[governance] Remote Participation
Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro
salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com
Thu Feb 23 03:48:12 EST 2012
On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 2:26 AM, Baudouin SCHOMBE <b.schombe at gmail.com>wrote:
Happy Birthday Schombe!
> I agree in principle. In my opinion, I think it is necessary to launch the
> topics of discussion that we can relay to the mailing lists at local, sub
> regional and regional levels. This will prearrange RP. And if that is the
> case, these discussion topics may be sent two months prior to that national
> actors can react.
>
This is excellent. Deirdre had also suggested having people volunteer to
assist in Remote Participation. Be good if people empower themselves to the
WG to see how they can help but more importantly, what Schombe is
highlighting to identify core teams at national and sub regional and
regional IGFs etc. They can also prepare in advance to scout out venues,
and access capacities and if the private sector got involved to sponsor
bandwidth etc etc. It will be good to fully activate the multistakeholder
collaborative approach in this regard. If there are institutions who can
volunteer to run trainings on moderation etc, that will be great.
> In our mailing lists, we enrolled participants with skills and proven
> expertise can contribute actively to the topics scheduled.
>
+1
> The mailing list has the advantage of allowing the actors to react
> wherever they may be.
>
> A very interesting proposal by Jovan is that each level of national IGF,
> it is proposed that people can be trained to the moderation of discussion
> for RP.
>
> These individuals trained can also help to summarize the discussion by
> including the observations at the local level.
>
> Absolutely, it is good to work towards this. If there are a group of
> people who are interested to set up an ad hoc group to discuss offline how
> to tease out options etc and bring back to the list for feedback and with
> most of us spread across the various regions, we should be able to advocate
> "meaningful participation" in a more cohesive manner that enables equality
> in participation for both onsite and offsite participants.
>
> SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN
>
> Téléphone mobile:+243998983491
> email : b.schombe at gmail.com
> skype : b.schombe
> blog : http://akimambo.unblog.fr
> Site Web : www.ticafrica.net
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 2012/2/22 Ginger Paque <gpaque at gmail.com>
>
>> Dear Jovan, De, Anriette, all,
>>
>> I write this as a member of the IGF remote participation working group,
>> but not FOR the IGF RPWG. These are my views.
>>
>> I think that this discussion on RP strategy and policy is extremely
>> important, and should be a priority for the IGC and CS, as well as the
>> other IGF stakeholders and the IGF secretariat. In particular, a policy for
>> RP, including chairing and moderation, as noted by Anriette and Jovan, is
>> indispensable, as is, I reiterate, the need to institutionalize RP as an
>> integral part of the IGF meeting process, perhaps using Anriettes
>> suggestions as a foundation. As Anriette notes, a key element is the
>> presence of an on site remote moderator, a role usually played by a
>> volunteer (Avri, myself, Seiiti, maybe Bill Drake? I cannot remember... and
>> others) in preparatory meetings, and until now, coordinated by the RPWG in
>> formal IGF meetings.
>>
>> I have to admit, I was stunned by the lack of attention given to
>> implementation of RP during the OC last week, particularly given the
>> concern about similarly important details such as the venue/meeting room
>> difficulties. I wonder if this is because RP is assumed to be an
>> institutional part of the process, when in fact, it is not yet recognized
>> as such? Do we take it for granted? Is that why we were amazed and appalled
>> by the problems during the MAG meeting? I think those problems occurred
>> precisely because RP is not an institutional part of the meeting process.
>> RP is as indispensable as the live transcript has now become, and a remote
>> moderator is as important as other organizational positions to make it
>> work.
>>
>> Without an on site remote moderator, there is no interface between the on
>> site proceedings and the remote participation. No matter how hard the chair
>> tries, he/she cannot be omniscient, nor omnipotent, controlling factors in
>> the meeting room and on a global network. Remote panel moderators as a
>> required element of each IGF workshop has shown that this role is
>> indispensable.
>>
>> The RPWG has never had a 'budget'. Fortunately many of us find funding
>> for attendance at meetings for other activities, and are able to
>> collaborate on site. I was particularly fortunate to be able to play double
>> roles during my term as IGC co-coordinator and/or Diplo staff. For the most
>> part, we are self-funded, sharing expenses among us. The IGF RPWG have had
>> some funding from DiploFoundation, which was much appreciated. The host
>> country and IGF secretariat coordinate funding for tech (webcast,
>> equipment) at the meetings, but as you know, that is not an easy matter
>> nowadays.
>>
>> The IGF RPWG works to implement inclusive RP. We are purposely not a
>> dynamic coalition or formal group, because we prefer to prioritize work on
>> practical implementation, rather than policy and process. We are willing
>> and happy to collaborate in any way we can, particularly in training
>> materials, elaboration of guidelines and support of remote hubs.
>>
>> We plan to submit input to the IGF Secretariat, and will post a copy to
>> the IGC list as well for your feedback.
>>
>> Thanks to everyone who has paved the way for progress on Remote
>> Participation in the IGF--Jeremy, my present and past colleagues on the IGF
>> RPWG, and others who have long pointed out this need, have given important
>> impetus, and we must keep the forward momentum going!
>>
>> Saludos, Ginger
>>
>> **
>>
>>
>>
>> On 22 February 2012 08:17, Jovan Kurbalija <jovank at diplomacy.edu> wrote:
>>
>>> Thanks Anriette for these key observations! The role of the chair is
>>> essential. Good news is that you pointed to a make-or-break point for RP.
>>> Bad news is that possibilities to improve it are limited. We should prepare
>>> guidelines for chairs (a good starting point could be RP Working Group
>>> guidelines for moderators). But we have to be aware of the limitations.
>>>
>>> The role of the chair is already demanding in face-to-face meetings,
>>> where he has to feel the room, give tempo to the flow (a musical talent
>>> helps), be aware of the "power of the unsaid" (quietness, absence, tacit
>>> communication). A good chair has ToR for "diplomatic superman": assertive
>>> but not dictatorial, open but not indiscrimante, , smart but not
>>> intellectually dominant, aware of details but not too pedantic, ...and the
>>> list can continue. He needs a emotional intelligence. Experience helps.
>>> Ultimately, he has to be credible.
>>>
>>> All of this makes training for chairing very difficult. I can confirm
>>> this, based on Diplo's 20 years of experience in diplomatic training. It is
>>> slightly easier in the formal diplomatic context where you can train chairs
>>> how to use procedural tools (although that could be a dangerous tool).
>>>
>>> What can we do for IGF chairs?
>>> - prepare guidelines as repository of collective wisdom with realistic
>>> expectations about their effectiveness
>>> - start nudging chairs towards a new practice: highlight good examples,
>>> where possible, select the most RP-friendly chair at the next IGF meeting,
>>> collect feedback and experience. Aldo, our resident contrarian, introduced
>>> the concept of nudging in our didactics. It works wonders!
>>> - increase awareness in remote hubs and the general IGF public about the
>>> role of the chair (pressure on this position, limited time management).
>>>
>>> Now a slight zoom out. I am a strong believer in incremental changes in
>>> social dynamics. The IGF RPWG has done an amazing job over the last 5
>>> years. Marilia, Bernard, Ginger, Raquel, Cha, Rafik and others have made
>>> this possible. One of my images of the IGF meetings is seeing these people
>>> running between workshop rooms (logging kilometers of distance at every
>>> IGF). Ultimately, this is what makes RP at the IGF unique and successful.
>>> Technology is important, as we realised last week when it did not work
>>> well, but the human input is decisive. We were fortunate that the IGF
>>> secretariat and UN DESA were open to RP innovations. Every year the IGF
>>> RPWG started with training of remote moderators many weeks ahead of the
>>> meeting, they discuss with remote hubs, they nudge (again) people to
>>> participate, they liaison with the secretariat, they and the secretariat
>>> work behind the scenes....
>>>
>>> I do not know why the IGF RPWG is quiet in this discussion. I know that
>>> they are modest (big achievements, low rhetoric), but they should speak out
>>> more for the sake of improvement. Ultimately, we should build on their
>>> experience. We, as the IGF community, have neglected to recognize *
>>> enough* the great success of RP and need to give it another push
>>> without making it too formal (a risk to kill innovation). RP at IGF 2.0
>>> needs mix of recognition, funding (RPWG people are/were volunteers for work
>>> which is highly professional) and the ownership of the IGF community.
>>>
>>> I hope to hear from the working group people! More will follow on
>>> Anriette's idea for guidelines.....
>>>
>>> Regards, Jovan
>>>
>>> ********
>>>
>>> *Email: *jovank at diplomacy.edu *| **Twitter:* @jovankurbalija ****
>>>
>>> ** **
>>>
>>> *****The latest from Diplo: * Learn about Internet governance and ICT
>>> policy: enrol for the 2012 Internet Governance Capacity Building
>>> Programme (more info <http://bit.ly/t5fKnw>).
>>>
>>> On 2/22/12 8:47 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi all
>>>
>>> Based on my observation at the meetings here in Geneva in the last week
>>> I think one of the main problems is that meeting chairs need to play a
>>> central role.
>>>
>>>
>>> This is partly covered by this text that is in the document below:
>>>
>>> Preparing a clear comprehensive guideline for remote participation
>>> and its moderation and post session or meeting reporting for meeting
>>> hosts, facilitators and chairs.
>>>
>>> We do need the guidelines.. but we also need more formality to elevate
>>> the status of RM. Meeting chairs should formally welcoming remote
>>> participants, naming them so that everyone who is physically present is
>>> aware that they are part of the meeting, and actively encouraging them
>>> to participate.
>>>
>>> Budgeting is also key. Does the RM working group have a draft budget
>>> that can be given to meeting organisers? They need to plan in advance
>>> for the additional expense involved.
>>>
>>> Anriette
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 21/02/12 23:10, Deirdre Williams wrote:
>>>
>>> Dear Sala and everyone,
>>>
>>> I would suggest one change to smooth the argument - move the fifth
>>> paragraph to follow the second - see below.
>>>
>>> Otherwise I still believe that we need to make the "we must have remote
>>> participation" argument as forcefully as possible, and with that in mind
>>> I would put the suggestions - the paragraphs that say 'how' in a
>>> separate statement. In this case the statement would close at paragraph
>>> 8, with paragraph 15 moved up as the conclusion. I haven't done that to
>>> the document because no one seems to agree with me :-)
>>>
>>> Best wishes to all and good luck to those on the front line in Geneva
>>> De
>>>
>>> 1. We would like to reiterate that remote participation is a crucial
>>> part of organizing the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) and we appreciate
>>> the effort to provide remote participation for the Open Consultation,
>>> the Multi-stakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) meetings, and the MAG meeting
>>> this month – February 2012 – which was opened to observers.
>>>
>>> 2. The IGC believes that Remote Participation (RP) should be an integral
>>> part of Internet Governance and IGF Policy Processes. It is impossible
>>> to sustain an inclusive global policy process without effective remote
>>> participation.
>>>
>>> 3 was 5. The MAG and IGF Secretariats should start working with the
>>> host to ensure that real time transcriptions are available for all
>>> sessions and not just the Main Sessions.
>>>
>>> 4 was 3. We would like to commend the excellent work of the technical
>>> team from Politecnico di Torino, (The Polytechnic University of Turin)
>>> which was originally brought by our colleague and former IGC Civil
>>> Society Coordinator Vittorio Bertola.
>>>
>>> 5 was 4. However, we would like to point out some difficulties that
>>> occurred with the system during the open MAG meeting. On the third day,
>>> morning session, (the second day of the open MAG meeting), remote
>>> observers were effectively excluded because they had no access to live
>>> transcript.
>>>
>>> 6. Also MAG members trying to participate online had difficulty in
>>> contacting moderators, partly because the moderators were serving more
>>> than one function.
>>>
>>> 7. We strongly urge MAG and IGF Secretariats and ourselves to consider
>>> the following for the future IGF organizing work and the IGF itself, and
>>> work together to bring them about:
>>>
>>> · Ensuring equal participation between online and offline participants
>>> through planning meetings to give online and offline participants an
>>> equal opportunity to participate and contribute to meetings.
>>>
>>> · Ensuring that there is sufficient capacity and appropriate bandwidth
>>> to sustain remote participation by liaising with hosts well in advance
>>> to enable greater interactions from offline participants.
>>>
>>> · Preparing a clear comprehensive guideline for remote participation
>>> and its moderation and post session or meeting reporting for meeting
>>> hosts, facilitators and chairs.
>>>
>>> · Clearly advertising opportunities for RP in advance of all meetings,
>>> with clear guidance for participants on the opportunities to engage
>>> through RP that will be available.
>>>
>>> · Always assigning exclusive remote participation
>>> coordinator/moderators (who do not have other jobs at the same time, and
>>> are responsible for interactions between the meeting’s physical
>>> participants/current speaker, the Chair and the remote participants).
>>>
>>> · Establishing a clear procedure that would encourage remote
>>> participants to intervene. Such a system is desirable both for those
>>> physically present in Geneva and those observing the meeting remotely.
>>>
>>> · Providing as much interactivity as possible by giving remote
>>> participants to interact and engage in meetings.
>>>
>>> · Providing multiple methods – video, voice and text channel, as well
>>> as real-time transcription and video streaming – of coverage of the meeting
>>>
>>> · Enabling the meeting and remote participation through interactive
>>> presentations access through RP.
>>>
>>> · Creating a select Task force or Working Group created that has
>>> representatives from the Government, Private Sector and Civil Society
>>> that is dedicated to seeing improvements of Remote Participation and to
>>> ensure the incorporation of critical elements that have been highlighted
>>> to ensure improved remote participation processes.
>>>
>>> 8. Because only limited funds are available for face- to -face
>>> participation, this issue is crucially important to all stakeholders
>>> from all constituencies who are entitled to participate in the meetings,
>>> and who wish to do so from a remote location.
>>>
>>> 9. We also encourage greater partnership between the governments and
>>> private sector in enhancing remote participation.
>>>
>>> 10. We have to move beyond advocacy to listing and creating tangible
>>> outcomes to make improved, stable and sustainable remote participation a
>>> reality.
>>>
>>> 11. There are regions around the world where transportation is extremely
>>> expensive and one such region is the Pacific which has 22 countries and
>>> territories. Remote participation was the only way that any of these
>>> countries could access the IGF.
>>>
>>> 12. However there is room to improve processes and create an IGF culture
>>> where remote participation is prioritised through exploring tested
>>> methodology.
>>>
>>> 13. The appropriate technical solutions need also to be explored as well
>>> bandwidth and ensuring that there is uninterrupted power supply and
>>> redundancy options where back up generators are critical to maintain a
>>> consistent and seamless flow. The MAG and IGF Secretariats should also
>>> ensure that there is sufficient and dedicated bandwidth capacity to
>>> sustain the volume of traffic from remote participation.
>>>
>>> 14. Aside from having the appropriate technical solutions and should
>>> also include the following:-
>>>
>>> · Outreach;
>>>
>>> · Mapping local and regional stakeholders;
>>>
>>> · Coordinating with people on the ground significantly before the IGF in
>>> a series of strategic roll out;
>>>
>>> · Identifying how the private sector, civil society and governments can
>>> be better involved in the remote hubs etc
>>>
>>> 15. We also express our support of the IGF RPWG which published
>>> guidelines and recommendations for remote participation and IGF 2011
>>> WS-67 participants prepared a draft of e-participation principles<http://discuss.diplomacy.edu/e-participation/?p=1> <http://discuss.diplomacy.edu/e-participation/?p=1>.<http://discuss.diplomacy.edu/e-participation/?p=1> <http://discuss.diplomacy.edu/e-participation/?p=1>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 21 February 2012 15:46, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro
>>> <salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com<mailto:salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> <salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Dear All,
>>>
>>> Thank you for your contributions and comments. As you can imagine,
>>> more than 48 hours has passed since putting the Statement to the
>>> list for feedback and rough consensus. We have tried as best as
>>> possible to include your comments into the Statement on the
>>> Workspace. Thank you Izumi for initiating the process and De for
>>> consolidating the text and numerous others who have contributed.
>>>
>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/digressit/archives/32
>>>
>>> The Civil Society members of the CSTD can alert others to the IGC
>>> statement. Whilst we are wrapping up the Statement to enable Izumi
>>> and Marilia to take our perspectives, we should encourage dialogue
>>> on how we can actively contribute in this area.
>>>
>>> If there are volunteers who want to be more involved perhaps you
>>> could engage in further dialogue on how to help out. I have copied
>>> the text below.
>>>
>>> Warm Regards,
>>> Sala
>>>
>>> URL: http://www.igcaucus.org/digressit/archives/32
>>>
>>> We would like to reiterate that remote participation is a crucial
>>> part of organizing the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) and we
>>> appreciate the effort to provide remote participation for the Open
>>> Consultation, the Multi-stakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) meetings,
>>> and the MAG meeting this month – February 2012 – which was opened to
>>> observers.
>>>
>>> The IGC believes that Remote Participation should be an integral
>>> part of Internet Governance and IGF Policy Processes. It is
>>> impossible to sustain an inclusive global policy process without
>>> effective remote participation.
>>>
>>> We would like to commend the excellent work of the technical team
>>> from Politecnico di Torino, (The Polytechnic University of Turin)
>>> which was originally brought by our colleague and former IGC Civil
>>> Society Coordinator Vittorio Bertola.
>>>
>>> However, we would like to point out some difficulties that occurred
>>> with the system during the open MAG meeting. On the third day,
>>> morning session, (the second day of the open MAG meeting), remote
>>> observers were effectively excluded because they had no access to
>>> live transcript.
>>>
>>> The MAG and IGF Secretariats should start working with the host to
>>> ensure that real time transcriptions are available for all sessions
>>> and not just the Main Sessions.
>>>
>>> Also MAG members trying to participate online had difficulty in
>>> contacting moderators, partly because the moderators were serving
>>> more than one function.
>>>
>>> We strongly urge MAG and IGF Secretariats and ourselves to consider
>>> the following for the future IGF organizing work and the IGF itself,
>>> and work together to bring them about:
>>>
>>> * Ensuring equal participation between online and offline
>>> participants through planning meetings to give online and
>>> offline participants an equal opportunity to participate and
>>> contribute to meetings.
>>>
>>> * Ensuring that there is sufficient capacity and appropriate
>>> bandwidth to sustain remote participation by liaising with
>>> hosts well in advance to enable greater interactions from
>>> offline participants.
>>>
>>> * Preparing a clear comprehensive guideline for remote
>>> participation and its moderation and post session or meeting
>>> reporting for meeting hosts, facilitators and chairs.
>>>
>>> * Clearly advertising opportunities for RP in advance of all
>>> meetings, with clear guidance for participants on the
>>> opportunities to engage through RP that will be available.
>>>
>>> * Always assigning exclusive remote participation
>>> coordinator/moderators (who do not have other jobs at the same
>>> time, and are responsible for interactions between the
>>> meeting’s physical participants/current speaker, the Chair and
>>> the remote participants).
>>>
>>> * Establishing a clear procedure that would encourage remote
>>> participants to intervene. Such a system is desirable both for
>>> those physically present in Geneva and those observing the
>>> meeting remotely.
>>>
>>> * Providing as much interactivity as possible by giving remote
>>> participants to interact and engage in meetings.
>>>
>>> * Providing multiple methods – video, voice and text channel, as
>>> well as real-time transcription and video streaming – of
>>> coverage of the meeting
>>>
>>> * Enabling the meeting and remote participation through
>>> interactive presentations access through RP.
>>>
>>> * Creating a select Task force or Working Group created that has
>>> representatives from the Government, Private Sector and Civil
>>> Society that is dedicated to seeing improvements of Remote
>>> Participation and to ensure the incorporation of critical
>>> elements that have been highlighted to ensure improved remote
>>> participation processes.
>>>
>>> Because only limited funds are available for face- to -face
>>> participation, this issue is crucially important to all stakeholders
>>> from all constituencies who are entitled to participate in the
>>> meetings, and who wish to do so from a remote location.
>>>
>>> We also encourage greater partnership between the governments and
>>> private sector in enhancing remote participation.
>>>
>>> We have to move beyond advocacy to listing and creating tangible
>>> outcomes to make improved, stable and sustainable remote
>>> participation a reality.
>>>
>>> There are regions around the world where transportation is extremely
>>> expensive and one such region is the Pacific which has 22 countries
>>> and territories. Remote participation was the only way that any of
>>> these countries could access the IGF.
>>>
>>> However there is room to improve processes and create an IGF culture
>>> where remote participation is prioritised through exploring tested
>>> methodology.
>>>
>>> The appropriate technical solutions need also to be explored as well
>>> bandwidth and ensuring that there is uninterrupted power supply and
>>> redundancy options where back up generators are critical to maintain
>>> a consistent and seamless flow. The MAG and IGF Secretariats should
>>> also ensure that there is sufficient and dedicated bandwidth
>>> capacity to sustain the volume of traffic from remote participation.
>>>
>>> Aside from having the appropriate technical solutions and should
>>> also include the following:-
>>>
>>> · Outreach;
>>>
>>> · Mapping local and regional stakeholders;
>>>
>>> · Coordinating with people on the ground significantly before the
>>> IGF in a series of strategic roll out;
>>>
>>> · Identifying how the private sector, civil society and governments
>>> can be better involved in the remote hubs etc
>>>
>>> We also express our support of the IGF RPWG which published
>>> guidelines and recommendations for remote participation and IGF 2011
>>> WS-67 participants prepared a draft of e-participation principles
>>> <http://discuss.diplomacy.edu/e-participation/?p=1> <http://discuss.diplomacy.edu/e-participation/?p=1>.
>>> <http://discuss.diplomacy.edu/e-participation/?p=1> <http://discuss.diplomacy.edu/e-participation/?p=1>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 1:08 AM, Roland Perry
>>> <roland at internetpolicyagency.com
>>> <mailto:roland at internetpolicyagency.com> <roland at internetpolicyagency.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>> In message <46B69E1D-CF91-4E31-A9CC- 4DD306D57CB0 at privaterra.org
>>> <mailto:46B69E1D-CF91-4E31-A9CC-4DD306D57CB0 at privaterra.org> <46B69E1D-CF91-4E31-A9CC-4DD306D57CB0 at privaterra.org>>,
>>> at 11:21:13 on Sun, 19 Feb 2012, Robert Guerra
>>> <rguerra at privaterra.org <mailto:rguerra at privaterra.org> <rguerra at privaterra.org>> writes
>>>
>>> What type of assistance and/or support will be provided -
>>> well, hopefully we'll find out soon from the Secretariat
>>> and/or Google
>>>
>>>
>>> Do they have a product which competes with the current market
>>> leaders from Cisco and Adobe? What the IGF needs is something
>>> which works, of course - historically their tools have been
>>> allegedly very fussy about exactly what version of 'flash' or
>>> whatever you have installed, and that sort of thing is half the
>>> battle.
>>> --
>>> Roland Perry
>>>
>>>
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>> <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org> <governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>
>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>
>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala
>>>
>>> Tweeter: @SalanietaT
>>> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro
>>> Cell: +679 998 2851 <tel:%2B679%20998%202851>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org> <governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>
>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>
>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir
>>> William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> ** ******
>>>
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>
>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>
>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>
>>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>> http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
> http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
--
Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala
Tweeter: @SalanietaT
Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro
Cell: +679 998 2851
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20120223/3daa0103/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
For all other list information and functions, see:
http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
http://www.igcaucus.org/
Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
More information about the Governance
mailing list