Nothing to do with internet governance or NMI WAS Re: [bestbits] [governance] Whether to participate in NETmundial Initiative - RFC
Akinremi Peter Taiwo
compsoftnet at gmail.com
Tue Nov 25 16:57:10 EST 2014
Good summary Deirdre. Ah...major key component in a computer is the
motherboard. "Trust" among civil society is liking to a motherboard
connecting everyone together...
On Nov 22, 2014 2:38 AM, "Deirdre Williams" <williams.deirdre at gmail.com>
wrote:
> Did Wikileaks and Snowden hit us so hard that we stopped trusting each
> other as well as "them", the ones who are watching us all the time, the
> ones we thought we could trust?
> The Istanbul IGC face to face meeting, which didn't happen, (my fault, I
> was so busy I forgot to send reminders and there was also a confusion about
> the room,) ended up with three of us - Nnenna, Anja and myself, and Mawaki
> waiting at the other end of a skype connection. (Thank you to those who
> came and to all of you who apologised for not turning up).
> We chatted while we were waiting, nothing formal, just brainstorming about
> the IGC and its troubles. We came to the conclusion that initially the IGC
> brought many different views to the table, but in an atmosphere of mutual
> respect. The tension, the quarrel if you like, was between the different
> view points, not between the different members. People brought their own
> ideas, but they also brought a willingness to listen. The atmosphere was
> positive, negotiation towards common ground in so far as that was possible.
> (Not all of the time of course - IGC members are as human as anyone else,
> but mostly)
> Somewhere that got lost, and the trust that had enabled to group to work
> together in spite of many differences just disappeared. And a huge rift
> drained strength from the civil society lobby.
> Trusting is fairly easy to do at the beginning of a relationship, almost
> automatic. But if that initial trust is lost then it becomes really hard
> work requiring a great deal of self-control to rebuild it.
> We should ask ourselves whether we have the energy to rebuild that trust,
> because without it I don't think we're going to get very far.
> Rather more than two cents worth
> Deirdre
>
> On 21 November 2014 20:16, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi Parminder,
>>
>> I could probably name about a dozen people - on both sides of this debate
>> - who have reduced this discussion to personal attacks. And yes I thought
>> some of Jeremys comments were over the top too.
>>
>> If I wrote on list every time this happened I would only be adding to the
>> noise rather than trying to reduce it. And would probably suffer from acute
>> depression as a result.
>>
>> I think if you look at my postings over a few years where I have been
>> critical of personal attacks you will see that they have been directed to
>> anyone involved, irrespective of the policy stance they were trying to (or
>> not trying to) convey.
>>
>> Ian
>>
>> -----Original Message----- From: parminder at itforchange.net
>> Sent: Saturday, November 22, 2014 10:42 AM
>> To: Ian Peter
>> Cc: Nnenna Nwakanma ; michael gurstein ; Anriette Esterhuysen ;
>> Governance ; Best Bits
>> Subject: Re: [bestbits] [governance] Whether to participate in NETmundial
>> Initiative - RFC
>>
>> Thanks Nnenna.
>>>
>>> Yes, it is disappointing when we cannot tolerate differences of opinion.
>>>
>>
>> Ian
>>
>> But is it not that your passion for advocating tolerance fires rather
>> erratically, you having entirely missed some rather sustained obnoxious
>> utterances from your friend Jeremy, along with whom you have been for a
>> long time now making a strong case that civil society joins the WEF MN
>> Initiative? And also David Cake, who has all kinds of definitive views on
>> JNC's positions - that I myself have no knowledge of, and on the general
>> abilities, including academic and intellectual, of JNC members.
>>
>> In contrast, Michael’s somewhat rhetorically styled posing makes a
>> political point of how going with WEF can be seen as compromising on
>> social justice considerations - which is a political view shared by an
>> overwhelming number of civil society people and groups all over the world.
>>
>> parminder
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> Anriette expressed respect for the JNC position, as have many others. It
>>> would be good if this respect for differing opinions was reciprocated.
>>>
>>> The most substantial side effect for civil society discourse when
>>> someones
>>> personal opinion is attacked rather than respected is that people stop
>>> expressing themselves for fear of being attacked. It would be good if we
>>> concentrated on issues and arguing points of view. And some voices have
>>> already been silenced on this issue.
>>>
>>> We are not all going to agree on this one. But perhaps we can agree to
>>> respect differences of opinion.
>>>
>>> Anriette has devoted the last 25 or so years of her life to building APC
>>> as “ an international network and non profit organisation that wants
>>> everyone to have access to a free and open internet to improve our lives
>>> and create a more just world†. No, she is not abandoning the pursuit of
>>> social justice.
>>>
>>> Ian Peter
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> From: Nnenna Nwakanma
>>> Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2014 9:26 PM
>>> To: michael gurstein
>>> Cc: Anriette Esterhuysen ; Anja Kovacs ; Governance ; Best Bits
>>> Subject: Re: [bestbits] [governance] Whether to participate in NETmundial
>>> Initiative - RFC
>>>
>>> Wow! This "new reality" called Civil Society is beginning to amaze me the
>>> more. Because someone thinks "Let us give something a shot, it is not
>>> perfect, but it is making an effort" then it is being construed as
>>> abandoning the pursuit of social justice?
>>>
>>>
>>> If there was a human being who fought for social justice, it was Nelson
>>> Mandela. And it is him who said:
>>> "If you want to make peace with your enemy, you have to work with your
>>> enemy. Then he becomes your partner."
>>>
>>>
>>> I will rest my case for now
>>>
>>>
>>> Nnenna
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 10:13 AM, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> So Anriette, I’m taking from your argument that because the NMI
>>> offers
>>> some possibility, however remote for the advancement of human rights,
>>> you are completely abandoning perhaps irrevocably, the pursuit of social
>>> justice.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> M
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net
>>> [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Anriette
>>> Esterhuysen
>>> Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2014 11:18 PM
>>> To: Anja Kovacs; Nnenna Nwakanma
>>> Cc: Governance; Best Bits
>>> Subject: Re: [bestbits] [governance] Whether to participate in
>>> NETmundial Initiative - RFC
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Dear all
>>>
>>> I have been fairly silent on this issue and APC is consulting our
>>> members about it at present. We have been really busy in APC with
>>> project meetings, evaluations, planning, and also the African School on
>>> IG, so apologies for not participating.
>>>
>>> Anja, thanks for asking for the view of Brazilian colleagues. I have
>>> also asked people off list and thus far I get the sense that while there
>>> are concerns, there is also a sense that it is worth giving the process
>>> a try.
>>>
>>> I felt that the the letter that Ian and the CSCG wrote was excellent,
>>> and I feel that having them in place has put us in a stronger position.
>>> I also feel that JNC's decision to not be part of the process is
>>> legitimate and clear.
>>>
>>> I do see the pros and cons of participation a bit differently from how
>>> Ian had put them in an earlier message...perhaps not quite as 'black and
>>> white'.
>>>
>>> My feeling at this point is that some of the strong concerns we
>>> expressed at the time of the NETmundial Initiative Launch in late August
>>> have actually been addressed.
>>>
>>> I don't particularly like the process... I would have liked more
>>> transparency and consultation around the redesign of the process and its
>>> mechanisms.
>>>
>>> But I really do care about the NETmundial outcomes, and I believe we
>>> should do our best to take it forward, to intergovernmental spaces, at
>>> national level, and through the IGF. This might sound pretty naive to
>>> many but I still believe that the only sustainable path to inclusive
>>> democratic multistakeholder internet policy and regulation is through
>>> closer connections between multistakeholder and intergovernmental
>>> processes and mechanisms.
>>>
>>> I am at the airport and about to board.. so should be fast.
>>>
>>> My view would be that civil society participates in the NMI with the
>>> following:
>>>
>>> - a set of indicators and criteriat that are important to us
>>> - a limited timeframe
>>> - agreed milestones including for a point at which we assess whether we
>>> continue or not
>>>
>>>
>>> My proposal would be try and make the process work, and to link it
>>> closely to the IGF and for civil society e.g. at Best Bits meeting to
>>> get together prior to the 2015 IGF and then to assess whether our
>>> particpation has had impact, whether we have been able to influence the
>>> process and whether it meets the criteria important to us.
>>>
>>> This is a risk of course. And we could legitimise a process that turns
>>> out not to be worthy of it. But I think it is a risk worth taking, and
>>> we can always withdraw.
>>>
>>> Not trying is a greater risk as it could result in the most
>>> progressive,
>>> to date, agreement on principles that respect human rights inclusive
>>> processes in internet governance simply fizzling out. I think that
>>> backtracking in that way on what we all achieved through the NETmundial
>>> would be a huge loss to changing how we think about, and implement,
>>> internet governance.
>>>
>>> Anriette
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 19/11/2014 21:59, Anja Kovacs wrote:
>>>
>>> Dear all,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> A question. If any of the Brazilians on these lists could perhaps
>>> shed
>>> some light on why their government has decided to support this
>>> initiative, and how they see it, that could possibly be very helpful?
>>> I have had great respect for Brazil and its work in the past, and
>>> can't help but wonder whether I'm missing something here.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> For the moment, however, knowing what I know, I am still not in
>>> favour
>>> of civil society networks giving this their stamp of approval (though
>>> as earlier, I also don't have an issue with individual organisations
>>> who want to participate to continue doing so and report back to the
>>> wider community). A WEF-ICANN alliance, even if backed by the
>>> Brazilian government, is just not the place I want to see emerge as a
>>> new power centre in Internet governance - even less so as they have
>>> already given themselves some fixed seats.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I've in particular been wondering what this selection and committee
>>> means seeing that some of the initiatives the NMI would "foster"
>>> clearly are already on the way. For example, I (and I know many others
>>> on this list too) have already been contacted by the Governance Lab at
>>> NYU to give feedback on a proposed NETmundial Solutions map that would
>>> be developed under the flag of the NMI. It's difficult not to feel
>>> like the only thing we and others would be doing is simply to
>>> rubberstamp things that would happen anyway - but because we okay
>>> them, somehow the structure and the initiatives it gives birth to gain
>>> a legitimacy that they would not have had without. An unwise use of
>>> our power, I would say (that they would go ahead without us anyway is
>>> something that a representative from the WEF made clear enough to me
>>> in an informal conversation in October. Some of the individual
>>> initiative, such as that map, might have value, but about the
>>> structure as a whole, I am not so certain)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I would feel far more comfortable if we would instead start exploring
>>> the constructive ways of going ahead with our own work suggested by
>>> Amelia and others. I would love to hear more about what they're
>>> thinking, and how we could operationalize this ourselves and take it
>>> forward.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks and best,
>>>
>>> Anja
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 19 November 2014 01:12, Nnenna Nwakanma <nnenna75 at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Dear Governance and Best Bits listers, and especially African Civil
>>> Society members here.
>>>
>>> My opinion is that Civil Society should participate. It is okay to
>>> table our "fears" and let NMI know that our participation may be
>>> withdrawn if XYZ is not met.
>>>
>>> I think it is fine for certain networks to say "No", but in Africa, I
>>> dont think we should miss out.
>>>
>>> NMI may also just make a public call for CS who wants to participate.
>>> From the launch, I already saw that some CS persons were already very
>>> interested in the NMI.
>>>
>>> I see it is okay if one network or list or platform decides NOT to
>>> participate but we cannot ask others not to.
>>>
>>> Me, I am in favour of Governance and BB lists nominating people. And
>>> at the same time, saying that it is important for African S to
>>> participate.
>>>
>>> All for now
>>>
>>> Nnenna
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 6:06 PM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global
>>> Journal <jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> Jeremy,
>>>
>>> Thanks for your email.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Looking after pathologies is certainly a noble cause, but as we
>>> both
>>> do not belong to the medical corpus, maybe it would simply be wise
>>> to terminate this, and cool down a bit. Even though we are in real
>>> politics.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Go after the arguments put on the table is probably of better
>>> effect
>>> and impact.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> What I wanted to say using quotes from an array of observers or
>>> participants is that the initiative has more than a troubling set of
>>> definitions, expectations and leading to an overall confusion. It
>>> looks more or less like "un chèque en blanc" to illegitimate
>>> grouping of a wealthy elite (the three players of NMI have deep
>>> pockets, and friends with deeper pockets). I am not even trying to
>>> clarify the obvious tactics behind all their gesture. I had an
>>> intermezzo as a consultant for 10 years in my life, and can more
>>> than easily read the partition behind all of that smoking screen. In
>>> the army, you always call some troopers from the "génie" when you
>>> need a screen of smoke to cross a street, a bridge or a simple line.
>>> No, let's stay on what is at stake such as
>>>
>>> - why part of civil society in Busan accepted the fact that the US
>>> refused to discuss mass surveillance?
>>>
>>> - why is the IGF not the best bet for civil society to keep
>>> maturing
>>> and growing?
>>>
>>> - why is encryption, I know EFF is working hard on this topic,
>>> insufficiently at the center of the IG debate? Isn't encryption part
>>> of the mass surveillance issue? So then why to please the US, in Sao
>>> Paulo, then in Busan by refusing to really go after it? Mass
>>> surveillance has nothing to do with IG they told us.
>>>
>>> - why civil society not more vocal on the Google Tour against the
>>> EU
>>> decision to protect personal data, considering rightly in my view,
>>> that search engines are touching at personal data, beyond the simple
>>> links they assembled in their result pages? This is a real good
>>> debate for CS.
>>>
>>> - why not to discuss the IETF and its roles in the IG? More
>>> important than IANA for example?
>>>
>>> - why CS seems deprived of imagination and innovative ideas when it
>>> comes to create a new coordinating body/system, as the ICANN is
>>> saying the political aspects of IG is beyond its mandate? How can we
>>> help ourselves to have these ideas popping out of CS minds? Looking
>>> at all the NGOs we are currently ranking, I am positively impressed
>>> with their innovative abilities, much more powerful than classical
>>> corps. They also create more "values".
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I am not naive, and have probably a few answers in mind.
>>> Nevertheless, CS should really act differently. The NMI story is
>>> relevant of the weakness that anyone can perceive among CS, and this
>>> is not to blame JNC or anyone else. A leadership crisis wrote
>>> someone today.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Remember the preparation of Net Mundial? Did the ICANN handle CS in
>>> a satisfactory fashion? Haven't we seen the trailer? We had to twist
>>> their arm every minute to get info, to get principles, to simply get
>>> it not that bad. Why is it so difficult for the 'nice guys" not to
>>> go directly after the right ideas, proposals and suggestions when
>>> launching an open, honest, transparent debate? Instead they keep
>>> creating distrust with their committees, high level panel, advisory
>>> boards... Trust is critical. "Please energize me! should we all cry.
>>> We are all losing. Terrifying, I would say.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> So why don't you and other leaders of CS decide to meet, have a
>>> debate and launch a true CS initiative, calling governments,
>>> citizens and corporations to join in a effort to rebalance the
>>> growing asymmetry we live in since the mid-nineties? In the face of
>>> History, and our fellow citizens, we are failing, because CS is not
>>> united. To do that you do not need any WEF. You only need to trust,
>>> share, and confront the realities that are taking away our rights.
>>> This is what should be done, now, instead of wasting our time and
>>> little money to debate about the comfortable sofas of the WEF.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Somehow BB is a failure, as it has not delivered to its own
>>> mandate.
>>> JNC is not getting more isolated, it is growing and reaching more
>>> and more people. We should not care about that. We should care about
>>> having a collective action that would oblige governments, corps and
>>> the current mandarins to take more progressive steps.
>>> Multistakeholderism when it comes to convene and consult many
>>> participants is certainly nice. This has often been done, long
>>> before we began to put in our mouth the MS narrative. When it comes
>>> to make decisions at least on the public policy level, MS simply
>>> doesn't work. If the coders had to go through MS to make decision,
>>> they would have simply gone nowhere. Only a few guys fixing better
>>> than other few guys technical issues doesn't equate a political
>>> model. It could work, but then it would lead to some social
>>> disaster, a disruption that would unleash violence.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> JNC has no monopole of ethics, but because we are poor enough, our
>>> bias is somehow limited. We are paid by no government, no
>>> corporation, no barons. We are simple citizens, with a profound
>>> democratic concern (to avoid another asymmetric wars), and we are
>>> ready to go into rationales as long as we are not characterized as
>>> psychotics or lunatics.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> There is no way that we can really have a strong impact as civil
>>> society participants if we do not go after unity. And we all agree
>>> that we should pay more respect to each others, as long as we do not
>>> have hidden agenda, and gentle philanthropes putting their money in
>>> the debate. That would be fair.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> JC
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Le 18 nov. 2014 à 17:55, Jeremy Malcolm a écrit :
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Nov 18, 2014, at 1:49 AM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global
>>> Journal <jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I leave to Norbert co-convenor at JNC to answer your first email.
>>> On a personal note, I would appreciate you to elaborate about the
>>> "dumping on civil society colleagues" you are referring to,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Within the next few days I’m going to write a separate blog post
>>> about this at igfwatch.org, because JNC’s pathologies are
>>> off-topic for this list.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The WEF/ICANN/CGIbr project is not in lack of clarity. If I do
>>> listen to non JNC members:
>>>
>>> - Wall Street Journal reporter: "The NetMundial wants to spread
>>> Internet Governance more evenly across the developing world". (Ask
>>> Drew Fitzgerald about the source for that understanding of what is
>>> the WIB Initiative)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Which is roughly opposite to what JNC is saying.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> - McCarthy at The Register: "ISOC has blasted efforts from some
>>> quarters to create a "UN Security Councilâ€
>>>
>>>
>>> A fatuous analogy, do you take it at face value?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> - Eileen Donahoe, ... Virgilio Almeida, ... Richard Samans, ...
>>> Fadi
>>> Chehadé: ...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> None of these statements support the characterisation of the
>>> Initiative as in your letter as “being ’the’ mechanism for
>>> global [Internet] governance†.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Based on these official and public statement, I can only read JNC
>>> statement as an interesting analysis and agree with JNC reluctance
>>> to participate or endorse such following-up (hijacking might be to
>>> blunt) of the NetMundial meeting. Nor the WEF, ICANN, or CGIbr are
>>> owners of what was stated ultimately in Sao Paulo, with all due
>>> reserves by different participants.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I’ve also said, and maintain, that I regard the NETmundial
>>> Initiative (particularly the naming thereof) to be a hijacking of
>>> the NETmundial meeting. On this much we agree.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> So instead of trying to grab a comfortable seat in that convoy
>>> ...
>>> should for once, Civil Society ... acknowledges the serious
>>> concerns seen in the making of, and in the diverse objectives
>>> presented by the WEF, ICANN and CGIbr.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Ian has taking a more neutral position, but for my part personally
>>> I
>>> certainly have
>>> (http://igfwatch.org/discussion-board/netmundial-
>>> initiative-takes-a-top-down-approach-to-implementing-the-
>>> netmundial-principles).
>>> What prompted my last email was not that JNC opposes the NETmundial
>>> Initiative, but that it has to do this by impugning the motives of
>>> other civil society groups and falsely attributing them with their
>>> endorsement of the Initiative.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Also for the avoidance of doubt, nobody else endorsed my rant which
>>> was sent in a personal capacity (though I have subsequently
>>> received, off list, two emails in support, as well as one against).
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> By the way, could you explain us (subscribers of the BestBits
>>> list):
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I do not have time to respond to the rest of your mail right now
>>> because I am speaking at a conference today and will be boarding a
>>> flight a few hours later. But I write this brief response just
>>> because you suggested in most recent mail that I was ignoring you -
>>> I’m not. Anyway, others can respond to the balance of your
>>> questions rather than me monopolising the conversation.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> Jeremy Malcolm
>>>
>>> Senior Global Policy Analyst
>>>
>>> Electronic Frontier Foundation
>>>
>>> https://eff.org
>>> jmalcolm at eff.org
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> :: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World ::
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> Dr. Anja Kovacs
>>> The Internet Democracy Project
>>>
>>> +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs
>>> www.internetdemocracy.in
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ____________________________________________________________You received
>>> this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.To unsubscribe or change your settings,
>>> visit:
>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -- `````````````````````````````````anriette esterhuysenexecutive
>>> directorassociation for progressive communicationspo box 29755, melville,
>>> 2109, south africaanriette at apc.orgwww.apc.org
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>>> --------------------
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>>
>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits_________________
>>> ___________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> 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
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20141125/d9f9cbd1/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