[discuss] Will there be life on 1net after IANA is globalized? (:-)

Naresh Ajwani ajwaninaresh at gmail.com
Thu Mar 13 03:27:59 UTC 2014


Alejendaro,

" ICANN has in motion several complementary outreach programs to increase
participation, diversity and inclusion...."

"Motherhood-and-applepie" statements are always liked but here specifics
that can address concerns would help more: how many new constituencies have
been added, especially since emerging economies started becoming important
stakeholders of internet.

At the cost of being more challenging,  please educate me on empowerment
and not on patronizing.

"... The balance between the methods of both evolves in a complementary
way, enriched by diversity......"

I bow. Need for a middle path is the call.

Regards & best wishes

Naresh Ajwani
On 13 Mar 2014 08:15, "Alejandro Pisanty" <apisanty at gmail.com> wrote:

> Naresh,
>
> ICANN has in motion several complementary outreach programs to increase
> participation, diversity and inclusion. So do several other organizations.
> The statement that these do not exist is counterfactual.
>
> As for inclusion and multistakeholderism: if you look at the published
> statistics of ICANN participation and those of the IGF, you will notice
> that many otherwise disadvantaged or frankly excluded individuals and
> organizations have had a voice and influenced decisions over the years,
> which would not have had any access to them had they constrained themselves
> to in-country mechanisms. Slowly these too have adapte in many countries.
>
> Multistakehodlerism is not predicated ex-ante as a way to solve problems
> and make progress on the Internet and its governance. it is the way these
> were built. It was not built against democracy but as one more of the ways
> of democracy. Many contrapositions of multistakeholder processes against
> democracy are flawed by either a narrow choice of definitions of democracy
> or an insufficient view of how the two are complementary. The balance
> between the methods of both evolves in a complementary way, enriched by
> diversity and facilitated by the loose coupling that gives the Internet its
> remarkable resilience against most threat models known to date.
>
> Yours,
>
> Alejandro Pisanty
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 8:24 PM, Naresh Ajwani <ajwaninaresh at gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> Thanks Greg for the elaborative response. Frankly, it has raised yet more
>> queries, may be because of my firm belief in all inclusiveness and no
>> spiritless processes.
>>
>> "..... In  a sense, the best protection for a potential "minority view"
>> is not to end up as a minority view, but rather to end up influencing the
>> consensus so that it resembles that view to the extent possible, with the
>> result that the consensus is thus acceptable to the group holding what
>> might otherwise have been a minority view....."
>>
>> To the best of my experience, especially  in case of sensitive issues,
>> such spirit is lacking. Be that as it may, you would appreciate that  even
>> in your explained ideal environment, the processes are at the most blending
>> minorty views but not protecting them and that itself, in my view  is
>> against multistakeholderism.  It is a known fact that every stakeholder
>> isn't entitled to same equity and justifiably because internet commenced
>> from one corner of the world.
>>
>> "....... This is not to dismiss the issue of underrepresentation in ICANN
>> or any other entity, or to be blind to the idea that underrepresented
>> groups may have viewpoints that are underrepresented or not represented at
>> all (even as "minority views")......."
>>
>> Your comments have further strengthened my concern over lack of all
>> inclusiveness and despite its acceptance for long, there is no outreach
>> program to expand the existing stakeholders group. It also raises a
>> question on the existing stakeholders who, now advocating  msism vs
>> multilateralism,  seemed to be not bothered at the right time or till the
>> global pressure has been built to this extent.
>>
>> In brief, for any global institutionalization,  all multi issues-language
>> to culture, shud be given their due position and, if in minority, a
>> protection on their concerns as their right.
>>
>> Regards & best wishes
>>
>> Naresh Ajwani
>> On 12 Mar 2014 12:00, "Shatan, Gregory S." <GShatan at reedsmith.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > Naresh:
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Here are my thoughts on and understanding of the process.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > I think the "protection" of first resort for any viewpoint is the
>> consensus process itself.  In a GNSO Working Group (WG), the process of
>> exploration, deliberation, persuasion and negotiation is fairly deliberate
>> and painstaking.  The consensus that emerges from the process is often not
>> the position that any group or groups held coming into the WG, but rather a
>> synthesis of views as a result of the process.  The ideal consensus result
>> is full consensus, and most if not all parties in the consensus process
>> need to move off their initial positions to build consensus (full or
>> rough).  All the parties in the WG participate in defining the consensus,
>> whether they end up signing on to it or not.  So the goal of any group is
>> to move the consensus toward one's own position, while (ideally) moving
>> one's own position toward the emerging consensus.  In  a sense, the best
>> protection for a potential "minority view" is not to end up as a minority
>> view, but rather to end up influencing the consensus so that it resembles
>> that view to the extent possible, with the result that the consensus is
>> thus acceptable to the group holding what might otherwise have been a
>> minority view.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > if after the consensus process, a Consensus forms but there are still
>> parties that disagree with the Consensus, they are entitled to submit a
>> Minority View, which becomes part of the Preliminary Report of the Working
>> Group (WG), which is put out for public comment.  Public comments would
>> typically be submitted by stakeholders in the Minority View position and
>>  those who agree with the Minority View (as well as comments from many
>> other viewpoints).  The WG will review  and consider the comments, which
>> may cause the WG to consider revising the consensus if the comments contain
>> new facts or persuasive argument.  The WG then produces a final report
>> which is again put up for public comment.  The comments are again reviewed
>> and changes may be made at this point as well.  The final report is then
>> submitted by the Working Group to the GNSO Council, which reviews the final
>> report (including the minority view(s)) in considering the recommendations
>> made by the WG.  The minority views might persuade the Council to reject or
>> modify a recommendation.  The recommendations approved by the GNSO Council
>> are passed on to the ICANN Board, which will adopt the recommendations as
>> policy unless voted down by a supermajority vote.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > At this point, I don't think it is an issue of "ensuring the rights of
>> minorities."  The group holding the minority view may not be a "minority"
>> in a sense of the word other than that they supported the losing
>> arguments.  Any group can hold a "minority view."  For any given
>> recommendation, the minority view might be held by the business community,
>> IP interests, civil society, registrars or registries (or there may be no
>> minority view at all).  If a group's view is not adopted by the larger
>> group as a policy recommendation after everything above, that's basically
>> the end of the story in terms of policy development (though as noted above,
>> the view of the larger group will likely have changed due to that party's
>> participation in the process).  The next "protection" will be participating
>> in implementation oversight to ensure that implementation does not depart
>> from policy (at least not in a way that Is detrimental to that group's
>> interests).
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > As far as the question of "minority representation" goes, I am not
>> entirely clear what you are referencing.  At the beginning of the process
>> there are no minorities, in the sense of those holding views different from
>> the majority - simply because no majority has really formed yet.  In a
>> sense, every stakeholder group is a minority of one.  Certainly, there may
>> be groups that are closer to each other in viewpoint, but they may or may
>> not form any kind of majority.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > If what you are referring to are "minorities" in a geographic,
>> national, cultural or ethnic sense, that's a whole different set of
>> questions and answers, that really has little to do with the issue of
>> holding (or potentially holding a "minority view" in the consensus
>> process.  This is not to dismiss the issue of underrepresentation in ICANN
>> or any other entity, or to be blind to the idea that underrepresented
>> groups may have viewpoints that are underrepresented or not represented at
>> all (even as "minority views").  Those are real issues - just not the same
>> issue as how a party in a consensus process can make sure that the result
>> of that process resembles their view as closely as possible.  It's also
>> worth noting that similar views may be held by groups or individuals with
>> widely varied geographic, national, cultural and ethnic backgrounds,
>> whether or not some might be considered "minorities" in some sense of the
>> word and others not.  Indeed, one of the valuable results of the consensus
>> process is to discuss and commingle viewpoints among disparate actors and
>> to arrive at a greater understanding or ideally a common viewpoint at the
>> end of the process.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Greg Shatan
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > From: Naresh Ajwani [mailto:ajwaninaresh at gmail.com]
>> > Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2014 9:57 PM
>> > To: Shatan, Gregory S.
>> > Cc: George Sadowsky; michael gurstein; discuss at 1net.org
>> >
>> > Subject: Re: [discuss] Will there be life on 1net after IANA is
>> globalized? (:-)
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Dear Greg,
>> >
>> > ".......So, there is no such thing as a "veto" by any particular party
>> - if they are in the opposition, they are entitled to submit a Minority
>> View, but they are not entitled to stop a Consensus from being formed...."
>> >
>> > Would you please let us know that how this process addresses minority
>> representation?
>> >
>> > U wud appreciate that democracy is not only about majority or so
>> explained consensus but ensuring the rights of minorities too.
>> >
>> > Regards & best wishes
>> >
>> > Naresh Ajwani
>> >
>> > On 11 Mar 2014 22:10, "Shatan, Gregory S." <GShatan at reedsmith.com>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > <snip>
>> >
>> > And I'm not sure what a Mulstatkeholderist approach can contribute
>> here.  I don't see that a "consensus" position is either possible nor
>> necessarily desirable--what kind of consensus position could a Google sign
>> on to in the case I've just pointed. I for one wouldn't particularly want
>> the range of options to be considered in the political/policy forum to be
>> subject to a veto by Google as would presumably be required by a MSist
>> approach with consensus outputs. Similarly even entering into the MSist
>> context would to my mind be disempowering in an instance such as this given
>> the depth of resources--human, financial, political/influential which a
>> Google could toss at the issue and which would in an enforced MSist (and
>> regrettably it seems in the broader political contexts as well), be
>> effectively and practically overwhelming.
>> >
>> > <snip>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Michael:
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Actually, your presumptions are incorrect.  This is not how
>> multistakeholderism and consensus actually works, at least not within the
>> ICANN GNSO.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > First, "consensus" in that context (among others) is actually what some
>> others call "rough consensus."  The GNSO operates under levels of consensus
>> (termed Full Consensus (unanimity), Consensus (some opposition), Strong
>> Support But Significant Opposition, and Divergence (no prevailing view)).
>> So, there is no such thing as a "veto" by any particular party - if they
>> are in the opposition, they are entitled to submit a Minority View, but
>> they are not entitled to stop a Consensus from being formed.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Second, the primary level on which multistakeholder consensus-building
>> takes place is the "stakeholder representative" level, not the
>> self-interested individual level.  While there can certainly be
>> "self-interest" involved, individuals who look out for the needs of their
>> employer rather than the stakeholders they represent tend to get
>> "disciplined" by the process (by other reps of the same stakeholder group,
>> by the stakeholder group generally, and even by representatives of other
>> stakeholder groups who are protecting the integrity of the process).
>> Someone who is clearly advancing an entity position tends to get push-back.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Third, the multistakeholder process tends to blunt perceived advantages
>> based on purported "depth of resources."  When business, IP, ISP,
>> registrar, registry, civil society, ALAC, nonprofit, etc., representatives
>> get on a call or in a room, the process of stating positions, discussion,
>> negotiation and attempts to develop consensus (and/or minority views) is
>> really quite equal - a civil society rep from Morocco has just much of an
>> opportunity to shape the discussion as an ISP rep from Virginia.  Resources
>> (beyond travel budgets) really don't get you all that much in the MS
>> process.  (They may get you more in working around the MS process, which is
>> an argument to strengthen MSism, not to weaken it.)  Frankly, having been
>> involved in ICANN for a few years, I think that there is little truth to
>> the idea that private sector companies generally throw vast resources at
>> ICANN matters.  Entities for which domain names and the domain name
>> business are central may devote resources to ICANN matters, but for the
>> private sector generally, this area gets little attention and few resources.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Given the above, the multistakeholder approach is actually incredibly
>> empowering.  As  a participant in a number of ICANN working groups, I've
>> been incredibly impressed by the work ethic, intelligence, mutual respect,
>> ability to air and influence views and consensus-building energy that is
>> the hallmark of multistakeholderism done well.  The multistakeholder
>> approach, in concert with transparency and accountability, actually acts a
>> "check and balance" system, making it difficult for any one stakeholder
>> group's positions to dominate, much less the positions of a single
>> stakeholder.  I think it's the best hope for the voice of disparate groups
>> to influence policy and practice.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > I would urge you to familiarize yourself more with multistakeholderism
>> in practice at ICANN (and elsewhere) before you jump to conclusions about
>> its application.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Greg Shatan
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > From: discuss-bounces at 1net.org [mailto:discuss-bounces at 1net.org] On
>> Behalf Of michael gurstein
>> > Sent: Friday, March 07, 2014 5:04 PM
>> > To: 'George Sadowsky'; discuss at 1net.org
>> > Subject: Re: [discuss] Will there be life on 1net after IANA is
>> globalized? (:-)
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > George,
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > A problem with this approach to the "social" is that it fails to
>> recognize that many/most/all of the issues which would fall into the
>> "social" layer (and many of those associated with these in other layers as
>> well) are essentially "political" issues i.e. ones where there are
>> significant differences not simply of (technical or other) opinion (or
>> which could be easily resolvable through some sort of consensus building
>> process). Rather they are issues where there is a distinct
>> difference/conflict  of values/norms/interests which ultimately have to do
>> with power and who controls a situation sufficiently to determine how
>> rewards/benefits/outcomes are distributed.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > More or less subtle attempts to "depoliticize" these issues is in fact
>> an attempt to divert attention away from the very real clash of interests
>> in these areas. Is my digital identity something that belongs to me along
>> with all of the data that accrues to that identity or is it a "profile"
>> that belongs to Google where they can use that as a basis to slice and dice
>> all the attributable data and then sell it on as a means to
>> manage/manipulate/market me in the digital marketplace? This isn't a
>> "technical" question (nor a "social" question whatever that could be)
>> rather it is a "political" question which could become the basis for
>> mobilization, political organizing, political contestation (one can presume
>> that Google et al will not want their "ownership" of my digital identity to
>> be transferred back to me) and ultimately clashes of political opinion out
>> of which policy would emerge where the (monopoly) power of the State would
>> of necessity be used to enforce the distribution/redistribution of
>> benefits/determination of relative positions and so on. .
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > And I'm not sure what a Mulstatkeholderist approach can contribute
>> here.  I don't see that a "consensus" position is either possible nor
>> necessarily desirable--what kind of consensus position could a Google sign
>> on to in the case I've just pointed. I for one wouldn't particularly want
>> the range of options to be considered in the political/policy forum to be
>> subject to a veto by Google as would presumably be required by a MSist
>> approach with consensus outputs. Similarly even entering into the MSist
>> context would to my mind be disempowering in an instance such as this given
>> the depth of resources--human, financial, political/influential which a
>> Google could toss at the issue and which would in an enforced MSist (and
>> regrettably it seems in the broader political contexts as well), be
>> effectively and practically overwhelming.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Mike
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > From: discuss-bounces at 1net.org [mailto:discuss-bounces at 1net.org] On
>> Behalf Of George Sadowsky
>> > Sent: Friday, March 07, 2014 10:37 AM
>> > To: discuss at 1net.org List
>> > Subject: [discuss] Will there be life on 1net after IANA is globalized?
>> (:-)
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > All,
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Purpose: What topics in Internet governance should 1net focus upon?
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Discussion on this list has focused heavily on the future of IANA, as
>> well as on human rights issues.  Those are certainly appropriate topics for
>> the Brazil meeting, but if 1net is to have a longer life, then there may
>> well be other topics included in Internet governance that do merit
>> attention.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Context
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > I'd like to talk about this more after introducing a couple of diagrams
>> and some text from a publication forthcoming in I/S: A Journal of Law and
>> Policy for the Information Society   (www.is-journal.org)  It is titled
>> "Internet governance is out Shared Responsibility," by Vint Cerf, {Patrick
>> Ryan, and Max Senges.  I take the following from a draft version of the
>> paper, subject to final edits.  In my view, it's an excellent paper and
>> should be read by anyone involved in Internet governance discussions.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Among other things, the authors propose a layering of issues in
>> Internet governance according to their relative position between strictly
>> technical and strictly social.  A number of such models have been proposed.
>>  One proposed earlier on this list by Brian Carpenter, and augmented by a
>> set of his slides, was an extremely good and thorough exposition of this
>> concept.  ISOC has published something similar, using a different approach
>> to displaying the results.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > The paper proposes adding a social layer to the normal stack of issues,
>> as in the chart below.  I believe that the specific issues listed are meant
>> to be examples, because they are certainly not exhaustive of the issues at
>> any of the four layers.  Of course, many problems in this space do not live
>> exclusively in just one layer, but 'bleed' somewhat into adjacent layers.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >             Illustration 1 - Social Layer Added to the Established
>> Layered Model
>> >
>> >                                                  of Internet Governance
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > The authors state:
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > "We provide this conceptualization in order to trigger discussion about
>> which institutions and stakeholder groups should legitimately be involved
>> in which Internet policy issues. Put differently, we believe that it will be
>> >
>> > beneficial to the operation of the whole online ecosystem if the
>> mandates of institutions are mapped and clarified with regard to their
>> relevance in steering Internet governance practices and policymaking."
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > "Hence, Illustration 2 shows a schematic example of mapping of
>> institutions with relevant mandates overlaid on the layers of Internet
>> governance.  Here we show the IGF is positioned in the center as it has no
>> decision-making mandate itself but is instead, it is positioned to
>> facilitate and moderate said decision making to take place elsewhere. In
>> Clark's terminology, at the IGF, we're separating the "tussles" in a forum
>> where they can be analyzed in workshops and discussion sessions and then
>> brought back to the various other forums for decisions."
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > This approach to defining shared responsibility for Internet governance
>> is not new.  ICANN has published its view of this, and a extraordinarily
>> good and thorough presentation of analysis of this type has been made by
>> David Souter and is well worth reading.  In the above display, national
>> governments and their various agencies are totally missing, and that seems
>> to be to be a fundamental flaw, but one that can be easily corrected.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > The space of Internet governance issues
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > The 1net discussions until now have focused primarily upon Internet
>> naming and numbering (the logical layer) on the one hand, and human rights
>> issues with respect to the Internet (the social layer).  This perhaps
>> appropriate given the announced focus of the Brazil meeting. However, the
>> Brazil meeting is just one in a number of meetings, and the purple of 1net
>> goes well beyond that meeting.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > However, Internet governance is much more than names and addresses.
>>  And in fact, in terms of stability of operations, the current use of names
>> and addresses by Internet users to actually do things using the Internet is
>> working remarkably well.  On the other had, most of the other examples in
>> the first chart above, where the Internet is colliding with existing
>> activities and changing the nature of processes, is not working nearly as
>> well as we would like.  To be sure, the problems are more difficult, and
>> require a different set of actors to solve, but that is no reason for not
>> discussing them.  In fact, there is every reason to address this set of
>> issues in order to start to solve them.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Consider just the content layer for the moment.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Many of the issues in this layer depend locally upon adequate
>> legislation and regulation that depends on a balance between freedom for
>> and restrictions on behavior and actions, both sides of the balance being
>> supported by social goals.  At the international level, cooperation
>> requires a minimum of agreement regarding that balance so that
>> international cooperation among nation governments can take place.  What
>> initiatives might make it possible to achieve both appropriate structures
>> at the national level and coordinated structures at the international level
>> to make this happen.  Do we need an UNCITRAL-type movement to work toward
>> these goals?  Among the issues affected are:
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >             - Addressing cybercrime activities effectively
>> >
>> >             - Understanding and ameliorating the spam situation
>> >
>> >             - ISP liability issues for content stored and/or transmitted
>> >
>> >             - Consumer protection
>> >
>> >             - Electronic document status (contracts, etc.)
>> >
>> >             - Regulatory and legislative environment -- effects on
>> Internet access and pricing
>> >
>> >             - Competition policy within country and internationally
>> >
>> >             - Policy/support for community services
>> >
>> >             - Culture with respect to private data of individuals
>> (tracking, advertising, etc.)
>> >
>> >             - Intellectual property rights
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > I suspect that most everyone on this list can expand it with their own
>> issue of importance.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > These are areas where intensive national government involvement is
>> absolutely essential.  Where are these issues being discussed in a way that
>> has the possibility of dramatically improving these situations?  Does the
>> 1net list have any claim to, or responsibility for, addressing this area?
>>  It certainly is a part of Internet governance?
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Bertrand de la Chapelle has been discussing the international dimension
>> of these issues in his cross-boundary jurisdiction project, and he is
>> raising really important issues and providing insights into the nature of
>> this problem.  However, as much if not more attention needs to be paid to
>> these issues at the national level.  Where are national governments being
>> faced with these issues as a part of their responsibilities.  How can other
>> sectors assist in making this happen?  Which other actors play a part in
>> improving things, and is this happening.  How can 1net comment meaningfully
>> on these issues?
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Concluding ...
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Using the working definition of Internet governance adopted by the WGIG
>> in 2005:
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >             Internet governance is the development and application
>> >
>> >             by Governments, the private sector and civil society,
>> >
>> >             in their respective roles, of shared principles, norms,
>> >
>> >             rules, decision-making procedures, and programmes
>> >
>> >             that shape the evolution and use of the Internet.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > How might the discussions on 1net be enlarged in a productive manner to
>> address some of the issue areas included in the above definition, other
>> than the ones that have received extensive discussion to date?  Define this
>> as problem no. 2, if you like, but its really a meta-problem.   The real
>> problems are the ones listed above.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > George
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > * * *
>> >
>> > This E-mail, along with any attachments, is considered confidential and
>> may well be legally privileged. If you have received it in error, you are
>> on notice of its status. Please notify us immediately by reply e-mail and
>> then delete this message from your system. Please do not copy it or use it
>> for any purposes, or disclose its contents to any other person. Thank you
>> for your cooperation.
>> >
>> > * * *
>> >
>> > To ensure compliance with Treasury Department regulations, we inform
>> you that, unless otherwise indicated in writing, any U.S. Federal tax
>> advice contained in this communication  (including any attachments) is not
>> intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (1)
>> avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or applicable state and
>> local provisions or (2) promoting, marketing or recommending to another
>> party any tax-related matters addressed herein.
>> >
>> > Disclaimer Version RS.US.20.10.00
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > 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
>>
>
>
>
> --
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>      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/20140313/ebdc269f/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the discuss mailing list