[governance] Pro-multistakeholderist versus pro-democracy viewpoints

Tue Mar 10 15:12:10 EDT 2015

Anriette,

Are you denying that there has been a concerted, prolonged and very well-resourced attempt to insert multistakeholderism as the dominant mode of governance in the Internet sphere?  And further that several of us (which provided one of the main backgrounds to the JNC) have been pointing to this agenda for a very long time? And further are you denying that you/APC, Jeremy (EFF?), Global Partners, ISOC and others have been strong supporters of this initiative through your/their involvement in/support for the various forums, panels, high level commissions, the NMI etc. etc. through which this agenda is being promoted. And further is it not evident to even the most naïve observers that the intention here is not simply about words but rather about the how global (Internet) Governance institutions and operational mechanisms will be structured going forward.  

What is interesting/important about the current discussion is that for the first time there is the visible means to connect the dots--the promotion of MSism by the USG and its international and corporate allies and others in "CS" and academe; combined with the suppression (“red lining”) of democracy in those contexts.  The issue of "coded" words, and invisible linkages etc.etc. is a complete red herring since one presumes that sophisticated actors such as an official USG representative know precisely the difference between a commitment to democracy, to multilateralism, and/or to MSism, and their decision in this instance as with others was not about "code" but about "law", in this context one need only point to the USG's full-throated and continuously expressed commitment to MSism to the exclusion of all other Internet governance modes <https://gurstein.wordpress.com/2013/09/24/internet-freedom-and-post-snowden-global-internet-governance/> . (The USA Ambassador in his brief concluding statement to the WCIT as an example, mentioned MSism 17 times and democracy not even once!)

M

-----Original Message-----
From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Anriette Esterhuysen
Sent: March 10, 2015 10:23 AM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
Subject: Re: [governance] Pro-multistakeholderist versus pro-democracy viewpoints

Parminder, APC has never asked for removal of the term decmoratic. It has been in our formal texts and it is in the NETmundial statement which we feel builds on the Tunis Agenda positively.

Nor has anyone else on this list asked for the removal of that term in a general sense.

What was raised was that in the context of the Tunis Agenda, the term 'democratic' occurs consistently with the term multilateral. This has often been actively interpreted by countries who oppose multistakeholder approaches, and who are not in favour of civil society participation as meaning 'among governments'.

What we believe the term means and should mean becomes secondary to what it means in the 'code' of this particular UN process.

That is all.

No one at the UNESCO meeting "strongly asked for the "removal" of the term "democratic multistakeholder".

Richard asked for it to be included in the document but it never made it in for the reasons mentioned above and earlier in this discussion.

I am not saying that there are no other agendas (including hidden

agendas) in multistakeholder OR intergovernmental processes... but I do think your suggestion that there is an actively anti-democratic agenda among others in civil society is inaccurate, and comes across as an effort to discredit our motives and our work.

Anriette

On 10/03/2015 18:39, parminder wrote:

> 

> 

> On Tuesday 10 March 2015 06:43 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote:

>> Agree strongly with this Wolfgang. This does not mean that we don't 

>> need these institutions and that we should not participate in them 

>> and make them more democratic and inclusive. But we should not, as 

>> you say, ignore their democratic deficits.

> 

> Wolfgang and Anriette, I have not been able to understand who here has 

> been ignoring democratic deficits in 'these institutions' and, 

> further, how by asking to retain references to democracy and 

> democratic in IG documents, that are increasingly peppered with the MS 

> term (which efforts btw are not to be considered as wordsmith-ing), 

> one may be contributing to ignoring any kind of democratic deficit.

>> These deficits exist at national level as well.

> 

> Exactly, and still there seem to be no proposals around to replace 

> democratic republic of India or South Africa with Multistakholder 

> entity of India or South Africa. Efforts in such kind of directions 

> however have begun at the global level, of which the recent UNESCO doc 

> is a testimony. This, is the problem that some of us are trying to 

> highlight and address, and I dont see it as a small problem.

> 

> We seek to address national level democratic deficits by trying to 

> improve and increase democracy, which is rather ill-served by 

> replacing this key political ideal of 'democracy' by new political 

> terms which undermine people's sovereignty and democratic rights. 

> Similarly at the global level.

>> Multistakeholder approaches is one way of making existing 

>> intergovernmental processes more transparent and more inclusive.

> 

> Yes, but only as long as these multistakeholder (MS) approaches do not 

> seek to supplant these processes - you cannot make a set of processes 

> more inclusive and transparent by supplanting them - which is the 

> problem that is being sought to be addressed. This problem is 

> represented in the insistence that 'democratic' be removed but the MS 

> term retained in a key global normative document related to IG.

> 

> It is worth repeated a hundred times that no one, including JNC, asked 

> for removal of the MS term, but people expressly and strongly asked 

> for the removal of the 'democratic' term, and got away with it. We are 

> simply saying that they should not have got away with it. And many 

> here seem to think, that is all right - this is the problem, and at 

> the root of the current discussion.

> 

> parminder

> 

>> Anriette

>> 

>> 

>> On 10/03/2015 10:13, Benedek, Wolfgang ( <mailto:wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at> wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at)

>> wrote:

>>> Dear all,

>>> 

>>> just to add some experience with multilateral economic governance 

>>> institutions to the debate. UN ECOSOC created in 1946 to coordinate 

>>> international cooperation in the economic and social field can be 

>>> considered a democratic body as it represents all regions of the 

>>> world according to the principle of geographical representation, the 

>>> largest group being from Africa, but has never been allowed to play 

>>> its role. In  IMF and World Bank, based in Washington the US still 

>>> has a blocking minority. The WTO works on the basis of consensus, 

>>> but in practice hardly any decisions are possible against the major 

>>> trading powers. The ITU I do not have to explain here. The main 

>>> decisions in international economic affairs are taken not in the UN 

>>> bodies set up for that purpose, but in the G7/8 or, since 2009, in 

>>> the G20, oligarchic self-appointed groups, which have no democratic 

>>> accountability whatsoever. The role of CS in all these organizations 

>>> and groupings is very limited, the more so as the

>>    real dec

>> isions are taken there.

>>> Consequently, to ask for similar institutions for IG seems to 

>>> neglect their record of democratic deficits. This is not to say that 

>>> they cannot improve their democratic accountability as this can be 

>>> done for multistakeholderism in its present form.

>>> 

>>> Wolfgang Benedek

>>> 

>>> Von: Michael Gurstein 

>>> < <mailto:gurstein at gmail.com%3cmailto:gurstein at gmail.com> gurstein at gmail.com<mailto:gurstein at gmail.com>>

>>> Datum: Montag, 09. März 2015 15:10

>>> An:

>>> " <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org%3cmailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org%3e> governance at lists.igcaucus.org<mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>"

>>> < <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org%3cmailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org> governance at lists.igcaucus.org<mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>

>>> >, Wolfgang Benedek 

>>> < <mailto:wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at%3cmailto:wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at> wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at<mailto:wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at>>,

>>> " <mailto:nb at bollow.ch%3cmailto:nb at bollow.ch%3e> nb at bollow.ch<mailto:nb at bollow.ch>" <nb at bo 

>>> llow.ch< <mailto:nb at bollow.ch> mailto:nb at bollow.ch>>

>>> Betreff: RE: [governance] Pro-multistakeholderist versus 

>>> pro-democracy viewpoints

>>> 

>>> 

>>> I would like to comment only on the final paragraph of WB's very 

>>> informed commentary with most of which I agree...

>>> 

>>> 

>>> 

>>> -----Original Message-----

>>> From:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org<mailto:governance-request

>>> @lists.igcaucus.org> [ <mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org> mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] 

>>> On Behalf Of Benedek, Wolfgang

>>> ( <mailto:wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at%3cmailto:wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at> wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at<mailto:wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at>)

>>> Sent: March 9, 2015 3:44 AM

>>> To:governance at lists.igcaucus.org<mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.or

>>> g>;

>>> Norbert Bollow

>>> Subject: Re: [governance] Pro-multistakeholderist versus 

>>> pro-democracy viewpoints

>>> 

>>> 

>>> 

>>> Dear Norbert,

>>> 

>>> 

>>> 

>>> I appreciate Your initiative as a welcome opportunity to move the 

>>> discussion forward. I have done some research in the past on 

>>> multistakeholder partnerships in other contexts. The findings showed 

>>> that the quality of the MSPs is decisive for their effectiveness and 

>>> sustainability. As larger the asymmetrical relationship in terms of 

>>> information, participation, political power and funding as weaker 

>>> the results. One could also argue as more democratic the  

>>> relationship as better, but with some qualifications. One is the 

>>> issue of spoilers, who do not share the basic consensus on which 

>>> each cooperation needs to be based and another is the fact that 

>>> inequalities in resource endowment cannot be democratized away, so 

>>> donors will normally have more say than beneficiaries.

>>> 

>>> 

>>> 

>>> [MG] agree

>>> 

>>> 

>>> 

>>> 

>>> 

>>> Accordingly, the issue is about recognition of existing inequalities 

>>> of power and mitigating them to optimize the cooperation and with it 

>>> the results to be achieved. This includes demystifying concepts like 

>>> "partnerships" by addressing existing inequalities and being 

>>> transparent about the objectives of the different partners.

>>> 

>>> 

>>> 

>>> [MG] agree

>>> 

>>> 

>>> 

>>> 

>>> 

>>> 

>>> 

>>> To apply the concept of democracy in this context means to adjust it 

>>> to the relationships to be addressed, which are not the same as on 

>>> the state level among citizens.

>>> 

>>> 

>>> 

>>> [MG] agree

>>> 

>>> 

>>> 

>>> 

>>> 

>>> We also have for many years a discussion on "democratization" of 

>>> international economic organizations, which mainly means more 

>>> participations of CS acting in the public interest. This can improve 

>>> the quality and the acceptance of decisions. The call for further 

>>> democratization of IG in my view goes in the same direction, but 

>>> much will depend on how united CS is in its demands and if partners 

>>> can be convinced of the value-added of more equal participation for 

>>> all stakeholders.

>>> 

>>> 

>>> 

>>> [MG] the current context is, I'm sure you will agree, different in 

>>> that there currently exist no institutions in the IG space 

>>> comparable to the IFO's (World Bank, IMF etc.). You might also agree 

>>> that if globally there was an attempt to create those institutions 

>>> at this time there would be a comparable discussion to that which we 

>>> are currently having, recognizing that the Bretton Woods 

>>> institutions were established at the end of a devastating world war 

>>> which was only brought to a successful conclusion through the 

>>> extraordinary actions of democratic states acting concert.  Notably 

>>> also, at that time roughly 2/3rds of the world's population was 

>>> still under imperialist control and lacking any form of representative, democratic institutions.

>>> 

>>> 

>>> 

>>> At its most basic democratic decision making (and governance) is 

>>> derived from and legitimated by the “will of the people” understood 

>>> in its broadest and most inclusive meaning.  Multi-stakeholder 

>>> decision making (and thus presumably governance) is derived from and 

>>> legitimated by a consensus being found among competing stakeholder 

>>> interests. In this context we are not discussing how to achieve 

>>> “further democratization” of existing institutions but rather what 

>>> is to be the shape and underlying model of governance for 

>>> institutions yet to be created.  That is why the USG is so concerned 

>>> that they would draw a red-line around “democracy” as a way of 

>>> characterizing those institutions since it should be quite clear 

>>> that they have a strong preference for multistakeholder institutions 

>>> which as you have pointed to above would necessarily be controlled 

>>> by the wealthy and the powerful.

>>> 

>>> 

>>> 

>>> M

>>> 

>>> 

>>> 

>>> 

>>> 

>>> 

>>> 

>>> Wolfgang Benedek

>>> 

>>> 

>>> 

>>> 

>>> 

>>>                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           

>>> t

>>> 

>>> 

>>> 

>>> 

>>> 

>>> 

>>> 

>>> 

>>> 

>>> Am 09.03.15 10:38 schrieb "Norbert Bollow" unter

>>> < <mailto:nb at bollow.ch%3cmailto:nb at bollow.ch> nb at bollow.ch<mailto:nb at bollow.ch>>:

>>> 

>>> 

>>> 

>>>> Recent events seem to indicate, in my eyes at least, that a 

>>>> significant divide which is in existence within civil society in 

>>>> relation to Internet governance can be characterized appropriately as follows:

>>>> a) Pro-multistakeholderist viewpoints, which are characterized by 

>>>> elevating a principle of multistakeholderism to a very high status, 

>>>> and it fact giving it a status which is as high or higher than the 

>>>> status which is ascribed to the principle that Internet governance 

>>>> must be democratic. This is often done by insisting on the 

>>>> importance of multistakeholder governance without mentioning democracy at all.

>>>> b) Pro-democracy viewpoints, which are characterized by insisting 

>>>> that Internet governance must be democratic. Pro-democracy 

>>>> viewpoints may involve endorsement of multistakeholder processes 

>>>> for Internet governance (even if not all who hold pro-democracy 

>>>> viewpoints would necessarily agree in any way with 

>>>> multistakeholderism), but the principle that governance must be 

>>>> democratic would always be seen as having greater importance and a 

>>>> higher priority than any endorsement of multistakeholderism.

>>> >From the above it would be clear that any consensus between those 

>>> >who

>>> 

>>>> hold a pro-multistakeholderist viewpoint and those who hold a 

>>>> pro-democracy viewpoint would involve agreeing on a path forward 

>>>> for Internet governance that is multistakeholderist as well as democratic.

>>>> Alas what happened at the UNESCO conference in Paris was that some 

>>>> of those who have pro-multistakeholderist viewpoints (specifically, 

>>>> Jeremy and the US government as well as diplomats of a few other 

>>>> countries who had instructions from their governments to support 

>>>> positions of the US government in relation to multistakeholderism 

>>>> upon any such request

>>> >from the US delegation) were unwilling to agree to any kind of

>>> 

>>>> consensus text along those lines.

>>>> As a result, the conference ended without reaching consensus.

>>>> I welcome comments, especially in relation to the characterization 

>>>> of "pro-multistakeholderist" versus "pro-democracy" viewpoints. I 

>>>> have written this with every intention of accurately summarizing 

>>>> the viewpoints of both sides.

>>>> Greetings,

>>>> Norbert

>>>> On Mon, 9 Mar 2015 09:32:17 +0100

>>>> Norbert Bollow < <mailto:nb at bollow.ch%3cmailto:nb at bollow.ch> nb at bollow.ch<mailto:nb at bollow.ch>> wrote:

>>>>> For clarity, to the extent that my question about links to 

>>>>> concrete proposals from the pro-multistakeholderist perspective 

>>>>> maybe wasn't clear enough (and it maybe in particular wasn't clear 

>>>>> enough that those general references which Jeremy has given to 

>>>>> vast bodies of written words do nothing at all to answer this 

>>>>> question), even if it is true that there are vast bodies of 

>>>>> Internet governance related text which is mostly written from 

>>>>> pro-multistakeholderist(*)

>>>>> perspectives:

>>>>> The context of this little side debate is that I had posted a link 

>>>>> to my proposalhttp://WisdomTaskForce.org  and clarified that

>>>>> 1) this is at the current stage simply my proposal - I wasn't 

>>>>> posting it as a JNC position, and

>>>>> 2) JNC has an intention of publishing a relevant position paper, 

>>>>> of which I will notify this mailing list when it has been 

>>>>> published, and

>>>>> 3) the proposal to which I posted the link is a proposal for 

>>>>> addressing the challenges of developing *global* public policy, 

>>>>> without overlooking the fact that it is not always possible to 

>>>>> reach consensus.

>>>>> Jeremy replied, IMO somewhat disingenuously, with the following 

>>>>> exact

>>>>> words: "So JNC is in exactly the same position as that for which 

>>>>> it (particularly Michael) regularly lambasts the 

>>>>> pro-multi-stakeholder people.  In fact, we have more concrete proposals than you do!"

>>>>> Of course JNC has since it was created made a large number of 

>>>>> concrete proposals on a significant number of topics.

>>>>> So the context in which I asked for links to "your concrete proposals"

>>>>> was a context of proposals for addressing the challenge of 

>>>>> developing

>>>>> *global* public policy without overlooking the fact that it is not 

>>>>> always possible to reach consensus.

>>>>> I would like to hereby reiterate this request, but now with what I 

>>>>> hope is abundant clarity: I am asking for concrete links to 

>>>>> proposals for generally addressing the challenge of developing 

>>>>> *global* public policy in relation to the Internet, without 

>>>>> overlooking the fact that it is not always possible to reach consensus.

>>>>> (In case it is not clear what I mean with "public policy": I mean 

>>>>> policies for topics where the disagreements are about how 

>>>>> conflicts of interest and conflicting concerns of different 

>>>>> stakeholders should be resolved. This category of public policy 

>>>>> matters is in contrast to purely technical matters where the 

>>>>> disagreements are about questions of technical nature, i.e. "what 

>>>>> is technically a better

>>>>> solution?")

>>>>> I am interested in such proposals regardless of whether I'm going 

>>>>> to agree with them. If a proposal is made and disagreement is 

>>>>> expressed, the discourse has been moved forward a bit.

>>>>> By contrast, I tend to think that any attempt to continue the 

>>>>> discussion without concretely discussing concrete proposals in 

>>>>> relation to this important question would probably indeed result 

>>>>> in going around in circles.

>>>>> By the way, Parminder has in a recent posting referred to 

>>>>> essentially the same question as it being a "lean and mean 

>>>>> question". I find that characterization quite fitting. I would say that it is a "lean"

>>>>> question because it cannot be addressed by means of pointing to a 

>>>>> vast body of writings on a large number of somewhat related topics.

>>>>> And I would say that it is a "mean" question because I don't see 

>>>>> it as easy to answer it in a satisfactory way.

>>>>> Greetings,

>>>>> Norbert

>>>>> (*) P.S. in relation to the term "pro-multistakeholderist": I'll 

>>>>> make another posting shortly in which I'll explain how I see the 

>>>>> distinction between pro-multistakeholderist and pro-democracy 

>>>>> viewpoints, and in which I will solicit comments on that 

>>>>> description of this distinction.

>>>>> On Sun, 8 Mar

>>>>> 2015 09:26:32 -0700 Jeremy Malcolm 

>>>>> < <mailto:jmalcolm at eff.org%3cmailto:jmalcolm at eff.org> jmalcolm at eff.org<mailto:jmalcolm at eff.org>> wrote:

>>>>>> On Mar 7, 2015, at 10:41 PM, Norbert Bollow 

>>>>>> < <mailto:nb at bollow.ch%3cmailto:nb at bollow.ch> nb at bollow.ch<mailto:nb at bollow.ch>> wrote:

>>>>>>> On Sat, 7 Mar 2015 22:05:55 -0800 Jeremy Malcolm 

>>>>>>> < <mailto:jmalcolm at eff.org%3cmailto:jmalcolm at eff.org> jmalcolm at eff.org<mailto:jmalcolm at eff.org>> wrote:

>>>>>>>> So JNC is in exactly the same position as that for which it 

>>>>>>>> (particularly Michael) regularly lambasts the 

>>>>>>>> pro-multi-stakeholder people.  In fact, we have more concrete 

>>>>>>>> proposals than you do!

>>>>>>> Where are your concrete proposals? Do you have links for them, 

>>>>>>> like I have given a link to my proposal?

>>>>>>> ( <http://WisdomTaskForce.org> http://WisdomTaskForce.org  .)

>>>>>> If you're unaware of these, you have a lot of reading to catch up 

>>>>>> on.  Start at GigaNet ( <http://giga-net.org/> http://giga-net.org/).  For a less 

>>>>>> academic, higher-level outline, also look through the submissions 

>>>>>> to NETmundial ( <http://content.netmundial.br/docs/contribs> http://content.netmundial.br/docs/contribs).  For 

>>>>>> my own part, you're already aware that seven years ago I 

>>>>>> published over 600 pages on how the IGF could become a 

>>>>>> multi-stakeholder body that makes public policy recommendations, 

>>>>>> and released it under Creative Commons 

>>>>>> athttps://books.google.com/books?isbn=0980508401-

>>>>>> surely that counts if your Wisdom Task Force counts.  And do none 

>>>>>> of the current proposals for IANA transition (eg.

>>>>>  <http://www.internetgovernance.org/2014/03/03/a-roadmap-for-globali> http://www.internetgovernance.org/2014/03/03/a-roadmap-for-globali

>>>>> zing

>>>>> -ia

>>>>> na/)

>>>>>> count for anything?

>>>>>> If you're after a more generalised set of criteria of good 

>>>>>> multi-stakeholder processes (back at the Bali IGF what I started 

>>>>>> calling a "quality seal" of multi-stakeholderism), rather than 

>>>>>> proposals that are specific to the IGF, ICANN, etc. then you can 

>>>>>> expect news about another effort to produce something like this 

>>>>>> in the next week or two, following on from a pre-UNESCO 

>>>>>> side-meeting that some of us attended - but there's an 

>>>>>> announcement coming soon and I'm not going to steal its thunder.

>>>>>> Anyway, the supposed lack of concrete proposals is not the real 

>>>>>> point, right?  The problem that you really have is that you're 

>>>>>> not satisfied with what those proposals say, by aiming to 

>>>>>> transcend statist global governance, which you don't accept is 

>>>>>> democratically legitimate.  So let's not muddy the water with false issues.

>>>>>> I am going to take a break from this discussion for now, because 

>>>>>> it has been going around in circles.  Everything that could 

>>>>>> possibly be said between us on this topic, has been - many times.  

>>>>>> I'm starting to feel like I should just write a FAQ, and reply to 

>>>>>> list mails with a link to that.  For now, if there is anything 

>>>>>> that you think you don't already have a response to, write to me 

>>>>>> off list and I'll point you to it.

>>> 

>>> 

>>> 

>>> 

>>> 

>>> ____________________________________________________________

>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:

>>>        <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org> governance at lists.igcaucus.org

>>> To be removed from the list, visit:

>>>        <http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

>>> 

>>> For all other list information and functions, see:

>>>        <http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance

>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:

>>>        <http://www.igcaucus.org/> http://www.igcaucus.org/

>>> 

>>> Translate this email:http://translate.google.com/translate_t

>>> 

>> 

>> 

>> ____________________________________________________________

>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:

>>        <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org> governance at lists.igcaucus.org

>> To be removed from the list, visit:

>>        <http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

>> 

>> For all other list information and functions, see:

>>        <http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance

>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:

>>        <http://www.igcaucus.org/> http://www.igcaucus.org/

>> 

>> Translate this email:http://translate.google.com/translate_t

> 

> 

> 

> 

> ____________________________________________________________

> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:

>       <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org> governance at lists.igcaucus.org

> To be removed from the list, visit:

>       <http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

> 

> For all other list information and functions, see:

>       <http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance

> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:

>       <http://www.igcaucus.org/> http://www.igcaucus.org/

> 

> Translate this email:  <http://translate.google.com/translate_t> http://translate.google.com/translate_t

> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150310/1c92e511/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