[discuss] discuss Digest, Vol 9, Issue 53
Jordan Carter
jordan at internetnz.net.nz
Wed Aug 27 03:49:51 UTC 2014
I've found their search engine still references some docs when you type in
Internet Governance, e.g.
http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_2NETmundialInitiativeFAQ.pdf
http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_1NetmundialInitiativeBrief.pdf
http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_3NETmundialInitiativeLaunchAgenda.pdf
there may be more, I haven't time to look further.
Jordan
On 27 August 2014 15:26, Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca
> wrote:
> I find this very odd. Goes to show one has to print what one finds these
> days, lest it disappear. Had I printed it last week when I went over it in
> some detail, I would happily scan and send it to you but sadly I don't
> think I did, except for copying a few bits I ranted about in selected
> emails...
> Good luck and we look forward to the article!
> Cheers Stephanie Perrin
>
> On 14-08-26 10:33 PM, Phil Corwin wrote:
>
>> I just checked again and the website is still blocked.
>>
>> I don't know if this is a technical issue or a deliberate attempt to meet
>> behind closed doors. If the latter that would not seem to be in keeping
>> with the "Spirit of NETmundial".
>>
>> When I went to the website last week there was a detailed agenda and
>> timetable, a list of participants (or maybe invitees), and a URL for
>> watching the webcast.
>>
>> I went back because I am in the midst of writing an article about the
>> Initiative; it will have a different ending if the details of the
>> Initiative have now been locked away. If anyone captured any of that data
>> before it disappeared I would appreciate having it shared. Thank you.
>>
>> Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal
>> Virtualaw LLC
>> 1155 F Street, NW
>> Suite 1050
>> Washington, DC 20004
>> 202-559-8597/Direct
>> 202-559-8750/Fax
>> 202-255-6172/cell
>>
>> Twitter: @VlawDC
>> "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Shane Tews [mailto:sjtews at gmail.com]
>> Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 7:42 PM
>> To: Phil Corwin
>> Cc: discuss at 1net.org
>> Subject: Re: [discuss] discuss Digest, Vol 9, Issue 53
>>
>> I received the same message
>> SHANE TEWS
>> shane.tews at 463.com
>> 202-669-1200
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Aug 26, 2014, at 7:17 PM, Phil Corwin <psc at vlaw-dc.com> wrote:
>>
>> Anyone know what is going on with this WEF-GIG Initiative?
>>>
>>> I just clicked on the link http://cp.mcafee.com/d/
>>> 5fHCNESyNsQsTd7bZPhOyrKrhKOCOCYMYCrhKOCOCY-
>>> eodETpjpjuoupdETpjpjussjdQ9X3-DVywaospVsSMUPOVJcw-ywWO_R-
>>> hjd7by9EVd7fnKnjKUeVd55-ZSemKzp55mWbfaxVZicHs3jq9JdwTs
>>> TsS02cuXmbqL00sBizvQMyvkxFVuk9_46BOdjfNxIburgBiPta5O5mUm-
>>> wah1L00jrbXX1EVdwLQzh0qmQ9kITixFtd424GmrFgQg1QyfQC0pEw3djPh0
>>> qeg3d40rizvCy1ZASM-rt8SQPpMj to jot down some information about the
>>> 8/28 meeting, and what I got was this:
>>>
>>> Sorry, access denied. You are not authorized to access this page.
>>>
>>> That's not very transparent.
>>>
>>>
>>> Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal
>>> Virtualaw LLC
>>> 1155 F Street, NW
>>> Suite 1050
>>> Washington, DC 20004
>>> 202-559-8597/Direct
>>> 202-559-8750/Fax
>>> 202-255-6172/cell
>>>
>>> Twitter: @VlawDC
>>>
>>> "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: discuss-bounces at 1net.org [mailto:discuss-bounces at 1net.org] On
>>> Behalf Of discuss-request at 1net.org
>>> Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 7:13 PM
>>> To: discuss at 1net.org
>>> Subject: discuss Digest, Vol 9, Issue 53
>>>
>>> Send discuss mailing list submissions to
>>> discuss at 1net.org
>>>
>>> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>>>
>>> http://cp.mcafee.com/d/k-Kr41Aq6x0SyNsQsTd7bZPhOyrKrhKOCOCYMYCrhKOCOCY
>>> -eodETpjpjuoupdETpjpjussjdQ9X3-DVywaospVsSMUPOVJcw-ywWO_R-hjd7by9EVd7f
>>> nKnjKUeVd55-ZSemKzp55mWbfaxVZicHs3jqpJdwTsTsS03h1FsjV46Y01MjlS67OFek7q
>>> UxaBCWkdEiFpKB2V2Hsbvg58wTw09JBZZwQsCMnWhEwdbq4GmrFgQKCy12lbdQEq80Wh7W
>>> j0cQg1CFVEwd781Cy0dFhLPh0-OrovdOeEo
>>> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>>> discuss-request at 1net.org
>>>
>>> You can reach the person managing the list at
>>> discuss-owner at 1net.org
>>>
>>> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than
>>> "Re: Contents of discuss digest..."
>>>
>>>
>>> Today's Topics:
>>>
>>> 1. Re: NetMundial Initiative (Pindar Wong)
>>>
>>>
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> Message: 1
>>> Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2014 07:12:44 +0800
>>> From: Pindar Wong <pindar.wong at gmail.com>
>>> To: Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>
>>> Cc: "discuss at 1net.org" <discuss at 1net.org>
>>> Subject: Re: [discuss] NetMundial Initiative
>>> Message-ID:
>>> <CAM7BtUrAzZpis+857LUrf19NdZLBm7WHCUPDuDzsG68m
>>> 0Q5+Ww at mail.gmail.com>
>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>>>
>>> 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://cp.mcafee.com/d/k-Kr6h0SyNsQsTd7bZPhOyrKrhKOCOCYMYCrhKOCOCY
>>>>> -eodETpjpjuoupdETpjpjussjdQ9X3-DVywaospVsSMUPOVJcw-ywWO_R-hjd7by9EVd
>>>>> 7fnKnjKUeVd55-ZSemKzp55mWbfaxVZicHs3jr9JdwTsTsS02cuXmbqL00snlrxasLEr
>>>>> gBiPta5O5mUm-wah1L00jrbXX1EVdwLQzh0qmQ9kITixFtd424GmrFgQg1QyfQC0pEw3
>>>>> djPh0qeg3d40rizvCy1ZASM-rjVvh. 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
>>>>>>>> http://cp.mcafee.com/d/FZsSd20AcCQmbCzCVEVvKqekjtPqdSkSkTC7APqdSk
>>>>>>>> SkTDNP1J6XararP3P9J6XararPzypKxfovQ_ck1j3zfbCS76undFA7Qk7mn-LOapE
>>>>>>>> Vshd79EVWZOWtT1T9EELTKNORQr8EGThpVkffGhBrwqrodFI6XCXCOsVHkiPfttU0
>>>>>>>> 2rgBiPta5O5mUm-wah1L00jrbXX1EVdwLQzh0qmQ9kITixFtd424GmrFgQg1QyfQC
>>>>>>>> 0pEw3djPh0qeg3d40rizvCy1ZASM-rc29kpnCA
>>>>>>>> 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://cp.mcafee.com/d/avndygw82gOrhoKqerCzB-VEVhdTdETpjpjuouj
>>>>>>>>>>> dETpjpjuv7c6QrIFIFLcfcCQrIFIFLee9CW4Zx_jYNg5cecYKrospVsSCgvhgt
>>>>>>>>>>> pvW_8FCzBN4QsCzDHTbFTs7sCyy_uX7bnhIyyHt5DBgY-F6lK1FJYSCMrKrKr0
>>>>>>>>>>> 1EwQK9Yy3u00U9GX33VkDa3JsgBiPta6Q9kITixsxlK5LE2AgrM04SO--Mqejo
>>>>>>>>>>> bZ8Qg6BJ2lbdQEqnjh0xaBCWkd40t8zZ9w6q80PkYQg6zA0Ph06QETVEwvpdIf
>>>>>>>>>>> CRzuL
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>> discuss mailing list
>>>>>>>>>> discuss at 1net.org
>>>>>>>>>> http://cp.mcafee.com/d/5fHCN0SyNsQsTd7bZPhOyrKrhKOCOCYMYCrhKOCO
>>>>>>>>>> CY-eodETpjpjuoupdETpjpjussjdQ9X3-DVywaospVsSMUPOVJcw-ywWO_R-hjd
>>>>>>>>>> 7by9EVd7fnKnjKUeVd55-ZSemKzp55mWbfaxVZicHs3jrxJdwTsTsS03h1FsjV4
>>>>>>>>>> 6Y01MjlS67OFek7qUxaBCWkdEiFpKB2V2Hsbvg58wTw09JBZZwQsCMnWhEwdbq4
>>>>>>>>>> GmrFgQKCy12lbdQEq80Wh7Wj0cQg1CFVEwd781Cy0dFhLPh0-OrovdXMIGguePu
>>>>>>>>>> 6wj
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>> discuss mailing list
>>>>>>>>> discuss at 1net.org
>>>>>>>>> http://cp.mcafee.com/d/k-Kr4xAg43qb5PhPsQsLTd7a9KVJ6XararP3OpJ6X
>>>>>>>>> ararPUVwSztBdBdVxVASztBdBdVNNcTgDIfWvCa0FxNDBPr3zfbCQO3Wa3Hb_nV5
>>>>>>>>> cQsK8CzAQsZuVteXwXAQknXToVqWdAklrEIYG7DR8OJMddzzqr1KVKVI06y3iUDO
>>>>>>>>> 8dU03wCHIcfBisEeRN2lbdQErgBiPta5O5mUm-wah1L00jrbXX1EVdwLQzh0qmQ9
>>>>>>>>> kITixFtd424GmrFgQg1QyfQC0pEw3djPh0qeg3d40rizvCy1ZASM-ru_n9b14
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> 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://cp.mcafee.com/d/k-Kr6xESyNsQsTd7bZPhOyrKrhKOCOCYMYCrhKOCOC
>>>>>>>> Y-eodETpjpjuoupdETpjpjussjdQ9X3-DVywaospVsSMUPOVJcw-ywWO_R-hjd7by
>>>>>>>> 9EVd7fnKnjKUeVd55-ZSemKzp55mWbfaxVZicHs3jrNJdwTsTsS03h1FsjV46Y01M
>>>>>>>> jlS67OFek7qUxaBCWkdEiFpKB2V2Hsbvg58wTw09JBZZwQsCMnWhEwdbq4GmrFgQK
>>>>>>>> Cy12lbdQEq80Wh7Wj0cQg1CFVEwd781Cy0dFhLPh0-Orovdzdzk
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> discuss mailing list
>>>>>>>> discuss at 1net.org
>>>>>>>> http://cp.mcafee.com/d/5fHCMUg43qb5PhPsQsLTd7a9KVJ6XararP3OpJ6Xar
>>>>>>>> arPUVwSztBdBdVxVASztBdBdVNNcTgDIfWvCa0FxNDBPr3zfbCQO3Wa3Hb_nV5cQs
>>>>>>>> K8CzAQsZuVteXwXAQknXToVqWdAklrEIYG7DR8OJMddCzASCMrKrKr01EwQK9Yy3u
>>>>>>>> 00U9GX33VkDa3JsgBiPta6Q9kITixsxlK5LE2AgrM04SO--MqejobZ8Qg6BJ2lbdQ
>>>>>>>> Eqnjh0xaBCWkd40t8zZ9w6q80PkYQg6zA0Ph06QETVEwvpdIfCVZuPpSIC
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> discuss mailing list
>>>>>>> discuss at 1net.org
>>>>>>> http://cp.mcafee.com/d/2DRPosrhoKqerCzB-VEVhdTdETpjpjuoujdETpjpjuv
>>>>>>> 7c6QrIFIFLcfcCQrIFIFLee9CW4Zx_jYNg5cecYKrospVsSCgvhgtpvW_8FCzBN4Qs
>>>>>>> CzDHTbFTs7sCyy_uX7bnhIyyHt5DBgY-F6lK1FJ6VJdwTsTsS03h1FsjV46Y01MjlS
>>>>>>> 67OFek7qUxaBCWkdEiFpKB2V2Hsbvg58wTw09JBZZwQsCMnWhEwdbq4GmrFgQKCy12
>>>>>>> lbdQEq80Wh7Wj0cQg1CFVEwd781Cy0dFhLPh0-OrovdIaZP
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> discuss mailing list
>>>>>> discuss at 1net.org
>>>>>> http://cp.mcafee.com/d/FZsS721J5yVEVKqenXCzB4TsSztBdBdVxVcSztBdBdVY
>>>>>> sMrhKOCOCYMYOrhKOCOCYUUCrEjS7ZfP50kMUPOVJxNDBPqp1Z51RB_HYyCqen4jhOq
>>>>>> euLsKDtMtOqabZXIsJt6OaaJQmul3PWApmU6CQkjqr1KVKVI06y3iUDO8dU03wCHIcf
>>>>>> BisEeRN2lbdQErgBiPta5O5mUm-wah1L00jrbXX1EVdwLQzh0qmQ9kITixFtd424Gmr
>>>>>> FgQg1QyfQC0pEw3djPh0qeg3d40rizvCy1ZASM-ryiL0
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> discuss mailing list
>>>>> discuss at 1net.org
>>>>> http://cp.mcafee.com/d/avndz8ArhoKqerCzB-VEVhdTdETpjpjuoujdETpjpjuv7
>>>>> c6QrIFIFLcfcCQrIFIFLee9CW4Zx_jYNg5cecYKrospVsSCgvhgtpvW_8FCzBN4QsCzD
>>>>> HTbFTs7sCyy_uX7bnhIyyHt5DBgY-F6lK1FJ5cSCMrKrKr01EwQK9Yy3u00U9GX33VkD
>>>>> a3JsgBiPta6Q9kITixsxlK5LE2AgrM04SO--MqejobZ8Qg6BJ2lbdQEqnjh0xaBCWkd4
>>>>> 0t8zZ9w6q80PkYQg6zA0Ph06QETVEwvpdIfCPOtFkr2s
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> discuss mailing
>>>>> listdiscuss at 1net.orghttp://cp.mcafee.com/d/avndxNJ5yVEVKqenXCzB4TsSz
>>>>> tBdBdVxVcSztBdBdVYsMrhKOCOCYMYOrhKOCOCYUUCrEjS7ZfP50kMUPOVJxNDBPqp1Z
>>>>> 51RB_HYyCqen4jhOqeuLsKDtMtOqabZXIsJt6OaaJQmul3PWApmU6CQmjqr1KVKVI06y
>>>>> 3iUDO8dU03wCHIcfBisEeRN2lbdQdEiFpKB2V2Hsbvg58wTw09JBZZwQsCMnWhEwdbq4
>>>>> GmrFgQKCy12lbdQEq80Wh7Wj0cQg1CFVEwd781Cy0dFhLPh0-OrovdIiJq
>>>>> s
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> `````````````````````````````````
>>>>> 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://cp.mcafee.com/d/1jWVIp3xASyNsQsTd7bZPhOyr
>>>>> KrhKOCOCYMYCrhKOCOCY-eodETpjpjuoupdETpjpjussjdQ9X3-DVywaospVsSMUPOVJ
>>>>> cw-ywWO_R-hjd7by9EVd7fnKnjKUeVd55-ZSemKzp55mWbfaxVZicHs3jqb1JdwTsTsS
>>>>> 03h1FsjV46Y01MjlS67OFek7qUxaBCW6Q9kITixsxlK5LE2AgrM04SO--MqejobZ8Qg6
>>>>> BJ2lbdQEqnjh0xaBCWkd40t8zZ9w6q80PkYQg6zA0Ph06QETVEwvpdIfCS1G0uxlO
>>>>> s
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> discuss mailing
>>>>> listdiscuss at 1net.orghttp://cp.mcafee.com/d/1jWVIg4xAg6jqb5PhPsQsLTd7
>>>>> a9KVJ6XararP3OpJ6XararPUVwSztBdBdVxVASztBdBdVNNcTgDIfWvCa0FxNDBPr3zf
>>>>> bCQO3Wa3Hb_nV5cQsK8CzAQsZuVteXwXAQknXToVqWdAklrEIYG7DR8OJMddELCQS3tP
>>>>> tPo0d46BNfAgrM071dnoovaAVgtHy4GmrErgBiPta5O5mUm-wah1L00jrbXX1EVdwLQz
>>>>> h0qmQ9kITixFtd424GmrFgQg1QyfQC0pEw3djPh0qeg3d40rizvCy1ZASM-rFX9iwb9X
>>>>> s
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> discuss mailing list
>>>>> discuss at 1net.org
>>>>> http://cp.mcafee.com/d/5fHCN0e410SyNsQsTd7bZPhOyrKrhKOCOCYMYCrhKOCOC
>>>>> Y-eodETpjpjuoupdETpjpjussjdQ9X3-DVywaospVsSMUPOVJcw-ywWO_R-hjd7by9EV
>>>>> d7fnKnjKUeVd55-ZSemKzp55mWbfaxVZicHs3jqbxJdwTsTsS03h1FsjV46Y01MjlS67
>>>>> OFek7qUxaBCWkdEiFpKB2V2Hsbvg58wTw09JBZZwQsCMnWhEwdbq4GmrFgQKCy12lbdQ
>>>>> Eq80Wh7Wj0cQg1CFVEwd781Cy0dFhLPh0-OrovdxFnXcGkO
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> discuss mailing list
>>>>> discuss at 1net.org
>>>>> http://cp.mcafee.com/d/k-Kr41Ag410SyNsQsTd7bZPhOyrKrhKOCOCYMYCrhKOCO
>>>>> CY-eodETpjpjuoupdETpjpjussjdQ9X3-DVywaospVsSMUPOVJcw-ywWO_R-hjd7by9E
>>>>> Vd7fnKnjKUeVd55-ZSemKzp55mWbfaxVZicHs3jq8USCMrKrKr01EwQK9Yy3u00U9GX3
>>>>> 3VkDa3JsgBiPta6Q9kITixsxlK5LE2AgrM04SO--MqejobZ8Qg6BJ2lbdQEqnjh0xaBC
>>>>> Wkd40t8zZ9w6q80PkYQg6zA0Ph06QETVEwvpdIfCYj6K25T3fQWl
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> discuss mailing list
>>>>> discuss at 1net.org
>>>>> http://cp.mcafee.com/d/FZsS83gOrhoKqerCzB-VEVhdTdETpjpjuoujdETpjpjuv
>>>>> 7c6QrIFIFLcfcCQrIFIFLee9CW4Zx_jYNg5cecYKrospVsSCgvhgtpvW_8FCzBN4QsCz
>>>>> DHTbFTs7sCyy_uX7bnhIyyHt5DBgY-F6lK1FJ5USCMrKrKr01EwQK9Yy3u00U9GX33Vk
>>>>> Da3JsgBiPta6Q9kITixsxlK5LE2AgrM04SO--MqejobZ8Qg6BJ2lbdQEqnjh0xaBCWkd
>>>>> 40t8zZ9w6q80PkYQg6zA0Ph06QETVEwvpdIfCZaQR
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> discuss mailing
>>>> listdiscuss at 1net.orghttp://cp.mcafee.com/d/k-Kr410qdEInd7dPhO_sQsECXC
>>>> QrIFIFLcf9CQrIFIFLfzC3qdSkSkTC7CjqdSkSkTD74Pt2uM_F-oE2C76undIecYKrj8f
>>>> EEeILZvAkPhOUyqejhPRXBQXK3KjhhvLtzBHEShhlKyPOEuvkzaT0QSyqejqr1KVKVI06
>>>> y3iUDO8dU03wCHIcfBisEeRN2lbdQErgBiPta5O5mUm-wah1L00jrbXX1EVdwLQzh0qmQ
>>>> 9kITixFtd424GmrFgQg1QyfQC0pEw3djPh0qeg3d40rizvCy1ZASM-rUtYg62hOkxt1
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> discuss mailing list
>>>> discuss at 1net.org
>>>> http://cp.mcafee.com/d/5fHCMUp3x0SyNsQsTd7bZPhOyrKrhKOCOCYMYCrhKOCOCY
>>>> -eodETpjpjuoupdETpjpjussjdQ9X3-DVywaospVsSMUPOVJcw-ywWO_R-hjd7by9EVd7
>>>> fnKnjKUeVd55-ZSemKzp55mWbfaxVZicHs3jqtPqr1KVKVI06y3iUDO8dU03wCHIcfBis
>>>> EeRN2lbdQErgBiPta5O5mUm-wah1L00jrbXX1EVdwLQzh0qmQ9kITixFtd424GmrFgQg1
>>>> QyfQC0pEw3djPh0qeg3d40rizvCy1ZASM-rv_MC
>>>>
>>>> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was
>>> scrubbed...
>>> URL:
>>> <http://cp.mcafee.com/d/5fHCMUe6jqb5PhPsQsLTd7a9KVJ6XararP3OpJ6XararPU
>>> VwSztBdBdVxVASztBdBdVNNcTgDIfWvCa0FxNDBPr3zfbCQO3Wa3Hb_nV5cQsK8CzAQsZu
>>> VteXwXAQknXToVqWdAklrEIYG7DR8OJMddFECQS3tPtPo0d46BNfAgrM075Fbv4jN2lbdQ
>>> FCPDJyqLMDj4XEInuj7poQsI83L_YSsZIjl-4-1NJ2lbdQEn8lrxrW0F46Y01dILLI6zAS
>>> 2_id41FrgBiPta6BQQg8iFpKB3h07i8_io1Cy0cRfd41EV0cQg1Jad-q87Sjr3VJltysaK
>>> p9MBH>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> discuss mailing list
>>> discuss at 1net.org
>>> http://cp.mcafee.com/d/5fHCNAp4xASyNsQsTd7bZPhOyrKrhKOCOCYMYCrhKOCOCY-
>>> eodETpjpjuoupdETpjpjussjdQ9X3-DVywaospVsSMUPOVJcw-ywWO_R-hjd7by9EVd7fn
>>> KnjKUeVd55-ZSemKzp55mWbfaxVZicHs3jqqpJdwTsTsS03h1Fsjh1L00s4RtxxYGjB1SK
>>> 8iFpKB3q4GmrFgKgGT2TQ1i8dU02rpvvod79I5-Aq83iSxaBCWkdbFEwgBiPta6y0eAh-A
>>> M3d40pGuq83hO0pEw3qkrYQgfICS7PteRqkte81ptM
>>>
>>> End of discuss Digest, Vol 9, Issue 53
>>> **************************************
>>>
>>> -----
>>> No virus found in this message.
>>> Checked by AVG -
>>> http://cp.mcafee.com/d/avndzgQcy1J5yVEVKqenXCzB4TsSztBdBdVxVcSztBdBdVY
>>> sMrhKOCOCYMYOrhKOCOCYUUCrEjS7ZfP50kMUPOVJxNDBPqp1Z51RB_HYyCqen4jhOqeuL
>>> sKDtMtOqabZXIsJt6OaaJQmul3PWApmU6CQSjqr1KVKVIFSCifbCQ9kITixsxlK5LE2Agr
>>> M04SO--MqejobZ8Qg6BJ2lbdQEqnjh0xaBCWkd40t8zZ9w6q80PkYQg6zA0Ph06QETVEwv
>>> pdIfCNjiqAD8gddPZ
>>> Version: 2014.0.4716 / Virus Database: 3986/7992 - Release Date:
>>> 08/06/14 Internal Virus Database is out of date.
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> discuss mailing list
>>> discuss at 1net.org
>>> http://cp.mcafee.com/d/2DRPoOd1MsrhoKqerCzB-VEVhdTdETpjpjuoujdETpjpjuv
>>> 7c6QrIFIFLcfcCQrIFIFLee9CW4Zx_jYNg5cecYKrospVsSCgvhgtpvW_8FCzBN4QsCzDH
>>> TbFTs7sCyy_uX7bnhIyyHt5DBgY-F6lK1FJdwSCMrKrKr01EwQK9Yy3u00U9GX33VkDa3J
>>> sgBiPta6Q9kITixsxlK5LE2AgrM04SO--MqejobZ8Qg6BJ2lbdQEqnjh0xaBCWkd40t8zZ
>>> 9w6q80PkYQg6zA0Ph06QETVEwvpdIfCSx5c
>>>
>>
>> -----
>> No virus found in this message.
>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>> Version: 2014.0.4716 / Virus Database: 3986/7992 - Release Date: 08/06/14
>> Internal Virus Database is out of date.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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*
04 495 2118 (office) | +64 21 442 649 (mob)
jordan at internetnz.net.nz
Skype: jordancarter
*To promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and protect its potential.*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://1net-mail.1net.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20140827/c4e2c957/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the discuss
mailing list