[discuss] discuss Digest, Vol 9, Issue 53
Pindar Wong
pindar.wong at gmail.com
Wed Aug 27 07:49:26 UTC 2014
Thanks Paul!
p.
On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 3:36 PM, Paul Wilson <pwilson at apnic.net> wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> the website is back up now:
>
> http://www.weforum.org/issues/global-internet-governance
>
>
> they tell me that the web server involved was down for maintenance in
> preparation for the netmundial webcast. personally i would have expected
> them to implement a more elegant fallback, with explanation of what was
> happening, but that’s rather academic now.
>
> Hope the services stay up and running now and for the next few days at
> least!
>
> Paul.
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC <dg at apnic.net>
> http://www.apnic.net +61 7 3858 3100
>
> See you at APNIC 38! http://conference.apnic.net/38
>
>
>
>
>
> On 27 Aug 2014, at 2:10 pm, Paul Wilson <pwilson at apnic.net> wrote:
>
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I would not be jumping to conclusions on the basis of a technical error.
> >
> > I’ve just sent urgent email to notify folks at WEF of the problem, and
> my assumption is that it will be fixed soon!
> >
> > Paul.
> >
> >
> > ________________________________________________________________________
> > Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC <dg at apnic.net>
> > http://www.apnic.net +61 7 3858 3100
> >
> > See you at APNIC 38! http://conference.apnic.net/38
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On 27 Aug 2014, at 1:26 pm, 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-ZSemKzp55mWbfaxVZicHs3jq9JdwTsTsS02cuXmbqL00sBizvQMyvkxFVuk9_46BOdjfNxIburgBiPta5O5mUm-wah1L00jrbXX1EVdwLQzh0qmQ9kITixFtd424GmrFgQg1QyfQC0pEw3djPh0qeg3d40rizvCy1ZASM-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+857LUrf19NdZLBm7WHCUPDuDzsG68m0Q5+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
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20140827/42636df2/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the discuss
mailing list