[discuss] A thought experiment - what follows the 'IANA transition?'
parminder
parminder at itforchange.net
Thu Apr 3 11:18:30 UTC 2014
On Wednesday 02 April 2014 08:39 PM, Alejandro Pisanty wrote:
> Parminder,
>
> thanks a lot. How should 1Net/NetMundial proceed - again following
> George's suggestion to see what collective thinking can be developed -
> with respect to any issue far removed from ICANN?
Alejandro
Thanks for taking forward the dialogue on non ICANN related, larger,
global public policy issues which are even more important than devising
a mechanism of oversight for ICANN.
In this regard, first we need to understand how any kind of public
policy priorities are currently applied over the Internet. I see two key
ways in which this happens;
1. The Internet still being largely US produced/based, US's public
policy priorities get hard-wired into the Internet, whereby they get
applied over the whole world. It comes from the hearings of the FTC ,
FCC pronouncement, from constitutional provisions, patents courts
judgement, and many such other means.
2. Rich country clubs like the OECD and Council of Europe (CoE) make
various policy frameworks, policy principles and actual treaties. These
get applied to the Internet by various means; the collective economic
might and presence of entities from these countries on the Internet,
bi-lateral negotiations whereby these frameworks are kind of forced upon
less powerful nations, and so on...
This situations creates two kinds of problems.
One, since the diverse interests of all countries are not taken into
account in making what amounts to global public policies pertaining to
the Internet, there are not adequate policies in many areas. This is
truer of issues like social justice, economic justice, cultural justice,
and the such, which concern the less powerful more than the richer
countries.
Second, even when policies and policy frameworks do exist, these cannot
be considered legitimate on the 'no legislation without representation'
ground, which I think we would all agree to.
This is the statement of the problem. We may first need to agree on the
problem statement.
But assuming that we do, my prescription of the solution is as follows.
We develop a mechanism of developing global public policies pertaining
to the Internet which include all countries, on similar lines as rich
countries do this among themselves. This is done by OECD and CoE through
dedicated Internet policy related mechanisms, which are respectively the
Committee on Computers, Information and Communication Policies, and
Committee on Media and Information Society. These committees are
addressing most areas of Internet related public policies, a long list
of which was given in my earlier email, below. There should a similar
committee, with similar mandate and tasks, but involving all countries
(even if by rotational membership to take account of the large number).
We should take the best possible practices of stakeholder participation,
and all other positive features, from OECD's and CoE's mechanisms, to
develop such a genuinely global mechanism for global Internet related
public policies. We should also innovate beyond current practices of
these bodies, for instance, put this new mechanism in close connection
with the IGF (neither OECD or CoE's mechanisms having anything like it),
which is an exponential improvement over OECD/ CoE's mechanisms.
Look forward to hear views on this, so that, as Alejandro advices, we
may possibly develop a collective view on this most important matter for
the NetMundial meeting, and beyond.
Thanks.
parminder
>
> Alejandro Pisanty
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 2, 2014 at 9:00 AM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net
> <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>> wrote:
>
>
> On Wednesday 19 March 2014 06:25 AM, Alejandro Pisanty wrote:
>> Parminder,
>>
>> the logical next step is to ask you to resend your message
>> complete with what seems to be an involuntarily ommitted part,
>> the list of issues you consider should be dealt with.
>>
>> Alejandro Pisanty
>
> Alejandro
>
> Sorry, I had missed this email of a few weeks back... My
> organisation did submit a list of global Internet related public
> policy issues that need resolution in response to the
> questionnaire of Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation. Our full
> response is here
> <http://www.itforchange.net/Response_to_the_questionnaire_issued_by_CSTD_Working_Group_on_Enhanced_Cooperation_html>
>
> The response to question 4 which is the one relevant to your email
> is cut pasted below.......
>
> (begins)
>
> *4. What are the relevant international public policy issues
> pertaining to the Internet? *
>
> The report of the Working Group on Internet Governance^1
> <http://www.itforchange.net/Response_to_the_questionnaire_issued_by_CSTD_Working_Group_on_Enhanced_Cooperation_html#sdfootnote1sym>
> (WGIG), set up during the WSIS process, identified many
> international public policy issues pertaining to the Internet.
> This output of the Working Group was recognized by the Tunis
> Agenda, which reasserts most of these issues. Some more issues
> were identified in the background report^2
> <http://www.itforchange.net/Response_to_the_questionnaire_issued_by_CSTD_Working_Group_on_Enhanced_Cooperation_html#sdfootnote2sym>
> to the WGIG report. More recently, the ITU Council Resolution 1305
> (2009), in its Annex 1, recognized some public policy issues
> pertaining to the Internet, especially those with rather
> significant technical aspects.
>
> It is difficult to have a closed list of international public
> policy issues pertaining to the Internet, since new ones keep
> cropping up, with amazing rapidity. An indicative, non-exhaustive,
> list of public policy issues pertaining to the Internet is given
> below. It is difficult at this stage to do such a listing in any
> strict order of priority. We start with issues listed in the WGIG
> report and its background report, move to the listing made by the
> ITU, and then add some more emergent issues.
>
> Issues listed in the WGIG report (see the report for elaboration
> of each issue)
>
> *
>
> Administration of the root zone files and system
>
> *
>
> Interconnection costs (especially global interconnection)
>
> *
>
> Internet stability, security and cybercrime
>
> *
>
> Spam
>
> *
>
> Allocation of domain names
>
> *
>
> IP addressing
>
> *
>
> Intellectual property rights (IPR)
>
> *
>
> Freedom of Expression
>
> *
>
> Data protection and privacy rights
>
> *
>
> Consumer rights
>
> *
>
> Multilingualism
>
> *
>
> Convergence and next generation networks
>
> *
>
> trade and e-commerce
>
>
> Some additional public policy issues mentioned in the background
> report to the WGIG report (elaborated in the report)
>
> *
>
> Applicable jurisdiction, cross border coordination
>
> *
>
> Internet service providers (ISPs) and third party liabilities
>
> *
>
> National policies and regulations (harmonization of)
>
> *
>
> Competition policy, liberalization, privatization and regulations
>
> *
>
> Affordable and universal access
>
> *
>
> Cultural diversity
>
> *
>
> technical standards, and technology choices
>
> Public policy issues recognized in the ITU Resolution 1305, with
> regard to "scope of work of ITU on international Internet-related
> public policy matters"
>
> *
>
> Multilingualization of the Internet including
> Internationalized (multilingual) Domain Names
>
> *
>
> International Internet Connectivity
>
> *
>
> International public policy issues pertaining to the Internet
> and the management of Internet resources, including domain
> names and addresses
>
> *
>
> The security, safety, continuity, sustainability, and
> robustness of the Internet
>
> *
>
> Combating cybercrime
>
> *
>
> Dealing effectively with spam
>
> *
>
> Issues pertaining to the use and misuse of the Internet
>
> *
>
> Availability, affordability, reliability, and quality of
> service, especially in the developing world
>
> *
>
> Contributing to capacity building for Internet governance in
> developing countries
>
> *
>
> Developmental aspects of the Internet
>
> *
>
> Respect for privacy and the protection of personal information
> and data
>
> *
>
> Protecting children and young people from abuse and exploitation
>
>
> There are many more, existing as well as emergent ,public policy
> issues pertaining to the Internet, like;
>
>
> *
>
> Cloud computing (global issues involved)
>
> *
>
> Cross border Internet flows
>
> *
>
> Tax allocation among different jurisdictions with regard to
> global e-commerce
>
> *
>
> Economics of personal data (who owns, who makes money from,
> and so on)
>
> *
>
> Net neutrality (that all data is given equal priority on networks)
>
> *
>
> Search neutrality (that global search engines give neutral
> results)
>
> *
>
> Media convergence - Internet and traditional media (Internet
> companies versus newspapers, radio, cable and TV, book
> publishing industry etc)
>
> *
>
> Regulation of global Internet businesses (in terms of
> adherence to competition policies, consumer rights, law
> enforcement etc)
>
> *
>
> Internet intermediary companies as private agents for
> extra-territorial law enforcement (problems with)
>
> *
>
> Access to knowledge and free information flows, deepening the
> public domain on the Internet
>
> *
>
> Accessibility policies for the disabled
>
> *
>
> Development of, and protection to, local content, local
> application, local e-services, and local/ domestic Internet
> businesses
>
> *
>
> Protection of vulnerable sections, like children, women,
> traditional communities etc
>
> *
>
> Internet and health systems, education systems, governance
> systems and so on*.*
>
> *
>
> Many many more... this being an unending and ever-evolving
> list, such is the transformational influence of the Internet
> on our social systems*.*
>
>
> (ends)
>
> Thanks
>
> parminder
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 4:58 AM, parminder
>> <parminder at itforchange.net <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>> wrote:
>>
>> Agree with George,
>>
>> There is a serious need for this thought experiment.
>>
>> Lets devote at least half of our consciousness to this
>> thought experiment - take it that ICANN side problems are all
>> solved.
>>
>> What other things, perhaps more important than 'ICANN issues'
>> is NetMundial supposed to address.
>>
>> I do not agree with George or Nick that non 'ICANN side
>> issues' are not Internet governance issues. But lets discuss
>> different positions on these issues in any case..
>>
>> parminder
>>
>> On Monday 17 March 2014 10:42 PM, George Sadowsky wrote:
>>> All,
>>>
>>> I would like to focus on a broader issue raised by the
>>> interesting discussion below. It has been touched on
>>> before, but I think it's useful to go somewhat further.
>>>
>>> I see the issue as what is the appropriate domain of
>>> 'Internet governance' concerns. And that leads immediately
>>> to what we think the domain of concern of "Internet
>>> governance' is, i.e. how we define it.
>>>
>>> *I'd like to propose a thought experiment.* Suppose that by
>>> 30 September 2015, somehow "we" have created an appropriate
>>> accountability mechanism to replace NTIA's current
>>> responsibilities. Further, suppose that (1) NTIA accepted it
>>> and proceeded to make the transfer to the new mechanism, and
>>> (2) there was very broad general agreement across multiple
>>> stakeholder groups globally that this was a transition that
>>> was worth supporting.
>>>
>>> *What, then, would we discuss next?*
>>>
>>> *On the one hand*, some of us argue that Internet governance
>>> is really the appropriate construction of Internet
>>> administration and coordination mechanisms, with their
>>> appropriate oversight, and that issues of content and
>>> behavior need to be discussed in more general contexts. Nick
>>> Ashton-Hart argues this persuasively. As an example, I
>>> would find it unproductive to discuss surveillance in the
>>> Internet unless it were within a more general context of
>>> surveillance policy. In that context, I see the Internet as
>>> another tool, such as using hidden cameras and microphones,
>>> tapping voice phone lines and intercepting postal mail.
>>>
>>> *On the other hand*, it's clear that the introduction of the
>>> Internet has introduced both qualitative and quantitative
>>> changes in many areas of life and of human behavior, and
>>> that mechanisms dealing with them have not caught up to
>>> dealing with the Internet's disruptive influence. Such
>>> problems often have (at least) two aspects, one technical
>>> and the other societal. I would not characterize these as
>>> Internet governance problems, but rather problems with
>>> respect to general governance caused or exacerbated by the
>>> Introduction of the Internet.
>>>
>>> So back to the thought experiment. If we really do solve
>>> the accountability and administrative issues related to
>>> ICANN and IANA in a manner that is widely accepted
>>> (admittedly a stretch, but it works for a thought
>>> experiment), then that is off the agenda. What's next on
>>> the "Internet governance" agenda, and why? Do the venues
>>> for those discussions change, or not? Does the label by
>>> which we refer o those discussions change, or not? What is
>>> your "to do" list for Internet governance after an IANA
>>> final solution:
>>>
>>> 1. ....
>>> 2. ....
>>> 3. ....
>>> 4. ....
>>> ....
>>>
>>> Opinions welcome.
>>>
>>> Finally, if you believe that there is nothing left after an
>>> IANA final solution, then it might be useful to suggest some
>>> of the specify issues that you exclude, and suggest suggest
>>> specific venues and processes that that represent the
>>> correct way forward to address those problems.
>>>
>>> This is really the issue of what Internet governance is, and
>>> is not. The WGIG definition had enough creative generality
>>> to navigate a process through the political environment of
>>> WSIS, but now we are addressing more specific issues. We
>>> lack descriptive terms that have enough specificity for us
>>> to be able to even discuss them without stumbling over
>>> definitional differences. That kind of stumbling is not a
>>> good use of resources. If we do not share what a word or a
>>> phrase means, I don't see how we can discuss it sensibly.
>>> Responses to the proposed thought experiment might yield
>>> some clarity on this point.
>>>
>>> My sense is that the terms 'Internet coordination' and
>>> 'Internet administration' are unused terms that could be
>>> used to clarify discussions, but for some reason they have
>>> not been adopted by many others. Using more precise and
>>> shared terms to discuss the issues within the different
>>> strata of Vint's diagram, sent in an earlier e-mail, would
>>> IMO be very helpful in making progress in these discussions.
>>>
>>> Let's concentrate on recognizing, defining and identifying
>>> problems --- it's more important and, at least for me,
>>> more satisfying than semantic arguments.
>>>
>>> George
>>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mar 17, 2014, at 5:22 AM, Nick Ashton-Hart
>>> <nashton at ccianet.org <mailto:nashton at ccianet.org>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Dear Seun, inline responses
>>>>
>>>> On 17 Mar 2014, at 10:11, Seun Ojedeji
>>>> <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com <mailto:seun.ojedeji at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hello Nick,
>>>>> On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 9:43 AM, Nick Ashton-Hart
>>>>> <nashton at ccianet.org <mailto:nashton at ccianet.org>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I disagree.
>>>>>
>>>>> The international community does need a way to discuss
>>>>> surveillance - but Internet governance is not that
>>>>> venue, for the simple reason that the surveillance
>>>>> issue is about surveillance and not the Internet.
>>>>>
>>>>> The issue of mass surveillance is really asking the
>>>>> question of how do countries treat non-nationals in
>>>>> their national security activities. The fact that the
>>>>> Internet is used as a tool for surveillance is really
>>>>> irrelevant to the question, just as the Internet is
>>>>> used for distribution of illegal material like those
>>>>> related to child exploitation but that is primarily an
>>>>> enforcement of laws issue, not an Internet issue.
>>>>>
>>>>> IG does not need to be about everything where there is
>>>>> an Internet dimension - or no solution to any problem
>>>>> can be found.
>>>>>
>>>>> However: the political demands for action over
>>>>> surveillance are impacting the Internet as we all know
>>>>> - so we do have a vested interest in ensuring that the
>>>>> core issue of mass surveillance is addressed, just not
>>>>> primarily by us, and not in IG.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Just to get the flow right, when you say "us" whom do you
>>>>> refer? and when you say mass surveillance is not an IG
>>>>> issue then what issue is it? My expectation is that the IG
>>>>> platform will provide an avenue to discuss the issue and
>>>>> then propose solutions which countries will then turn to
>>>>> legal content applicable to them. If the issues are not
>>>>> discussed then it will be difficult to know what they are
>>>>> and address them. Bringing then to IG fora will help give
>>>>> it a voice that could hopefully get to the listening hears
>>>>> of government and relevant authorities.
>>>>
>>>> "Us" meaning the IG community. As to what issue it is, it
>>>> is, as I described, an issue of surveillance, not the
>>>> Internet. So, the human rights dimensions are currently
>>>> being actively addressed in the Human Rights Council and
>>>> related processes. The exchange of data for criminal and
>>>> national security purposes are governed by MLATs (Mutual
>>>> Legal Assistance Treaties) - Access.org
>>>> <http://access.org/> has an excellent website devoted to
>>>> MLAT reform at www.mlat.info <http://www.mlat.info/>.
>>>>
>>>> Bringing this issue to IG fora will harmfully conflate
>>>> issues which have nothing to do with IG with IG issues, and
>>>> contaminate (further) Internet governance with a great deal
>>>> of politicisation. I would hope that we all don't want to
>>>> see the security, stability, and universality of the
>>>> Internet further polluted with politics of national
>>>> security and safety.
>>>>
>>>>> As per the NetMundial, i agree with Avri that from recent
>>>>> happenings, ICANN-IANA related issues may carry the
>>>>> majority of the agenda which ofcourse was not the only
>>>>> reason why the event was conjured in the first place.
>>>>> However since the ICANN-IANA discussion will start from
>>>>> ICANN49 i think some foundational progress will have been
>>>>> made to further lighten up the NetMundial agenda to
>>>>> accommodate the other half of the goal which is largely
>>>>> related to mass surveillance.
>>>>
>>>> I think if NetMundial is consumed with ICANN issues that
>>>> will be both a mistake and a huge missed opportunities.
>>>> Finding a way to agree on principles, and what is, and is
>>>> not, appropriate for IG policy to address would be a
>>>> significant added value; there is also no other global
>>>> forum designed to produce outcomes along these lines. The
>>>> discussion of internationalizing ICANN has a home for
>>>> discussions: ICANN.
>>>>
>>>>> I don't think anyone here is disagreeing with recent
>>>>> development on ICANN-IANA, as it is good news. However we
>>>>> should also not let that overwhelm the other present
>>>>> concerns. Lets remember that the ICANN-IANA processes is
>>>>> to prevent the future "what-IFs" while mass surveillance
>>>>> on the other hand is currently happening and we should not
>>>>> neglect that.
>>>>
>>>> "we" cannot solve national security issues. All we can do
>>>> is insist that the various aspects of national security use
>>>> of data and the rules by which non-nationals are treated
>>>> are dealt with - in the fora where they are already under
>>>> discussion.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers!
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 17 Mar 2014, at 06:16, parminder
>>>>> <parminder at itforchange.net
>>>>> <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sunday 16 March 2014 09:51 PM, Victor Ndonnang wrote:
>>>>>>> +1 Adiel.
>>>>>>> Surveillance and intelligence agencies was there
>>>>>>> before the Internet. Even
>>>>>>> if the Internet has a role in the mass
>>>>>>> surveillance...USG/NTIA intent to
>>>>>>> transfer IANA and root zone management related to
>>>>>>> the global independent
>>>>>>> Multistakeholder entity is not a response to the
>>>>>>> mass surveillance issue.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Agree, developments on the ICANN oversight issue do
>>>>>> not constitute any real response to mass surveillance
>>>>>> problem. And since NetMundial came out of a series of
>>>>>> events directly connected to the mass surveillance
>>>>>> problem, and which is the main reason the 'global
>>>>>> community' invested into it, it is only fair to the
>>>>>> people across the world that we have
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1. discussions on this issues, and others related to
>>>>>> larger international public policy issues pertaining
>>>>>> to the Internet , and
>>>>>> 2. come up with proposals regarding these issues.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have seen almost nil work on this list in this
>>>>>> regard. ICANN oversight issue should not be allowed
>>>>>> to overshadow these much more important and pressing
>>>>>> global public policy issues. I fear this is what is
>>>>>> happening. A good reason of course is structural
>>>>>> about what 1Net is.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> parminder
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> May be that Global Multistakeholder entity will be
>>>>>>> the IETF or I... to help
>>>>>>> strengthen security, privacy and trust on the Internet.
>>>>>>> The Internet Governance is mainly a technical thing,
>>>>>>> let's leave the
>>>>>>> technical community takes care of it with the full
>>>>>>> participation and inputs
>>>>>>> of others stakeholders.
>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>> Victor.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -----Message d'origine-----
>>>>>>> De : discuss-bounces at 1net.org
>>>>>>> <mailto:discuss-bounces at 1net.org>
>>>>>>> [mailto:discuss-bounces at 1net.org] De la part
>>>>>>> de Adiel Akplogan
>>>>>>> Envoyé : Sunday, March 16, 2014 8:48 AM
>>>>>>> À : Seun Ojedeji
>>>>>>> Cc : 1 Net List; Civil Society Internet Governance
>>>>>>> Caucus - IGC
>>>>>>> Objet : Re: [discuss] [governance] NTIA statement
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I disagree as well. In this discussion it is very
>>>>>>> important to dissociate
>>>>>>> the USG/NTIA by role in the performance of IANA
>>>>>>> function by ICANN and the
>>>>>>> issue related to mass surveillance. The two are not
>>>>>>> technically linked and
>>>>>>> should be addressed separately.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> - a.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Mar 16, 2014, at 11:03 AM, Seun Ojedeji
>>>>>>> <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com
>>>>>>> <mailto:seun.ojedeji at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Well I would not disagree that mass surveillance
>>>>>>>> indeed continues.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Any NSA statement that says otherwise?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Cheers!
>>>>>>>> sent from Google nexus 4
>>>>>>>> kindly excuse brevity and typos.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 15 Mar 2014 19:08, "Joly MacFie"
>>>>>>>> <joly at punkcast.com <mailto:joly at punkcast.com>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Disagree,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Different department.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> j
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 7:06 AM, Louis Pouzin
>>>>>>>> (well) <pouzin at well.com <mailto:pouzin at well.com>>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The IANA ballyhoo comes from the same factory as
>>>>>>>> the "internet freedom"
>>>>>>> smoke screen launched before WCIT. It's a spin
>>>>>>> diversion for the show.
>>>>>>>> Mass surveillance continues. What's new ?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Louis
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>>>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>>>>>>> <mailto: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
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>> Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast WWWhatsup
>>>>>>>> NYC -
>>>>>>>> http://wwwhatsup.com <http://wwwhatsup.com/>
>>>>>>>> http://pinstand.com <http://pinstand.com/> -
>>>>>>>> http://punkcast.com <http://punkcast.com/> VP
>>>>>>>> (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org
>>>>>>>> <http://isoc-ny.org/>
>>>>>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>> -
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> discuss mailing list
>>>>>>>> discuss at 1net.org <mailto:discuss at 1net.org>
>>>>>>>> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> discuss mailing list
>>>>>>>> discuss at 1net.org <mailto:discuss at 1net.org>
>>>>>>>> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> discuss mailing list
>>>>>>> discuss at 1net.org <mailto:discuss at 1net.org>
>>>>>>> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> discuss mailing list
>>>>>> discuss at 1net.org <mailto:discuss at 1net.org>
>>>>>> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> discuss mailing list
>>>>> discuss at 1net.org <mailto:discuss at 1net.org>
>>>>> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>
>>>>> /Seun Ojedeji,
>>>>> Federal University Oye-Ekiti
>>>>> web: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng <http://www.fuoye.edu.ng/>
>>>>> Mobile: +2348035233535
>>>>> //alt
>>>>> email:<http://goog_1872880453/>seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng
>>>>> <mailto:seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng>/
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> discuss mailing list
>>>> discuss at 1net.org <mailto:discuss at 1net.org>
>>>> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> discuss mailing list
>>> discuss at 1net.org <mailto:discuss at 1net.org>
>>> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> discuss mailing list
>> discuss at 1net.org <mailto:discuss at 1net.org>
>> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>> Dr. Alejandro Pisanty
>> Facultad de Química UNAM
>> Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico
>> +52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD
>> +525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO SMS +525541444475
>> Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com
>> LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty
>> Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn,
>> http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614
>> Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty
>> ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org
>> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
>
>
>
>
> --
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> Dr. Alejandro Pisanty
> Facultad de Química UNAM
> Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico
> +52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD
> +525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO SMS +525541444475
> Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com
> LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty
> Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn,
> http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614
> Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty
> ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org
> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://1net-mail.1net.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20140403/a577f627/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the discuss
mailing list