>
>>>>> As the largest market players - here, Verizon and Google - seek to
>>>>> arrive at a mutually convenient arrangement, and the only other party
>>>>> to it is the US gov, itself representing very partisan, and largely
>>>>> dominant, interests, as far as the global public Internet is concerned,
>>>>> the real shape of global IG is quite evident. Where does the IGF, and
>>>>> indeed the IGC come into this may be a question that we need to ponder
>>>>> upon.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>>> 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
>>>>>
>>>>> Translate this email:
>>>>> http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>>> 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
>>>>>
>>>>> Translate this email:
>>>>> http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>>> 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
>>>>>
>>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>>> 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
>>>>>
>>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> plain text document attachment (message-footer.txt)
>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>> 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
>>>>
>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> 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
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>
____________________________________________________________
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
Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
More information about the Governance
mailing list