[governance] Re: Revised Draft IGC Statement #DRM in HTML5
Tapani Tarvainen
tapani.tarvainen at effi.org
Sun Jun 9 00:52:42 EDT 2013
I'm happy with that.
Tapani
On Sat, Jun 08, 2013 at 05:38:49PM -0400, 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 --------------
____________________________________________________________
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