<html>
  <head>
    <meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
  </head>
  <body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
    <font size="+1"><font size="+1">Dear all<br>
        <br>
        Writing this in my personal capacity. My organisation, the
        Association for Progressive Communications, has not yet
        finalised its reaction to this discussion.<br>
        <br>
        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.<br>
        <br>
        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.<br>
        <br>
        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.<br>
        <br>
        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.<br>
        <br>
        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.<br>
        <br>
        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.<br>
        <br>
        My reasons are (mostly) as follows:<br>
        <br>
        <b>1) Choice of 'location' in the context of power and politics
          in multi-stakeholder internet governance</b><br>
        <br>
        Most of us consider the NETmundial a success and the NETmundial
        statement a strong, positive document that avoids the traps of
        'cheap' consensus. <br>
        <br>
        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.<br>
        <br>
        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.<br>
        <br>
        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).<br>
        <br>
        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.<br>
        <br>
        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.<br>
         <br>
        <b>2) What do we really need to </b><b>operationalise and
          consolidate the NETmundial outcomes? <br>
          <br>
        </b>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).<br>
        <br>
        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?<br>
        <br>
        I don't think so.  <br>
        <br>
        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.<br>
        <br>
        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. <br>
        <br>
        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?<br>
        <br>
        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).  <br>
        <br>
        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.<br>
        <br>
        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.<br>
        <br>
        <b>3) NETmundial </b><b>Initiative and the IGF and the broader
          internet community</b><br>
        <br>
        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.<br>
        <br>
        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.  <br>
        <br>
        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.<br>
        <br>
        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.<br>
        <br>
        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.<br>
        <br>
        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. <br>
        <br>
        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.<br>
        <br>
        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.<br>
        <br>
        Anriette</font><br>
      <br>
      <br>
      <br>
    </font>
    <div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 14/08/2014 09:52, Chris Disspain
      wrote:m<br>
    </div>
    <blockquote
      cite="mid:379B61FE-82C1-4F7B-BEE2-915DB0525218@auda.org.au"
      type="cite">
      <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
      <span style="font-family: 'Verdana'; font-size: 13px; color:
        rgb(102, 102, 102);">
        <blockquote type="cite">
          <div dir="ltr">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 <span
              tabindex="-1" id=":35x.6">IGF</span> as a
            multi-stakeholder discussion platform by enlarging
            participation in its work of those companies and governments
            that haven't been involved until kn</div>
        </blockquote>
        <div>(l<br>
        </div>
        Yes, that is also my understanding. A particular emphasis was
        made of supporting the IGF but, I guess, time will tell.<br>
        <div>
          <style type="text/css">
    p.p1 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px}
    p.p2 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 13.0px Verdana; color: #9443fb}
    p.p3 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 13.0px Verdana; color: #9443fb; min-height: 16.0px}
  </style>
          <p class="p1"><br>
          </p>
          <p class="p1"><br>
          </p>
          <p class="p2">Cheers, wha<br>
          </p>
          <p class="p3"> <br>
          </p>
          <p class="p2">Chri <br>
          </p>
        </div>
        <br>
        <div>
          <div>On 14 Aug 2014, at 17:39 , Janis Karklins &lt;<a
              moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:karklinsj@gmail.com">karklinsj@gmail.com</a>&gt;
            wrote:</div>
          <br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
          <blockquote type="cite">
            <div dir="ltr">
              <div>As being one of invited to the launch event of the <span
                  tabindex="-1" id=":35x.1" style="background:yellow"><span
                    tabindex="-1" id=":35x.1">WEF</span></span>
                initiative I would like to share information that I
                possess.</div>
              <div> </div>
              <div>The World Economic Forum is an international
                institution committed to improving the state of the
                world through public-private cooperation (statement on
                the website). <span tabindex="-1" id=":35x.2">WEF</span>
                communities are various and more can be seen at <a
                  moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://www/">http://www</a>.<span
                  tabindex="-1" id=":35x.3">weforum</span>.org/communities.
                Organizationally the <span tabindex="-1" id=":35x.4">WEF</span>
                is membership organization where big multinationals from
                all over the world are widely represented. The <span
                  tabindex="-1" id=":35x.5">WEF</span> 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.</div>
              <div> </div>
              <div>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 <span
                  tabindex="-1" id=":35x.6">IGF</span> as a
                multi-stakeholder discussion platform by enlarging
                participation in its work of those companies and
                governments that haven't been involved until know.</div>
              <div> </div>
              <div>I know that Alan Markus intends to present and
                discuss the initiative at the 2014 <span tabindex="-1"
                  id=":35x.7">IGF</span> meeting and there will be ample
                opportunity for the <span tabindex="-1" id=":35x.8">IG</span>
                community to clarify details.</div>
              <div> </div>
              <div>I hope that this information is useful.</div>
              <div><span tabindex="-1" id=":35x.9">JK</span></div>
              <div> </div>
              <div> </div>
              <div> </div>
              <div> </div>
            </div>
            <div class="gmail_extra"><br>
              <br>
              <div class="gmail_quote">
                On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 10:11 AM, Joana Varon <span
                  dir="ltr">&lt;<a moz-do-not-send="true"
                    href="mailto:joana@varonferraz.com" target="_blank">joana@varonferraz.com</a>&gt;</span>
                wrote:<br>
                <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
                  .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
                  <div dir="ltr"><b>Current status of IG debate:</b> we
                    need leaks to know what is going on! Pretty bad for
                    a start. 
                    <div><br>
                    </div>
                    <div>@jordan carter: "<span
                        style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.33px">why
                        a noted business centred forum is the place to
                        launch an Internet governance initiative?" - a
                        question to be echoed indeed.</span></div>
                    <div><span
                        style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.33px"><br>
                      </span></div>
                    <div><font face="arial, sans-serif">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?!</font></div>
                    <div><br>
                    </div>
                    <div>@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. <br>
                    </div>
                    <div><br>
                    </div>
                    <div>hoping for the best, though looking at... the
                      worst?</div>
                    <div><br>
                    </div>
                    <div>regards</div>
                    <span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888">
                        <div><br>
                        </div>
                        <div>joana</div>
                      </font></span>
                    <div><br>
                      -- <br>
                      -- <br>
                      <br>
                      Joana Varon Ferraz<br>
                      @joana_varon<br>
                      PGP 0x016B8E73<br>
                    </div>
                    <div>
                      <div class="h5">
                        <div class="gmail_extra"><br>
                          <br>
                          <div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Aug 14, 2014
                            at 1:30 AM, Seth Johnson <span dir="ltr">&lt;<a
                                moz-do-not-send="true"
                                href="mailto:seth.p.johnson@gmail.com"
                                target="_blank">seth.p.johnson@gmail.com</a>&gt;</span>
                            wrote:<br>
                            <blockquote class="gmail_quote"
                              style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;padding-left:1ex;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid">More
                              that the IGF phase wasn't going to work.
                               IGF has always been in<br>
                              a tough spot, not so much fumbling the
                              ball -- as if that's anything<br>
                              other than an endemic feature of any
                              organization of a similar<br>
                              institutional nature -- but not empowered
                              and pining for standing.<br>
                              But Netmundial wasn't executed well in
                              that regard (they announced<br>
                              sponsorship of IGF, but they also weren't
                              quite able to make things<br>
                              stick), so they need to patch he
                              information society process up by a<br>
                              more blunt move that steps past IGF rather
                              than going through a<br>
                              process of engaging folks in issues via
                              IGF as per plan.  I think<br>
                              they're figuring they'll be able to just
                              brazen it out.<br>
                              <div><br>
                                <br>
                                On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 10:39 PM, Jeremy
                                Malcolm &lt;<a moz-do-not-send="true"
                                  href="mailto:jmalcolm@eff.org"
                                  target="_blank">jmalcolm@eff.org</a>&gt;
                                wrote:<br>
                                &gt; I think it's more the case that the
                                IGF has so badly fumbled the ball that<br>
                                &gt; it falls to someone - anyone - else
                                to pick it up. But that is not to<br>
                                &gt; discount the valid criticisms that
                                others have expressed and that I agree<br>
                                &gt; with.<br>
                                &gt;<br>
                                &gt; Disclaimer: I'm a member of the
                                evil cabal.<br>
                                &gt;<br>
                                &gt; --<br>
                                &gt; Jeremy Malcolm<br>
                                &gt; Senior Global Policy Analyst<br>
                                &gt; Electronic Frontier Foundation<br>
                                &gt; <a moz-do-not-send="true"
                                  href="https://eff.org/"
                                  target="_blank">https://eff.org</a><br>
                                &gt; <a moz-do-not-send="true"
                                  href="mailto:jmalcolm@eff.org"
                                  target="_blank">jmalcolm@eff.org</a><br>
                                &gt;<br>
                                &gt; Tel: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
                                  href="tel:415.436.9333%20ext%20161"
                                  target="_blank" value="+14154369333">415.436.9333
                                  ext 161</a><br>
                                &gt;<br>
                                &gt; :: Defending Your Rights in the
                                Digital World ::<br>
                                &gt;<br>
                                &gt; On Aug 13, 2014, at 6:57 PM, Jordan
                                Carter &lt;<a moz-do-not-send="true"
                                  href="mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz"
                                  target="_blank">jordan@internetnz.net.nz</a>&gt;
                                wrote:<br>
                                &gt;<br>
                                &gt; Can someone explain why a noted
                                business centred forum is the place to<br>
                                &gt; launch an Internet governance
                                initiative?<br>
                                &gt;<br>
                                &gt; I genuinely don't understand that.<br>
                                &gt;<br>
                                &gt; I thought the whole lesson of
                                netmundial was that genuine multi
                                stakeholder<br>
                                &gt; approaches work well, not that it
                                was a nice experiment to be ignored.<br>
                                &gt;<br>
                                &gt; It would be helpful if those who
                                rule us, as it were, would rapidly
                                disclose<br>
                                &gt; some authoritative information.<br>
                                &gt;<br>
                                &gt; Jordan<br>
                                &gt;<br>
                                &gt; On Thursday, 14 August 2014,
                                Stephen Farrell &lt;<a
                                  moz-do-not-send="true"
                                  href="mailto:stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie"
                                  target="_blank">stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie</a>&gt;<br>
                                &gt; wrote:<br>
                                &gt;&gt;<br>
                                &gt;&gt;<br>
                                &gt;&gt; Gotta say... seems like elitist
                                nonsense to me having looked<br>
                                &gt;&gt; at the invite list and other
                                docs. The elitist part should be<br>
                                &gt;&gt; obvious. The nonsense part is
                                due to  almost none of the list<br>
                                &gt;&gt; of invitees being known for
                                knowing about the Internet. It<br>
                                &gt;&gt; seems much more an elite than
                                an Internet-savvy list of folks<br>
                                &gt;&gt; being asked to form a new
                                cabal. That said, cabals aren't all<br>
                                &gt;&gt; bad, and I've no reason to
                                think very badly of this particular<br>
                                &gt;&gt; subset of the elite and its I
                                guess just more meaningless policy<br>
                                &gt;&gt; stuff so I don't need to care
                                very much.<br>
                                &gt;&gt;<br>
                                &gt;&gt; That said, it seems a pity for
                                this to be the next step after<br>
                                &gt;&gt; the Brazil gig which seemed
                                relatively open.<br>
                                &gt;&gt;<br>
                                &gt;&gt; S.<br>
                                &gt;&gt;<br>
                                &gt;&gt;<br>
                                &gt;&gt; On 14/08/14 02:36, William
                                Drake wrote:<br>
                                &gt;&gt; &gt; Hi<br>
                                &gt;&gt; &gt;<br>
                                &gt;&gt; &gt; I proposed several times
                                to the 1NET Co Com that 1NET explore
                                serving as<br>
                                &gt;&gt; &gt; a more open
                                multistakeholder vehicle for connecting
                                people to the NETmundial<br>
                                &gt;&gt; &gt; Initiative.  Several
                                members expressed support for that, but
                                since how the<br>
                                &gt;&gt; &gt; NMI will evolve remains
                                very unclear it’s hard to know ex ante
                                how this<br>
                                &gt;&gt; &gt; could work.  I made the
                                same suggestion to Fadi in London,
                                didn’t get much<br>
                                &gt;&gt; &gt; reaction.<br>
                                &gt;&gt; &gt;<br>
                                &gt;&gt; &gt; As I understand the basic
                                idea, NMI will have a six month launch
                                managed<br>
                                &gt;&gt; &gt; by WEF but the hope would
                                be that this leads to something broader
                                and more<br>
                                &gt;&gt; &gt; inclusive in a second
                                phase.  Not how I would have done it,
                                but that said I<br>
                                &gt;&gt; &gt; wouldn’t assume before the
                                fact that the second phase will not
                                come.  We<br>
                                &gt;&gt; &gt; have to see for starters
                                how the conversation goes 28 August and
                                what is<br>
                                &gt;&gt; &gt; possible…<br>
                                &gt;&gt; &gt;<br>
                                &gt;&gt; &gt; Bill<br>
                                &gt;&gt; &gt;<br>
                                &gt;&gt; &gt; On Aug 13, 2014, at 10:00
                                PM, Avri Doria &lt;<a
                                  moz-do-not-send="true"
                                  href="mailto:avri@ACM.ORG"
                                  target="_blank">avri@ACM.ORG</a>&gt;
                                wrote:<br>
                                &gt;&gt; &gt;<br>
                                &gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; Hi,<br>
                                &gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;<br>
                                &gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; Just wondering, is
                                this a proper list for those who have
                                been catching<br>
                                &gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; bits and pieces of the
                                ICANN/WEF 'NetMundial Initiaitve' to be<br>
                                &gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; discussed.<br>
                                &gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;<br>
                                &gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; I think it might be,
                                and have even suggested it to others,
                                but figured<br>
                                &gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; I<br>
                                &gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; better check first.<br>
                                &gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;<br>
                                &gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;<br>
                                &gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; avri<br>
                                &gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;<br>
                                &gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;
                                _______________________________________________<br>
                                &gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; discuss mailing list<br>
                                &gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; <a
                                  moz-do-not-send="true"
                                  href="mailto:discuss@1net.org"
                                  target="_blank">discuss@1net.org</a><br>
                                &gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; <a
                                  moz-do-not-send="true"
                                  href="http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss"
                                  target="_blank">http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss</a><br>
                                &gt;&gt; &gt;<br>
                                &gt;&gt; &gt;<br>
                                &gt;&gt; &gt;
                                _______________________________________________<br>
                                &gt;&gt; &gt; discuss mailing list<br>
                                &gt;&gt; &gt; <a moz-do-not-send="true"
                                  href="mailto:discuss@1net.org"
                                  target="_blank">discuss@1net.org</a><br>
                                &gt;&gt; &gt; <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss"
                                  target="_blank">http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss</a><br>
                                &gt;&gt; &gt;<br>
                                &gt;&gt;<br>
                                &gt;&gt;
                                _______________________________________________<br>
                                &gt;&gt; discuss mailing list<br>
                                &gt;&gt; <a moz-do-not-send="true"
                                  href="mailto:discuss@1net.org"
                                  target="_blank">discuss@1net.org</a><br>
                                &gt;&gt; <a moz-do-not-send="true"
                                  href="http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss"
                                  target="_blank">http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss</a><br>
                                &gt;<br>
                                &gt;<br>
                                &gt;<br>
                                &gt; --<br>
                                &gt; --<br>
                                &gt; Jordan Carter<br>
                                &gt; Chief Executive, InternetNZ<br>
                                &gt;<br>
                                &gt; <a moz-do-not-send="true"
                                  href="tel:%2B64-21-442-649"
                                  target="_blank" value="+6421442649">+64-21-442-649</a>
                                | <a moz-do-not-send="true"
                                  href="mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz"
                                  target="_blank">jordan@internetnz.net.nz</a><br>
                                &gt;<br>
                                &gt; Sent on the run, apologies for
                                brevity<br>
                                &gt;<br>
                                &gt;
                                _______________________________________________<br>
                                &gt; discuss mailing list<br>
                                &gt; <a moz-do-not-send="true"
                                  href="mailto:discuss@1net.org"
                                  target="_blank">discuss@1net.org</a><br>
                                &gt; <a moz-do-not-send="true"
                                  href="http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss"
                                  target="_blank">http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss</a><br>
                                &gt;<br>
                                &gt;<br>
                                &gt;
                                _______________________________________________<br>
                                &gt; discuss mailing list<br>
                                &gt; <a moz-do-not-send="true"
                                  href="mailto:discuss@1net.org"
                                  target="_blank">discuss@1net.org</a><br>
                                &gt; <a moz-do-not-send="true"
                                  href="http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss"
                                  target="_blank">http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss</a><br>
                                <br>
_______________________________________________<br>
                                discuss mailing list<br>
                                <a moz-do-not-send="true"
                                  href="mailto:discuss@1net.org"
                                  target="_blank">discuss@1net.org</a><br>
                                <a moz-do-not-send="true"
                                  href="http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss"
                                  target="_blank">http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss</a></div>
                            </blockquote>
                          </div>
                          <br>
                          <br clear="all">
                          <div><br>
                          </div>
                          <br>
                        </div>
                      </div>
                    </div>
                  </div>
                  <br>
                  _______________________________________________<br>
                  discuss mailing list<br>
                  <a moz-do-not-send="true"
                    href="mailto:discuss@1net.org">discuss@1net.org</a><br>
                  <a moz-do-not-send="true"
                    href="http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss"
                    target="_blank">http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss</a><br>
                </blockquote>
              </div>
              <br>
            </div>
            _______________________________________________<br>
            discuss mailing list<br>
            <a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:discuss@1net.org">discuss@1net.org</a><br>
            <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss">http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss</a></blockquote>
        </div>
        <br>
      </span>
      <br>
      <fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
      <br>
      <pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
discuss mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:discuss@1net.org">discuss@1net.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss">http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss</a></pre>
    </blockquote>
    <br>
    <pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">-- 
`````````````````````````````````
anriette esterhuysen
executive director
association for progressive communications
po box 29755, melville, 2109, south africa
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:anriette@apc.org">anriette@apc.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.apc.org">www.apc.org</a></pre>
  </body>
</html>