[governance] Re: Revised Draft IGC Statement #DRM in HTML5

Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com
Sat Jun 8 18:25:50 EDT 2013 

This looks great, what do others think?

Sala
Sent from my iPad

On Jun 9, 2013, at 9:38 AM, Deirdre Williams <williams.deirdre at gmail.com> wrote:

> This is the text we are suggesting.
> 
> The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) endorses and supports the formal objection lodged by the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) 
> <https://www.eff.org/pages/drm/w3c-formal-objection-html-wg>
> 
> We believe that the inclusion of digital rights management (DRM) in HTML5 has the potential to stifle innovation and seriously compromise the rights of end users; for these reasons particularly, we object to the inclusion of DRM in HTML5.
> 
> We fully endorse the arguments raised by the EFF in their statement "EFF's Formal Objection to the HTML WG Draft Charter" 
> <https://www.eff.org/pages/drm/w3c-formal-objection-html-wg>
> 
> Deirdre
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 8 June 2013 16:41, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro <salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Good Point Adam and Deirdre, let's try and get a text to reflect the recently proposed changes.
>> 
>> Kind Regards,
>> Sala
>> 
>> On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 6:36 AM, Adam Peake <ajp at glocom.ac.jp> wrote:
>>> Catherine's and Deirdre's proposed changes are excellent.  If we were
>>> in a formal process they'd be a welcome friendly amendment.  I suggest
>>> we proceed noting support for EFF's position and this revised
>>> sentence.
>>> 
>>> Best,
>>> 
>>> Adam
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 3:22 AM, Deirdre Williams
>>> <williams.deirdre at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> > If the W3C meeting is in Japan on Monday and we need 48 hours (I think??) to
>>> > establish consensus then we don't really have time, but is it worth trying
>>> > with this format Sala? Several people had already accepted Adam's
>>> > suggestion, and this now speaks to Catherine's concerns.
>>> >
>>> >>> > The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) endorses and
>>> >>>supports the formal objection lodged by the Electronic Frontier
>>> >>>Foundation (EFF)
>>> >>><https://www.eff.org/pages/drm/w3c-formal-objection-html-wg>
>>> >>> >
>>> > "We believe that the inclusion of digital rights management (DRM) in HTML5
>>> > has the potential to stifle innovation and seriously compromise the rights
>>> > of end users; for these reasons particularly, we object to the inclusion of
>>> > DRM in HTML5."
>>> >>> >
>>> >>> > We fully endorse the arguments raised by the EFF in their statement
>>> >>>"EFF's Formal Objection to the HTML WG Draft Charter"
>>> >>><https://www.eff.org/pages/drm/w3c-formal-objection-html-wg>
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > On 8 June 2013 14:03, Catherine Roy <ecrire at catherine-roy.net> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> Hi Deirdre,
>>> >>
>>> >> That would be great. But just in case I was not clear, I do not object we
>>> >> keep the bit about stifling innovation either, so it could be something like
>>> >> :
>>> >>
>>> >> "We believe that the inclusion of digital rights management (DRM) in HTML5
>>> >> has the potential to stifle innovation and seriously compromise the rights
>>> >> of end users; for these reasons particularly, we object to the inclusion of
>>> >> DRM in HTML5."
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> Best regards,
>>> >>
>>> >> Catherine
>>> >>
>>> >> --
>>> >> Catherine Roy
>>> >> http://www.catherine-roy.net
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> On 08/06/2013 1:51 PM, Deirdre Williams wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> What about taking Adam's suggestion but changing the second sentence:
>>> >> We believe that the inclusion of digital rights management in HTML5 has
>>> >> the potential to stifle innovation and we object to the inclusion of digital
>>> >> rights management (DRM) in HTML5.
>>> >> to this:
>>> >> We believe that the inclusion of digital rights management in HTML5
>>> >> seriously compromises the rights of end users; for this reason particularly
>>> >> we object to the inclusion of digital rights management (DRM) in HTML5
>>> >> Deirdre
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> On 8 June 2013 13:18, Catherine Roy <ecrire at catherine-roy.net> wrote:
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Hi all,
>>> >>>
>>> >>> To be clear, I believe that as one W3C staffer put it recently, EFF has
>>> >>> decided to take the fight against DRM in HTML5 inside the W3C to be more
>>> >>> effective by becoming a member and following the W3C process. Sending
>>> >>> petitions and writing indignated articles and press releases, while having
>>> >>> their place in the landscape, will go only so far in terms of turning this
>>> >>> issue around. Also, since there are plenty of people arguing the technical
>>> >>> drawbacks in the several mailing lists related to HTML, restricted media,
>>> >>> etc., and that a technical formal objection has also been filed (to which I
>>> >>> have lent my support), EFF probably found that, in the short term, the best
>>> >>> way to have a grasp on the issue of DRM in HTML5 was to argue that this work
>>> >>> is out of scope for the working group. But this remains an issue of saying
>>> >>> no to DRM in HTML5 and the EFF formal objection is very clear as to why it
>>> >>> has filed this FO.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> As for the IGC, I found it encourageing that there was finally a
>>> >>> semblance of agreement to make a public show of support for the EFF's FO by
>>> >>> releasing a short statement to that effect. My problem here was with the
>>> >>> statement itself. I believe it would be a good idea to explain *why* we
>>> >>> support the objection. I understand that it needs to be short and sweet to
>>> >>> ensure consensus among this group. But simply saying that we support it
>>> >>> because DRM "stifles innovation" is rather lacking IMHO. At the heart of
>>> >>> this issue is users rights and the EFF FO is quite eloquent and thurough on
>>> >>> this aspect. I am kind of newish here so perhaps I have misunderstood the
>>> >>> IGC interests but I thought users rights was a major one for the group and
>>> >>> had hoped a small snippet of a sentence regarding our concerns on this
>>> >>> particular aspect would be good idea. Perhaps I was mistaken.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Finally, as I explained to someone off-list, I believe the W3C is under
>>> >>> enormous pressure at the moment regarding this issue and every action
>>> >>> counts. So much pressure in fact that, as discussed by a W3C employee in a
>>> >>> recent guardian article[1], the W3C Advisory Committee will be trying to
>>> >>> reach consensus on the decision to include or not DRM compatibility in HTML
>>> >>> this coming Monday in Japan. So yes, time is of the essence but I think it
>>> >>> is still not too late to weigh in on this issue.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Best regards,
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Catherine
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> [1]
>>> >>> http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2013/jun/06/html5-drm-w3c-open-web
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> On 08/06/2013 7:41 AM, Adam Peake wrote:
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Thanks Catherine, Deirdre.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> I think, or hope, we are pretty much in agreement.  I tried to make the
>>> >>> proposed IGC comment pretty simple, cutting the paragraphs that had
>>> >>> attracted the most disagreement.  That left an opening sentence saying IGC
>>> >>> supports the EFF statement.  2nd sentence saying IGC thinks DRM in HTML5
>>> >>> harmful, trying to capture the overall sense of the other paragraphs
>>> >>> discussed on the list.  3rd sentence IGC supports the EFF statement.  I know
>>> >>> 1st and 3rd rather the same, but that was the point.  After a lot of to&fro
>>> >>> where we seemed not to be getting anywhere, just tried to make something
>>> >>> simple.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> I suspect we won't get consensus on more.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> And either we say something simple or end up, again, with a blathering
>>> >>> and generally meaningless set of contradictions and compromise (for example
>>> >>> see the IGC's February comment to the IGF open consultation).
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Best,
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Adam
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> On Jun 8, 2013, at 8:41 AM, Deirdre Williams wrote:
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Thank you Catherine - that's what I thought.
>>> >>> But if EFF has gone to such lengths to object to the working group
>>> >>> charter rather than to DRM in HTML5 directly then I'm wondering why we are
>>> >>> not simply supporting the EFF objection to the Charter?
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> On 7 June 2013 13:10, Catherine Roy <ecrire at catherine-roy.net> wrote:
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> Hi Deirdre.
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> I am sure someone from EFF on this list could explain it better than I
>>> >>>> so please correct me as needed but my understanding is that EFF's formal
>>> >>>> objection concerns an element of the HTML Working Group charter that enables
>>> >>>> the Working Group to propose the Encrypted Media Extensions (EME)
>>> >>>> specification which effectively represents a technology  that, in
>>> >>>> combination with Content Decryption Modules (CDMs), allows "the remote
>>> >>>> determination of end-user usage of content". EME is used with CDMs, which is
>>> >>>> a software component that permits access to encrypted resources (so
>>> >>>> basically DRM).
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> EFF has made a formal objection on the Working Group charter to
>>> >>>> basically argue that such work, which is formulated in the charter as
>>> >>>> "supporting playback of protected content", is out of scope for the Working
>>> >>>> Group deliverables. So in effect, EFF is objecting to the fact that W3C,
>>> >>>> through its HTML Working Group, propose a specification that will enable the
>>> >>>> use of Digital Rights Management (via CDMs) in HTML5.
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> It is my understanding that by supporting the EFF formal objection, IGC
>>> >>>> is effectively saying no to DRM in HTML5.
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> Best regards,
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> Catherine
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> --
>>> >>>> Catherine Roy
>>> >>>> http://www.catherine-roy.net
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> On 07/06/2013 10:02 AM, Deirdre Williams wrote:
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> Could someone please help to clarify things for me?
>>> >>>> I hadn't responded before about the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF)
>>> >>>> statement because I had no time to read the documents until this morning.
>>> >>>> My understanding is that the IGC was asked if it would support the
>>> >>>> recent EFF statement.
>>> >>>> The EFF statement is a "Formal Objection to the HTML WG Draft Charter",
>>> >>>> indicating that the Charter "represents a significant broadening of scope
>>> >>>> for the HTML WG (and the W3C as a whole) to include the remote determination
>>> >>>> of end-user usage of content."
>>> >>>> https://www.eff.org/pages/drm/w3c-formal-objection-html-wg The objection is
>>> >>>> NOT to DRM in HTML5 as such, although the text contains a detailed
>>> >>>> discussion of that issue as justification fotr the objection.
>>> >>>> Particularly within the working group Charter, the objection is to this
>>> >>>> reference in 2 -
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> "Some examples of features that would be in scope for the updated HTML
>>> >>>> specification:
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> additions to the HTMLMediaElement element interface, to support use
>>> >>>> cases such as live events or premium content; for example, additions for:
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> facilitating adaptive streaming (Media Source Extensions)
>>> >>>> supporting playback of protected content"
>>> >>>> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/charter/2012/
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> So please - are we discussing offering support to EFF's Objection to the
>>> >>>> Charter, or are we creating an IGC statement on DRM in HTML5?
>>> >>>> And if the latter, are we doing anything about EFF's Objection, which
>>> >>>> was what we were asked about in the first place?
>>> >>>> Thank you
>>> >>>> Deirdre
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> On 7 June 2013 01:54, Adam Peake <ajp at glocom.ac.jp> wrote:
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>> Hi Catherine,
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>> Does the EFF statement cover your concerns?
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>> Best,
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>> Adam
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>> On Jun 7, 2013, at 2:14 AM, Catherine Roy wrote:
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>> Hi,
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>> While I support this latest formulation by Adam as it is simple, to the
>>> >>>>> point and avoids ambiguous and perhaps (for the moment) unprovable facts, I
>>> >>>>> feel it is lacking with regards to users' rights, which is also one of the
>>> >>>>> key issues at the heart of this whole matter. That is, as someone on the W3C
>>> >>>>> restricted media mailing list mentioned, standards should be at the margin
>>> >>>>> of debates, and if required to take part, should always, in the end, be on
>>> >>>>> the side of the user. Much like optimizing sites for particular browsers
>>> >>>>> that shut out certain users, there is a real problem here with shutting out
>>> >>>>> users who do  not have the right software/hardware from content (in this
>>> >>>>> case, much of the discussions revolve around premium content  but it could
>>> >>>>> extend to any content that applies DRM). So, while I am not a wordsmith and
>>> >>>>> therefore apologize for not proposing exact wording, I would like to see
>>> >>>>> something more clear in the statement regarding users rights and sovereignty
>>> >>>>> over their euh, "equipment".
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>> Best regards,
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>> Catherine
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>> --
>>> >>>>> Catherine Roy
>>> >>>>> http://www.catherine-roy.net
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>> On 2013-06-06 04:52, Adam Peake wrote:
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>> Hi Sala,
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>> To be honest, having to remember a url and jump off to a separate site
>>> >>>>> for such a small statement is a pain.  In my opinion, anyway.  Perhaps you
>>> >>>>> can see the stats on the http://www.igcaucus.org/ page, how many people
>>> >>>>> bother to visit vs the very large number who read the list?
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>> A cleaned up version of a short statement:
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>> The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) endorses and
>>> >>>>> supports the formal objection lodged by the Electronic Frontier Foundation
>>> >>>>> (EFF) <https://www.eff.org/pages/drm/w3c-formal-objection-html-wg>
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>> We believe that the inclusion of digital rights management in HTML5 has
>>> >>>>> the potential to stifle innovation and we object to the inclusion of digital
>>> >>>>> rights management (DRM) in HTML5.
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>> We fully endorse the arguments raised by the EFF in their statement
>>> >>>>> "EFF's Formal Objection to the HTML WG Draft Charter"
>>> >>>>> <https://www.eff.org/pages/drm/w3c-formal-objection-html-wg>
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>> The EFF statement we're considering to support is itself long and
>>> >>>>> speaks for itself.  See no need to add more than above.
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>> Adam
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>> On Jun 6, 2013, at 4:30 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote:
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>> In case, people missed it. The revised Statement is live at:
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/digressit/archives/112 where you can add your
>>> >>>>> comments and suggest text.
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>> Kind Regards,
>>> >>>>> Sala
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>> On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 2:50 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro
>>> >>>>> <salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>> Dear All,
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>> Further to the discussions on the mailing list, I have revised the
>>> >>>>>> first version to the one below. I have highlighted the sentence still in
>>> >>>>>> contention and also note that there are mixed reactions to the balance of
>>> >>>>>> the protection of intellectual property rights through mediums like the DRM
>>> >>>>>> to protect innovation and challenges to threats of impeded "Access". This is
>>> >>>>>> a very interesting debate and one I believe should be thoroughly explored by
>>> >>>>>> the IGC where we can come to some common ground (if we are able to). I have
>>> >>>>>> not had the time to read Frank La Rue's new report but it would be
>>> >>>>>> interesting to see his report of what the world is saying in relation to
>>> >>>>>> this conflict. I am of course interested in what the IGC has to say.
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>> Roland and Avri raised some very interesting points that deserve
>>> >>>>>> discussion. As we speak, the Statement will be hosted on the Statement
>>> >>>>>> Workspace on the IGC website. I have tried to capture every comment in the
>>> >>>>>> attached document. I find that Statement Workspaces are far more effective
>>> >>>>>> in neatly allowing people to comment on each sentence etc, so my apologies
>>> >>>>>> if the attached document is inherently messy.
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>> What are your collective thoughts on what Roland suggested that whilst
>>> >>>>>> there are many battles, this is not one we should spend time on? The key
>>> >>>>>> issues for your deliberation would be:-
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>> What is the IGC's position on Digital Rights Management?
>>> >>>>>> What is the IGC's position on Digital Rights Management in HTML 5?
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>> Thank you to all those for suggesting text and new wordings and
>>> >>>>>> phrases. I have tried to capture your views below. All the mistakes are of
>>> >>>>>> course mine. Let us have your thoughts. As soon as the Statement is on the
>>> >>>>>> Workspace, Norbert will inform us and this will allow us to track comments
>>> >>>>>> on the revised  statement.
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>> Revised Draft Statement on Support for EFF’s Objection
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>> The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) objects to the
>>> >>>>>> inclusion of digital rights management (DRM) in HTML5. We endorse and
>>> >>>>>> support the formal objection lodged by the Electronic Frontier Foundation
>>> >>>>>> (EFF) and that the draft proposal from the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)
>>> >>>>>> could stifle Web innovation and block access to content for people across
>>> >>>>>> the planet.
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>> We believe that the proposed standard by W3C is a serious threat to an
>>> >>>>>> open and free internet. The inherent danger of the proposal would be to shut
>>> >>>>>> out open source developers and competition, destroy interoperability and
>>> >>>>>> lock in legacy business models.
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>> Much of the developing world relies on open source developers to
>>> >>>>>> enable OR CREATE mechanisms that allow for an open environment of sharing
>>> >>>>>> resources related to agricultural practices, education, health and diverse
>>> >>>>>> content. In such regions, access to information is a challenge and with
>>> >>>>>> serious resource constraints, but it is an open and free internet (and the
>>> >>>>>> resultant ease of collaboration/sharing information) that empowers
>>> >>>>>> communities.
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>> For the foregoing reasons we reiterate our strong objection to the
>>> >>>>>> support for DRM technologies in HTML5, and our agreement with the EFF's
>>> >>>>>> arguments in this regard.
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>> --
>>> >>>>> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala
>>> >>>>> P.O. Box 17862
>>> >>>>> Suva
>>> >>>>> Fiji
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>> Twitter: @SalanietaT
>>> >>>>> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro
>>> >>>>> Tel: +679 3544828
>>> >>>>> Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851
>>> >>>>> Blog: salanieta.blogspot.com
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> >>>>> 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
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> --
>>> >>>> “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir
>>> >>>> William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> --
>>> >>> “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William
>>> >>> Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> --
>>> >>> Catherine Roy
>>> >>> http://www.catherine-roy.net
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> --
>>> >> “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William
>>> >> Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > --
>>> > “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William
>>> > Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala
>> P.O. Box 17862
>> Suva
>> Fiji
>> 
>> Twitter: @SalanietaT
>> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro
>> Tel: +679 3544828
>> Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851
>> Blog: salanieta.blogspot.com
>>  
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130609/f8dea196/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