[governance] [discuss] [bestbits] The decentralization of the DNS system
Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal
jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net
Mon Jun 22 07:30:22 EDT 2015
Thanks McTim. I regret you feel obliged to put some acrimony in this last reply. No need. The "I don't trust you" remark is certainly of no help in any open debate. so keeping head cool, I will keep the debate cool as well. See in-lines.
Le 22 juin 2015 à 12:32, McTim a écrit :
> On Sun, Jun 21, 2015 at 7:03 PM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global
> Journal <jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net> wrote:
>> Thanks for your additional comments McTim.
>>
>> 1_
>> May I challenge the idea that hierarchy would come without a ruling party at
>> the top.
>
>
> You certainly may challenge, but as an example in IG which disproves
> your theory is Internet number resource distribution.
I am not building any theory here. I am mostly deconstructing a narrative and giving way to alternative.
No one will be naive enough not to understand that the Internet root zone policy book belongs to hierarchs, whether you look at ICANN, IANA, IETF... This is a smart ruling system, still a ruling system.
Thinking about the concrete meaning of the "global addressing community" it sounds like a nice idea, it might not survive the pragmatic examination of its reality. We would love to learn more about what it is exactly and how this global community interacts, expresses wishes or comes to decision.
>
>
> there is a hierarchy (IANA is the "root" so to speak), yet IANA
> distributes according to policies devised not by itself, but by the
> global addressing community. ICANN does not "rule" IANA actions in
> this area.
>
>
ICANN hosts IANA until it will hold it in a few months of time, once the auto-transition is completed.
>
>
>
>>
>> So in such a hierarchic world, the current handling of the ICANN root zone
>> (domain name to IP management) is not only technical, but political
>
> it is more administrative in nature
You underestimate the value of ICANN! Tell them they are administrative in nature. Allocating new TLDs is not just simple administrative in nature. No. Other examples needed?
>
> ( in a
>> public policy sense) and has to be considered as "controlling" the ability
>> for people to access content, and more as it does public policy rulings by
>> itself. So the right phrasing is who controls and enforces a single root
>> zone is de facto imposing its rulings to anyone. As there was until now no
>> one else to offer such a "service" (well, now it is changing thanks to Open
>> Root), everyone was entitled to believe that there was no alternative to
>> ICANN. Which is a very false idea.
>
>
> alt roots have been around for a long time, they just haven't gained traction.
Agree with that. Happy that you agree with me as well (alternative to ICANN exists). But then why is it so that only one is leading the party? You should go beyond that well-known fact and help anyone to reflect upon the absence of fair competition, or true public policy making.
Do you have specifics info about the fact that PIR has been given the .ngo new gTLD? We all know that PIR is putting money into ISOC, and into ICANN. Fair?
>
>> 2_You deny the idea of several root-zone management handlers.
>
>
> no
Thanks for that.
>
>
> You speak of
>> coherence. Indeed coherence is a technical necessity. Having several root
>> zone and several root zone management has to be understood in a very
>> pragmatic fashion. Why is Open Root info coherent with the ICANN root zone?
>> Easy answer. Open Root does as Google does it. It copies it every xx seconds
>> to stay coherent. Then, tell us what forbids ICANN to copy the Open root
>> data? Nothing. I repeat: nothing. Only the idea that having several root
>> zone would jeopardize the single ruling party who obtained its holy
>> authority from divine and natural law. We are talking of files with of small
>> size in terms of octet, and once you are correctly directed thanks to a root
>> zone manager, you navigate safely. Consistency or coherence comes when all
>> the players accept to inform or be informed of what any root zone offers.
>> Let's keep in mind that the basic coherence lies with IP addresses, and that
>> the root-zone itself has no power to deprive an IP address from its content.
>
>
> right, so the DNS is simply a convenient layer of misdirection, which
> negates your argument above re: "controlling who sees content.
McTim, don't you have any better trick to escape my point. Being able to "see", "find", "access" is critical in any communication system. I don't think we need to ask everyone to read the "The Theory of Communicative Action" to understand why the DNS is essential, and core to the current asymmetry in the public space.
>
>
>
>> It can only be blind to it. The game is simply to direct a visitor, calling
>> on a domain name, directly, or through redirection, to reach a file located
>> at an IP address or a set of IP addresses able to locate the requested
>> files.
>>
>> 3_
>> The idea of a broken Internet is fun, but simplistic and again false. But
>> as Open root offers new TLDs with a very good bargain, we haven't seen the
>> Internet being broken. It would be known if it was so. Indeed it will
>> simply not do that, whether it operates a single new TLD or a thousand
>> TLDs. It will enlarge the Internet by adding more TLDs to the web. And no
>> one would get lost.
>
> Exc ept in the case offered whereby you are the Registry for .ngo,
> and so is PIR. Once you offer a name that is also in the PIR
> zonefile, but has a different IP address, then coherence is "lost".
No coherence is lost, as soon as you understand that technically speaking several root zone managements can allow to give you "results" as Google is giving you "results" when searching for something (and not just one result). Then you pick up the website that you want to explore. There are other options to maintain the reply consistent with the result of the research. There is no danger to coherence, as soon as you relax a bit about letting things getting back to the original conception of the root zone (before the 1998 power grab by USG and ICANN).
>
>
>>
>> 4_
>> You write: "I just bought a new computer and there was no "DNS settings are
>> pre-set to an ICANN slave".
>> This is interesting. So this computer was free of any DNS setting. Maybe
>> this computer was sold without a system. All Apple devices come with a
>> pre-DNS setting pointing at an ICANN affiliates.
>
>
> Are you talking about root zone priming?
>
>
> But then, as lucky you are,
>> you still wanted to connect to the Internet. You probably found a telecom
>> provider to obtain a connection. And then, what happen? You decided to visit
>> JNC's website to learn about its latest statement (just kidding). So you
>> launched Safari, Firefox or any other available browser. Then you did
>> voluntarily set your DNS by introducing the IP of the servers that would
>> reply to your request
>
> yes
>
>
>
>> (whether inserting an IP address or a domain name).
>> Then you hesitated.
>
>
> there was no hesitation.
>
>> Would you introduce IP by ICANN, or IP by Open-Root?
>
> Neither, I used an OpenDNS server IP and a Google Public DNS IP.
>
>
>
> So
>> you decided to introduce two Open Root IP addresses as your primary and
>> secondary DNS server. And being still very lucky on that beautiful day, you
>> did access to contents you wanted to find. Thanks to the warning on your
>> computer indicating that you had a choice between ICAN, OPEN-Root, and
>> Smart-Root for your DNS settings, you felt you belonged to a fair world. By
>> doing so you could find more websites, and not only the ones that ICANN can
>> "see", but the ones Open Root or Smart-Root can see. And still no broken
>> Internet.
>
>
> Except that I wanted to see foo.ngo (registered via PIR) and instead I
> got foo.ngo regitered by your .ngo "registry", coherence was lost,
> Interwebz broken. QED.
>
>
> The planet earth wasn't flat. It was round. Civil society should
>> be at the forefront of this fight. But no, it is submitted to la voix de son
>> maître.
>
>
> I trust Nipper (name of the dog in the painting
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/His_Master%27s_Voice) and PIR. I don't
> trust you.
>
>
>>
>> So McTim, if you wish to create Smart-Root, I am all yours.
>>
>> Until then, I am an Open-Rooter, and all my computers and devices enjoy it.
>
>
> that is your prerogative, I am not, and that is mine.
>
>
> /McTim
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Le 21 juin 2015 à 15:22, McTim a écrit :
>>
>> <cc list trimmed to lists I am subbed to>
>>
>> On Sun, Jun 21, 2015 at 5:23 AM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global
>> Journal <jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net> wrote:
>>
>> Adebunmi, Willi,
>>
>>
>> I'd like to try to explain why the "decentralization" idea is one of the
>>
>> very misguiding conception in the field of Internet Governance, as I feel
>>
>> this is a very "core" part of the overall misunderstanding
>>
>>
>>
>> Agreed, there is a misunderstanding.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> When McTim, and Norbert respectively mention their view as:
>>
>> McTim: "The DNS is already decentralized by it's very nature. I think the
>>
>> word the Willi seeks is 'non-hierachical'".
>>
>> Norbert: " The DNS has been designed as a highly decentralized system with a
>>
>> very lightweight root"
>>
>>
>> In the Internet, what is truly "decentralized" are the networks
>>
>> (infrastructure level). They belong to separate entities. They are managed
>>
>> by different authorities whether private or public or public/private. They
>>
>> are by nature decentralized by opposition to a centralized network. These
>>
>> networks are interconnected by technical means, creating a virtual single
>>
>> space where packets can circulate from one gate to another according to
>>
>> protocols, from one IP address to another IP address.
>>
>>
>> In the Internet, what is truly "centralized" is the management of the DNS
>>
>> (governance issue).
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> No, the correct term for this is "hierarchical. The DNS is
>> DE-centralised. Nameservers are run by local entities in much the
>> same way that routers are run by local entities. In theory, you
>> control your own router, you also control your own DNS server. In
>> practice, most users leave those chores to service providers.
>>
>>
>> We all understand what, by extension, the notion of
>>
>> "very nature" means. It means by conception, or to be even more precise by
>>
>> human conception of an information technology (IT) system. So indeed nothing
>>
>> "natural", but an artificial IT engineering conception. Nothing wrong with
>>
>> that, but just to highlight the fact that there is no "natural order" in the
>>
>> Internet conception. Only intelligence by computer scientists and telecom
>>
>> engineers.
>>
>>
>> Why is it possible to claim that the DNS management was conceptualized as
>>
>> being highly "centralized" (and not "decentralized"). Simply because in
>>
>> order to have one "directory boutique" that can reply correctly (i.e. link
>>
>> to files located at an IP address) when asked about connecting a visitor to
>>
>> a domain name, you make it easy only if this "directory of
>>
>> name-to-IPaddress" has every single name at hand, and is able to allocate
>>
>> domain name with no duplication of ownership, is able to centralize all
>>
>> updates/changes in the directory. In that sense, one can write that "by its
>>
>> very nature", the DNS management needs to be highly centralized. Once it is
>>
>> very centralized it is essential that it will be highly "distributed" with
>>
>>
>>
>> In order to have the "coherence" described above, you need hierarchy,
>> not centralization.
>>
>>
>> Now looking at the governance of the Internet, one core element of the
>>
>> dominant/asymmetric narrative, beyond the idea that it was an open bar
>>
>> (multistakeholders drinking beer on an equal footing), is that precisely
>>
>> because the DNS management was by its "very nature decentralized", so was
>>
>> its governance, leading to the fairytale that "no one controls the
>>
>> Internet".
>>
>>
>> There is no ONE entity that controls the Internet. No one can
>> possibly do this as the "Internet" isn't a "thing" that can be
>> controlled per se. It is a network of networks, each controlled by
>> different entities.
>>
>> CQFD. We can understand why this sounds smart to qualify or label
>>
>> the Internet Governance a decentralized space.
>>
>>
>> The DNS management has to be somehow "hierarchical" based on the old
>>
>> master/slave IT concept - that is still the best way to make sure that we
>>
>> are all using only one name-to-address directory.
>>
>>
>> Now, coming to an even more interesting point.
>>
>>
>> Why should there be a single "directory" when it is possible to have plenty?
>>
>>
>>
>> Coherence.
>>
>>
>> Let's keep in mind that the word directory is wrong in this context. A
>>
>> directory is not supposed to allocate domain name to anyone, or to allocate
>>
>> TLDs whether ccTLDs or gTLDs to anyone. A directory has a basic database
>>
>> management role, highly centralized and distributed thanks to its many
>>
>> slaves. Now a boutique like ICANN is doing much more than a directory.
>>
>> Let's suppose that we are familiar with all what ICANN does, still, it is
>>
>> very possible to have several ICANNs. One of them is OPEN-ROOT. It has a
>>
>> different philosophy - as an example, you pay your TLD once and for life,
>>
>> still it has the ability to reply to anyone with a request related to domain
>>
>> names sold by ICANN and its slaves affiliates (distributed network of a
>>
>> highly centralized function). Moreover Open-Root brings in new TLDs, and
>>
>> allow people to use more of these, safely. Moreover, there should be even
>>
>> more OPEN-ROOTS; that is no threat to the so-called OPEN-FREE-DECENTRALIZED
>>
>> network of networks (the term decentralized s correctly used here). By doing
>>
>> so, it introduces competition in a sector highly monopolistic. So each of
>>
>> the users would benefit from that competition, not endangering the fair use
>>
>> of Internet. Again, I am actually using Open-Root to browse the web, and I
>>
>> am myself a registry/registar for the gTLD .ngo.
>>
>>
>> So you are a Registry operator for the TLD .ngo. So is PIR. If you
>> sell mctim.ngo to me, but someone else registers mctim.ngo via PIR,
>> then coherence is broken.
>>
>>
>> Interestingly there is no
>>
>> real need for these intermediate function with Open root. I did this by
>>
>> paying 200 € paid to Open-Root. And to be fair, let me correct McTim by
>>
>> saying that Open-Root offers more than ICANN as Open-Root edits new TLDs
>>
>> (not seen by ICANN actually)
>>
>>
>>
>> yes, they offer a broken Internet.
>>
>>
>> McTim writes very rightly that:
>>
>> "If a TLF is not published in the IANA root, the vast majority of users
>>
>> can't see it".
>>
>> This is a critical issue. Because users are not yet aware that they are
>>
>> alternatives, and because all computers (distributed central power), the
>> users are again part of capture
>>
>> audience with no choice. But it doesn't mean that over time this
>>
>> domination/capturing will sustain.
>>
>>
>>
>> Demonstrably false. I just bought a new computer and there were no
>> "DNS settings are pre-set to an ICANN slave".
>>
>>
>>
>> Would civil society representatives (whatever legitimacy they claim they
>>
>> have) call for a competitive approach to DNS management, and not just
>>
>> basically support transition of IANA from ICANN to ICANN, would they support
>>
>> at least one single alternative root zoot management operator, they would
>>
>> gain leverage in terms of influencing and changing the unbearable asymmetry.
>>
>>
>> probably not.
>>
>> /McTim
>>
>>
>>
>> This competition would immediately pave the way to solutions that might fit
>>
>> to Willi's hope and demand.
>>
>>
>> The power of commercial digital players, the advantages they gain from this
>>
>> single DNS rootzone management is huge and not acceptable if anyone has in
>>
>> mind an idea of public interest, or even considers the Internet as some sort
>>
>> of global common good. Obama said something like this lately.
>>
>>
>> Having a competitor would help to self regulate the Internet, without having
>>
>> to build-up digital Ligne Maginot or nation state totalitarian system.
>>
>>
>> But a few benefit greatly from the current state of things, and are
>>
>> obviously not willing to give away their privilèges.
>>
>>
>> Old story
>>
>>
>> JC
>>
>> McTim. Thanks for your comments. Let's have Louis adding his own comments,
>>
>> and more specifically what are his views of the surveillance aspect of
>>
>> alternative root zone management. Rootzone management has little to do with
>>
>> routers by the way.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Le 20 juin 2015 à 08:10, Adebunmi AKINBO a écrit :
>>
>>
>> Jean,
>>
>> Much respected response.
>>
>> Thanks for the consideration.
>>
>> Regards.
>>
>> -Akinbo.
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Jun 20, 2015 at 6:47 AM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global
>>
>> Journal <jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>> You are very right Adebunni. Sorry for my advise. I just didn't want to
>>
>> bother anyone with simple ideas that work, and that will soon or later
>>
>> transform the current asymmetry.
>>
>>
>> JC
>>
>> (the lists are not always the best venue to "share" as we have to face a
>>
>> lot of negativity in here)
>>
>>
>> Le 20 juin 2015 à 07:40, Adebunmi AKINBO a écrit :
>>
>>
>> Willi,
>>
>> Whatever you do, do not take Jean's advice to write directly to him.
>>
>> You two need to share your opinion with people like me or the world.
>>
>>
>> How best does Africa begin to learn and participate without you both
>>
>> sharing your thoughts?
>>
>>
>> I do appreciate it. Both of you.
>>
>>
>> Regards.
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Jun 20, 2015 at 6:02 AM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global
>>
>> Journal <jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Willi,
>>
>>
>> Thanks for sharing your thoughts. If I may put two comments on this.
>>
>>
>> 1_
>>
>> In my opinion, "decentralization" seems not to be the appropriate word to
>>
>> describe what and how to change the current monopole under ICANN.
>>
>> Information Technology is somehow always related to a Master and its slaves,
>>
>> by electronic nature.
>>
>>
>> 2_
>>
>> Localisation is often associated with the idea of "nation". Keep in mind
>>
>> that this could mean to imprison people into old boundaries. Localisation
>>
>> might be interesting if a community decides to set up its own network (see
>>
>> the Spanish experiment on this) but that does not address the DNS issue.
>>
>>
>> In other words, decentralization has been a buzz word propagated by the
>>
>> current owners/rulers of the DNS root zoot management. And basically it is
>>
>> part of the dominant narrative related to the so-called, open, free,
>>
>> decentralized Internet under US/allies ruling boot. Localisation might
>>
>> equate to a returning in the past, pushing us back within the boundaries of
>>
>> the old national thinking. Not sure if we really want this.
>>
>>
>> What is more needed is either a global common governance (option one),
>>
>> with a public interest perspective, or a competitive market. Were we not
>>
>> satisfied with the ICANN, we should turn to another root-zone manager. This
>>
>> is no dream or utopia. I am no longer sending my domain name request to an
>>
>> ICANN affiliate server, but instead using the Open-Root system to find
>>
>> whatever I am looking for on the web. Thanks to Open-Root, we are also
>>
>> providing for free one domain name with a gTLD managed by Open-Root to NGOs.
>>
>> When the new gTLD .ngo by PIR (Public INterest Registry) given by ICANN to
>>
>> ISOC (PIR is ISOC's TLD roommate and milk cow) is an additional business
>>
>> supposed to make more money, we are happy to provide access to IPs through
>>
>> an independent, cheap (for free, or paid for life) domain name. All our
>>
>> computers are using Open-Root DNS management to access website that ICANN et
>>
>> al cannot see if we do not want the US surveillance apparatus to see it.
>>
>>
>> The first option (Global Common Governance) is almost dead, thanks to the
>>
>> systematic blockade by the US (gov and businesses) and its usual allies.
>>
>> Moreover, this first option would require both an architectural re-thinking
>>
>> (see JFC's email) and a political and institutional framing (see JNC for its
>>
>> democratic approach of the Internet governance). A long way to go. You show
>>
>> note that the request for a roadmap to a new Internet Governance, as put
>>
>> before the Net Mundial Conference has gone no where expect into giving to
>>
>> ICANN more power over the IANA functions (shifting power from the US to the
>>
>> US).
>>
>>
>> The second option is fair competition (which I like as it means ending
>>
>> the de facto ICANN monopole) and we are free to practice competition it at
>>
>> any time starting today.
>>
>>
>> A third option is an old fashion scheme that would fragment the Internet
>>
>> into national sub-Internets, (Westphalian Internets). This is not just
>>
>> old-fashion. This would be a way to imprison people back into their country
>>
>> land under the control of their leaders (good luck with that), unless the
>>
>> current efforts by a few academics come to conclusion in order to
>>
>> interconnect different root-zone management systems. There are a few bright
>>
>> minds working on this interconnectivity, whether the roots would be national
>>
>> or global.
>>
>>
>> For anyone interested to use the OPEN ROOT to browse the web, and break
>>
>> free from the ICANN affiliates, feel free to write to me for guidance and
>>
>> information.
>>
>>
>> JC
>>
>>
>> Le 19 juin 2015 à 23:28, willi uebelherr a écrit :
>>
>>
>>
>> The decentralization of the DNS system
>>
>>
>> We need a completely self-organizing Internet. And this is possible only
>>
>> through massive decentralization. We can look at the difficulties at the
>>
>> beginning of the Internet with tolerance. They were mostly of technical
>>
>> nature. But today we have other conditions. And under such other conditions
>>
>> arise other possibilities.
>>
>>
>> It is about the IP address. It is necessary to ensure that the packets
>>
>> find their direct path to their goals. The router work with numbers. We
>>
>> humans with text. The content is the same. Only the representation is
>>
>> different.
>>
>>
>> The Internet, a transport system for digital data in packet form, needs
>>
>> the destination address in order to direct the packets to their
>>
>> destinations. The packages contain that destination address. Thus, the
>>
>> packets are always the instance to activate and orient the router.
>>
>>
>> This, however, requires the knowledge of the geographical position of the
>>
>> target in order to determine the direction to this. But this question is not
>>
>> the subject of this text. Here i speak about about how the transformation of
>>
>> a text can be organized properly into the numerical representation of the IP
>>
>> address.
>>
>>
>> We focus on the ccTLD (country code Top Level Domain). It is the first
>>
>> level of the cascade for the decentralized organization of the DNS system.
>>
>> The gTLD (generic TLD such as .com, .org, .net ...) do not interest us. Each
>>
>> person can decide for themselves whether they want to apply this nonsense.
>>
>>
>> Each host on the Internet, client or server or both, has a unique and
>>
>> singular geographical position. We describe it with the world coordinate
>>
>> system WCS 1984 (WCS84) or later versions. All GPS and online map systems
>>
>> work with that. For mobile devices, this is always the position of the
>>
>> access point to the Internet. To transport the packages we need this
>>
>> information so that the router can select the most direct route.
>>
>>
>> The decentralization of the DNS system rests on the cascade steadily
>>
>> reduced regions. The first level is the ccTLD. So a country with borders, as
>>
>> we know it today. We can use this, although it is not optimal. All other
>>
>> levels are determined exclusively in their regions. The administration, as
>>
>> set, change, and resolve, only happens in the region. This applies to each
>>
>> level.
>>
>>
>> The organizational level for the ccTLD is the association of the
>>
>> countries on our planet. So the UN. The regions within a country are
>>
>> organizational objects in the respective country. Local regions are
>>
>> organizational properties of the larger region.
>>
>>
>> The organizational models are always determined at the level of each
>>
>> region. In order for a region in Brazil is achieved via the ccTLD ".br"
>>
>> worldwide. But their internal deeper structure may be different from the
>>
>> structure in Kenya, India or Russia. Regardless of the specific local /
>>
>> regional organizational structure of the DNS system, we always get the
>>
>> correct IP address for our goal. Only the principles of the resolution of a
>>
>> domain sequence into a numeric IP address is the subject of our common
>>
>> discussion.
>>
>>
>> With the local self-organization we dissolve the need for global Internet
>>
>> Governance. This may for organizations, that are derive its raison d'être
>>
>> from the global Internet Governance, be uncomfortable. We carry this with
>>
>> serenity.
>>
>>
>> Important for us is to help all the people in the different regions of
>>
>> our planet to organize their own DNA structure in accordance with their own
>>
>> principles. This makes it possible for all people of our planet to connect
>>
>> to all regions of our planet for the communication.
>>
>>
>> We have several instruments which have well proven in the history of the
>>
>> Internet. The most important instrument are the RFCs. With that we can best
>>
>> explain the principles of decentralized DNS system. And this is also the
>>
>> place where we describe the global access to the ccTLD's. The rest is
>>
>> regional and local task.
>>
>>
>> The dynamics in the inventory of domains can be very large. But this task
>>
>> is clearly and simply by decentralization of the administration.
>>
>>
>> An important field of our activities in the IG forums is the propagation
>>
>> of a free access to the setting up, modification and dissolution of a
>>
>> domain. Technically this is not a major challenge, because the processing of
>>
>> an item can be organized by the applicants themselves. There is only one set
>>
>> in a simple database. The blockages are in the bureaucratic systems. But the
>>
>> dissolution of these blockades always remains the task of the people in
>>
>> their regions.
>>
>>
>> With the help of free software and open source software we can do this
>>
>> very easily realized in a large cooperation. So the DNS system is an
>>
>> experiential field of creative and international cooperation.
>>
>>
>> with many greetings, willi
>>
>> Porto Alegre, Brasil
>>
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>>
>> 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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>> discuss mailing list
>>
>> discuss at 1net.org
>>
>> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>>
>> 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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Cheers,
>>
>> McTim
>> "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
>> route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> 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
>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Cheers,
>
> McTim
> "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
> route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150622/091ab497/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