[discuss] NetMundial Initiative

Tue Aug 26 23:12:44 UTC 2014

I guess the details will surface during tomorrow's event.

However does anyone know the remote participation details?

>From the FAQ: ' Both working sessions and the press conference will be
webcast live, and there will be an active blog and discussion board
established to facilitate a two-way flow of information with the public'

p.

On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 5:19 AM, Stephanie Perrin <
stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:

>  I am very curious as to what the precise funding is for the NMI
> initiative at the WEF.  Does anyone know?
> Kind regards,
> Stephanie Perrin
> On 2014-08-15, 2:14, Nnenna Nwakanma wrote:
>
>   I woke up early this morning and read Anne Jellema (CEO of Web
> Foundation)'s blog post. She titled it "Fall of Internet Governance?"
>
>  I found it interesting, especially from the civil society point of view.
>
> Nnenna
>
> On Fri, Aug 15, 2014 at 5:13 AM, Chip Sharp (chsharp) <chsharp at cisco.com>
> wrote:
>
>>  Nick, all,
>> I hope you all are doing well.  Please keep in mind that what has been
>> leaked is an invitation list, not an attendance list.  I don't assume it is
>> a list of supporters.  I just don't see all the invited industry CEOs
>> dropping everything on short notice and flying to Davos.
>> I'm just going to have to wait and hear what those of you who choose to
>> attend report back and what is reported out at IGF.
>>
>>  Chip
>>
>>
>>
>> On Aug 14, 2014, at 9:33 PM, "Nick Ashton-Hart" <
>> nashton at internet-ecosystem.org> wrote:
>>
>>  Dear Joe and all,
>>
>>  I think Janis’ reply to yours below and Kathy’s after that captured the
>> essence of what I would say. I would add two things:
>>
>>  From what has been leaked, the level of support is robust and broad; it
>> is particularly welcome to see so many senior industry leaders from
>> ‘non-traditional’ Internet governance-engaged firms on board this early. I
>> also like hearing that major NGOs who have historically had limited time
>> and effort for Internet policy are getting involved. We need their muscle,
>> their ideas, and their expertise.
>>
>>  Secondly, I would add that as I know Rick Samans of WEF and have spoken
>> to him at length about the Internet policy landscape I think the process
>> will end up being a real asset to the very difficult situation that the
>> Internet faces, where, frankly, the traditional 'Internet Governance’ space
>> is being wagged by much bigger and more powerful dogs to the detriment of
>> everyone. We need new, and high level, engagement and new collaborative
>> processes to get to a place where we are working from shared positive
>> incentives and across much broader areas than traditional Internet
>> Governance represents and covers.
>>
>>  Regards Nick
>>  On 14 Aug 2014, at 12:52, joseph alhadeff <joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>  I wanted to write to echo many of Anriette's sentiments.  I too am
>> writing in my personal capacity as we are canvassing the ICC-BASIS
>> membership on their views.
>>
>> First, let me clarify that while business actively engaged in the Net
>> Mundial meeting and supported it's outcomes, there were significant process
>> and other shortcomings in the runup and operation of Net Mundial.  Business
>> has not focused on these issues as we believed that it was more important
>> to focus on achievements rather than shortcomings, but if there are
>> attempts to institutionalize the concept of Net Mundial, then this line of
>> inquiry will need to be explored in detail.
>>
>> Second, Net Mundial played an important role at a point in time, where
>> reflection and inflection was needed; it served that purpose well.  It is
>> unclear to me that there is any permanent need for such and event.
>>
>> Third, I would respectfully disagree with those most recent posts that
>> justify the WEF initiative by the fumbling of IGF.  Can and should IGF be
>> improved?  Yes, absolutely.  Does IGF play a useful role, even in its
>> present role, I believe it does.  After these years of IGF we have begun to
>> take the conversation it engenders for granted.  While these
>> multistakeholder conversations don't yield immediate results they are the
>> stepping stones to understanding and a foundation of consensus.  IGF
>> remains one of the few places if not *the* place for such conversation
>> to occur.  The frustration is that we don't build on the small victories in
>> consensus, we don't properly capture the capacity building and we are not
>> sufficiently innovative in considering how to approach these issues.  Net
>> Mundial and the prep for this IGF has increased the focus on these topis
>> and has generated some hope and anticipation for real improvements to be
>> considered. These improvements  should not be made at the expense of the
>> unique DNA of the organization - the avoidance of positions around
>> negotiated text.  We have alphabets of three and four letter organizations
>> already engaged in that trade and we need no more of those.
>>
>> Fourth, The WEF NMI.  I would concur that this is an inauspicious way to
>> launch a multistakeholder initiative.  The process we are all engaged in
>> now, rooting out facts and chasing down rumors, is somewhat reminiscent of
>> what we were doing in Bali related to what would become Net Mundial. While
>> there may be some beneficial need for positive engagement from the top,
>> mutlistakeholder must also have bottom up roots.  WEF may have a role to
>> play, but to do so they must be more transparent as to motivation,
>> outcomes, process and participation.  It is also important for the WEF NMI
>> to reinforce, as Net Mundial did, the important role of IGF and highlight
>> how they will support that role and function.
>>
>> I would also like to point out that this fact clearing-house function may
>> do more to return active participation to the 1net discuss list than any
>> topic since Net Mundial.
>>
>> Joe
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> n 8/14/2014 11:10 AM, Stephanie Perrin wrote
>>
>> Thanks for this excellent post Anriette.  Obviously, I agree
>> whole-heartedly.  I am very glad you are going, and I wish you all the luck
>> in the world.  You will likely need it.
>> Best wishes.
>> Stephanie Perrin
>> On 14-08-14 8:00 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote:
>>
>> Dear all
>>
>> Writing this in my personal capacity. My organisation, the Association
>> for Progressive Communications, has not yet finalised its reaction to this
>> discussion.
>>
>> I have not been involved in the NETmundial initiative, but have been
>> aware of it since ICANN 50 in London. I have been invited to the 28 August
>> event.
>>
>> Aside from those concerns already stated on this list, which I share, I
>> want to add I am not convinced that this initiative, based at the WEF, and
>> adopting a 'get all the great leaders into the room' approach is what is
>> really needed to build on the substantial achievements of the NETmundial.
>>
>> I have always been an admirer of initiative and risk taking in the
>> service of the 'greater good' and I don't want to condemn the NETmundial
>> initiative or its initiators.  I do believe it should be viewed critically
>> however, as a lot is at stake.
>>
>> Getting process right is never easy, but it is important to try hard to
>> do so, particularly when building something that is intended to be long
>> term.
>>
>> The NETmundial process was not perfect, but it made a HUGE effort to be
>> inclusive and transparent. The degree to which it succeeded contributed to
>> its legitimacy and success.  The NETmundial Initiative needs to consider
>> this very carefully.  Of course it makes sense to work with smaller groups
>> of people to get any initiative going, but in the internet world, and
>> probably in the world everywhere these days, not being transparent about
>> how these smaller groups are constituted and how they operate is 1) a lost
>> cause as leaking can be assumed, 2) not necessary and 3) probably somewhat
>> foolish.
>>
>> But assuming that the NETmundial Initiative process will become more
>> transparent and inclusive in the next few weeks, I still have a fundamental
>> concern about its format and location.  I am not convinced that it is
>> tactically what is really needed to build on the substantial achievements
>> of the NETmundial, the IGF before it, and the many people who have tried to
>> make multi-stakeholder internet policy processes work in the real world
>> over the last decade.
>>
>> My reasons are (mostly) as follows:
>>
>> *1) Choice of 'location' in the context of power and politics in
>> multi-stakeholder internet governance*
>>
>> Most of us consider the NETmundial a success and the NETmundial statement
>> a strong, positive document that avoids the traps of 'cheap' consensus.
>>
>> By that I mean that the final statement reflects consensus, disagreement,
>> and issues that need follow-up and further elaboration. That not all agreed
>> on the pre-final draft (there were some last minute disagreements about
>> text related to  intermediary liability and surveillance) with the final
>> version reflecting these negotiations actually makes it an even stronger
>> document, in my view, even if some of the text I would have liked to see in
>> it was excluded. To me this represents that the stakeholders involved in
>> the development of the text were able to work together, and disagree. The
>> disagreement was resolved in favour of the more power and influential - not
>> civil society of course. I don't mind this. It reflects reality. And I know
>> that civil society did also gain hugely with most of our demands making it
>> through. Over time these power arrangements might change, and those of us
>> working for the public interested in these processes have to keep on
>> contesting, and negotiating. Multi-stakeholder processes where this does
>> not happen are not worth the time we spend on them.
>>
>> Power and influence matters, and will continue to do so. In choosing a
>> site for taking the NETmundial forward attention has to be given to
>> ensuring that it is a platform where dynamics related to power and
>> influence among stakeholders in IG is able to play themselves out on a
>> relatively equal playing field, with that playing field becoming more equal
>> as time goes on.
>>
>> WEF does not provide this.  Yes, certain big name civil society leaders
>> attend WEF meetings. Others are present. Developing country leaders also
>> attend, and it is seen as a powerful pro-business, pro US and Europe forum
>> for reaching business leaders, and facilitating networking among the
>> prominent and powerful (with some being both).
>>
>> But is it the right space to establish something sustained, inclusive and
>> bottom up that can gradually lead the way in building the legitimacy and
>> inclusiveness needed to operationalise the NETmundial outcomes at global,
>> regional, and national levels? I don't think so.
>>
>> I say this not to disrespect the staff of the WEF or people who
>> participate in WEF forums, or of ICANN, or anyone else involved in the
>> NETmundial initiative. But first and foremost as someone from a developing
>> country who has experienced the ups and downs and highs and lows of
>> multistakeholder IG for a long time and secondly as a member of civil
>> society. To me WEF simply does not feel like a space where developing
>> country people and civil society will ever have a equal power with powerful
>> "northern" governments and global business.
>>
>> *2) What do we really need to*
>>
>> *operationalise and consolidate the NETmundial outcomes?  *Glamorous
>> gatherings of the powerful and prominent in IG (be they government, from
>> the north and the south, tech community, business or civil society) will
>> help to keep networking going, create the opportunity for
>> self-congratulation for those of us who were part of the NETmundial in some
>> way (and I had the privilege to make submissions online, and to be involved
>> in the co-chairing some of the drafting on site in Sao Paulo).
>>
>> But is that what is really needed to integrate what the NETmundial stands
>> for (public interested, democratic multistakeholder and human rights
>> oriented internet governance) into the day to day running of the internet
>> in ways that will be felt by existing and future users?
>>
>> I don't think so.
>>
>> I think that what is needed is  building lasting (and they have to be
>> very strong because they will be attacked) bridges between a process such
>> as NETmundial, and its outcomes, and institutions and people that make
>> governance and regulatory decisions on a day to day basis. I want to see,
>> for example, freedom of expression online enshrined in the contitutions of
>> very government of the world. I want governments (and where relevant,
>> businesses) to be held accountable for making sure that all people
>> everywhere can access the internet.
>>
>> This means engaging those that are not yet part of the multi-stakeholder
>> internet governance 'in-crowd'.  It requires working with national
>> governments. Regional intergovernmental bodies as well as international
>> onces, including those in the UN system.
>>
>> Will a NETmundial Initiative based at the WEF prevent the rejection of
>> multi-stakeholder processes (and of women's rights for that matter) that
>> was evident in the CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation?  Or efforts
>> among ITU member states to increase governmental oversight over internet
>> governance? Or tension between blocks of states with divides between the
>> developed and the developing world?
>>
>> I think that is the test it will need to pass with flying colours if it
>> were to make the gains that are needed, and that are not already being made
>> through processes such as the IGF, even if only in part. And a good
>> starting point would be to identify how those governments that were at the
>> NETmundial, but whom did not support the final statement publicly (some
>> said publicly they did not support it, and others failed to show support
>> simply by staying silent).
>>
>> How do they feel about this WEF-based NETmundial initiative? I see some
>> of them are invited. I know of at least one, present in Sao Paulo and
>> invited to the NETmundial Initiative, who does not support either.
>>
>> Apologies for ranting and raving somewhat. The point I am trying to make
>> is that for internet regulation across the ecosystem to comply with the
>> principles in the NETmundial statement and get get the NETmundial roadmap
>> used as a guide we don't need more expensive global gatherings.  We need
>> existing governance institutions and processes, including those not yet on
>> the multi-stakeholder bandwagon, to consider and adopt NETmundial
>> principles and integrate those into their governance decisions and
>> processes. And I am not convinced that a WEF based forum constituted in the
>> way the NETmundial Initiative has been, is up to that task.
>>
>> *3) NETmundial **Initiative and the IGF and the broader internet
>> community*
>>
>> The NETmundial outcome documents mentions the IGF repeatedly. It
>> recommends strengthening of the IGF, and asks the IGF to take the
>> discussion of complex IG issues forward. This reflects both the inputs
>> received prior to the Sao Paulo meeting, as well as deliberations in Sao
>> Paulo.  It reflects the will of those from ALL stakeholder groups who
>> participated in the NETmundial.
>>
>> I therefore find completely inappropriate that an initiative which takes
>> the name of the NETmundial, and which sets out to take the NETmundial
>> outcomes forward, does not have a closer link to the IGF.
>>
>> In fact, at the very least it should have used the IGF as a platform for
>> presenting itself and getting feedback from the broader community active in
>> the internet governance ecosystem which has been using the IGF as its
>> primary discussion space.
>>
>> The IGF is an existing forum that is still linked to the UN system, and
>> through that, to those parts of the internet governance ecosystem populated
>> by governments. It is a bridge. It needs to be stronger, and used more, but
>> it exists and many of us has put a lot of work into it over the last 8
>> years.
>>
>> Without much capacity and resources, the IGF continues year after year,
>> overwhelmed with a demand from the internet community it cannot come close
>> to meet (e.g. no of workshop proposals that cannot be accommodated).
>> Regional and national IGFs have their own trajectory too.. ups and downs
>> there too.. but overall becoming more inclusive.  The IGF process has not
>> even begun to fulfill its potential. Particularly not at the level of
>> interacting with other institutions and capturing and communicating the
>> outcomes from IGF discussions effectively.
>>
>> 1000s of people have been working in this IGF processes, people who are
>> trying to create change on the ground by getting different stakeholder
>> groups to listen to one another and work towards a more inclusive and fair
>> internet. People who are trying to find constructive ways of challenging
>> practices (be they driven by governments or business) that, for example.
>> blocks affordable access, or free expression on the internet.  If you count
>> all the IGFs around the world we are talking about 10s of thousands of
>> people.  The lack of respect shown to all these people and organisations by
>> NETmundial Initiative rings loud alarm bells in my ears.
>>
>> I might be overly sensitive.  I will really happy if my skepticism proves
>> to be unfounded as I really do believe that we need democratic
>> multi-stakeholder governance of the internet, and I believe that the
>> NETmundial principles can help us get there.
>>
>> I guess I am also somewhat saddened.. having invested so much in th
>> NETmundial, that this, the first initiative after April 2014 to take its
>> name, is doing such a bad job at living up to what the NETmundial process
>> principles advocate.
>>
>> Anriette
>>
>>
>>
>>  On 14/08/2014 09:52, Chris Disspain wrote:m
>>
>>  I was told that the initiative is geared towards bringing to attention
>> of the industry leaders and key government representatives Internet
>> governance issues, emphasising the need of preservation and promotion of
>> the multi-stakeholder model, as well as supporting the IGF as a
>> multi-stakeholder discussion platform by enlarging participation in its
>> work of those companies and governments that haven't been involved until kn
>>
>> (l
>>  Yes, that is also my understanding. A particular emphasis was made of
>> supporting the IGF but, I guess, time will tell.
>>
>>
>>
>>  Cheers, wha
>>
>>  Chri
>>
>>  On 14 Aug 2014, at 17:39 , Janis Karklins <karklinsj at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>  As being one of invited to the launch event of the WEF initiative I
>> would like to share information that I possess.
>>
>> The World Economic Forum is an international institution committed to
>> improving the state of the world through public-private cooperation
>> (statement on the website). WEFcommunities are various and more can be
>> seen athttp://www.weforum.org/communities. Organizationally the WEFis
>> membership organization where big multinationals from all over the world
>> are widely represented. The WEF invites representatives of governments,
>> academia, civil society, world of arts participate in their meetings and
>> engage with key industry leaders. This explains why the invitees list is
>> one you see.
>>
>> I was told that the initiative is geared towards bringing to attention of
>> the industry leaders and key government representatives Internet governance
>> issues, emphasising the need of preservation and promotion of the
>> multi-stakeholder model, as well as supporting the IGF as a
>> multi-stakeholder discussion platform by enlarging participation in its
>> work of those companies and governments that haven't been involved until
>> know.
>>
>> I know that Alan Markus intends to present and discuss the initiative at
>> the 2014 IGF meeting and there will be ample opportunity for the IG community
>> to clarify details.
>>
>> I hope that this information is useful.
>> JK
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 10:11 AM, Joana Varon<joana at varonferraz.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> *Current status of IG debate:* we need leaks to know what is going on!
>>> Pretty bad for a start.
>>>
>>>  @jordan carter: "why a noted business centred forum is the place to
>>> launch an Internet governance initiative?" - a question to be echoed indeed.
>>>
>>>  It is a shame after the whole attempt of NETMudial to innovate in a
>>> meeting process, seeking some transparency, openness and inclusion,
>>> something like this comes up under the same "brand". Hello Brazil?!
>>>
>>>  @jeremy and members of the so called "evil cabal", if you go, you have
>>> an important role to feed people with the most important asset:
>>> information. I bet we will be always prompt for feedback.
>>>
>>>  hoping for the best, though looking at... the worst?
>>>
>>>  regards
>>>
>>>  joana
>>>
>>> --
>>> --
>>>
>>> Joana Varon Ferraz
>>> @joana_varon
>>> PGP 0x016B8E73
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 1:30 AM, Seth Johnson<seth.p.johnson at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> More that the IGF phase wasn't going to work.  IGF has always been in
>>>> a tough spot, not so much fumbling the ball -- as if that's anything
>>>> other than an endemic feature of any organization of a similar
>>>> institutional nature -- but not empowered and pining for standing.
>>>> But Netmundial wasn't executed well in that regard (they announced
>>>> sponsorship of IGF, but they also weren't quite able to make things
>>>> stick), so they need to patch he information society process up by a
>>>> more blunt move that steps past IGF rather than going through a
>>>> process of engaging folks in issues via IGF as per plan.  I think
>>>> they're figuring they'll be able to just brazen it out.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 10:39 PM, Jeremy Malcolm <jmalcolm at eff.org>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> > I think it's more the case that the IGF has so badly fumbled the ball
>>>> that
>>>> > it falls to someone - anyone - else to pick it up. But that is not to
>>>> > discount the valid criticisms that others have expressed and that I
>>>> agree
>>>> > with.
>>>> >
>>>> > Disclaimer: I'm a member of the evil cabal.
>>>> >
>>>> > --
>>>> > 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 ::
>>>> >
>>>> > On Aug 13, 2014, at 6:57 PM, Jordan Carter <jordan at internetnz.net.nz>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> > Can someone explain why a noted business centred forum is the place to
>>>> > launch an Internet governance initiative?
>>>> >
>>>> > I genuinely don't understand that.
>>>> >
>>>> > I thought the whole lesson of netmundial was that genuine multi
>>>> stakeholder
>>>> > approaches work well, not that it was a nice experiment to be ignored.
>>>> >
>>>> > It would be helpful if those who rule us, as it were, would rapidly
>>>> disclose
>>>> > some authoritative information.
>>>> >
>>>> > Jordan
>>>> >
>>>> > On Thursday, 14 August 2014, Stephen Farrell <
>>>> stephen.farrell at cs.tcd.ie>
>>>> > wrote:
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Gotta say... seems like elitist nonsense to me having looked
>>>> >> at the invite list and other docs. The elitist part should be
>>>> >> obvious. The nonsense part is due to  almost none of the list
>>>> >> of invitees being known for knowing about the Internet. It
>>>> >> seems much more an elite than an Internet-savvy list of folks
>>>> >> being asked to form a new cabal. That said, cabals aren't all
>>>> >> bad, and I've no reason to think very badly of this particular
>>>> >> subset of the elite and its I guess just more meaningless policy
>>>> >> stuff so I don't need to care very much.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> That said, it seems a pity for this to be the next step after
>>>> >> the Brazil gig which seemed relatively open.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> S.
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>> >> On 14/08/14 02:36, William Drake wrote:
>>>> >> > Hi
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> > I proposed several times to the 1NET Co Com that 1NET explore
>>>> serving as
>>>> >> > a more open multistakeholder vehicle for connecting people to the
>>>> NETmundial
>>>> >> > Initiative.  Several members expressed support for that, but since
>>>> how the
>>>> >> > NMI will evolve remains very unclear it’s hard to know ex ante how
>>>> this
>>>> >> > could work.  I made the same suggestion to Fadi in London, didn’t
>>>> get much
>>>> >> > reaction.
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> > As I understand the basic idea, NMI will have a six month launch
>>>> managed
>>>> >> > by WEF but the hope would be that this leads to something broader
>>>> and more
>>>> >> > inclusive in a second phase.  Not how I would have done it, but
>>>> that said I
>>>> >> > wouldn’t assume before the fact that the second phase will not
>>>> come.  We
>>>> >> > have to see for starters how the conversation goes 28 August and
>>>> what is
>>>> >> > possible…
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> > Bill
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> > On Aug 13, 2014, at 10:00 PM, Avri Doria <avri at ACM.ORG> wrote:
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> >> Hi,
>>>> >> >>
>>>> >> >> Just wondering, is this a proper list for those who have been
>>>> catching
>>>> >> >> bits and pieces of the ICANN/WEF 'NetMundial Initiaitve' to be
>>>> >> >> discussed.
>>>> >> >>
>>>> >> >> I think it might be, and have even suggested it to others, but
>>>> figured
>>>> >> >> I
>>>> >> >> better check first.
>>>> >> >>
>>>> >> >>
>>>> >> >> avri
>>>> >> >>
>>>> >> >> _______________________________________________
>>>> >> >> discuss mailing list
>>>> >> >> discuss at 1net.org
>>>> >> >> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> > _______________________________________________
>>>> >> > discuss mailing list
>>>> >> > discuss at 1net.org
>>>> >> > http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>>>> >> >
>>>> >>
>>>> >> _______________________________________________
>>>> >> discuss mailing list
>>>> >> discuss at 1net.org
>>>> >> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > --
>>>> > --
>>>> > Jordan Carter
>>>> > Chief Executive, InternetNZ
>>>> >
>>>> > +64-21-442-649 | jordan at internetnz.net.nz
>>>> >
>>>> > Sent on the run, apologies for brevity
>>>> >
>>>> > _______________________________________________
>>>> > discuss mailing list
>>>> > discuss at 1net.org
>>>> > http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > _______________________________________________
>>>> > discuss mailing list
>>>> > discuss at 1net.org
>>>> > http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> discuss mailing list
>>>> discuss at 1net.org
>>>> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> discuss mailing list
>>> discuss at 1net.org
>>> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>>>
>>
>>  _______________________________________________
>> discuss mailing list
>> discuss at 1net.org
>> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> discuss mailing listdiscuss at 1net.orghttp://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>>
>>
>> --
>> `````````````````````````````````
>> anriette esterhuysen
>> executive director
>> association for progressive communications
>> po box 29755, melville, 2109, south africaanriette at apc.orgwww.apc.org
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> discuss mailing listdiscuss at 1net.orghttp://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> discuss mailing listdiscuss at 1net.orghttp://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> discuss mailing list
>> discuss at 1net.org
>> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>>
>>
>>   _______________________________________________
>> discuss mailing list
>> discuss at 1net.org
>> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> discuss mailing list
>> discuss at 1net.org
>> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> discuss mailing listdiscuss at 1net.orghttp://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at 1net.org
> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://1net-mail.1net.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20140827/c94d7eee/attachment-0001.html>