<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 <<a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:karklinsj@gmail.com">karklinsj@gmail.com</a>>
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"><<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:joana@varonferraz.com" target="_blank">joana@varonferraz.com</a>></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"><<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:seth.p.johnson@gmail.com"
target="_blank">seth.p.johnson@gmail.com</a>></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 <<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:jmalcolm@eff.org"
target="_blank">jmalcolm@eff.org</a>>
wrote:<br>
> I think it's more the case that the
IGF has so badly fumbled the ball that<br>
> it falls to someone - anyone - else
to pick it up. But that is not to<br>
> discount the valid criticisms that
others have expressed and that I agree<br>
> with.<br>
><br>
> Disclaimer: I'm a member of the
evil cabal.<br>
><br>
> --<br>
> Jeremy Malcolm<br>
> Senior Global Policy Analyst<br>
> Electronic Frontier Foundation<br>
> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://eff.org/"
target="_blank">https://eff.org</a><br>
> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:jmalcolm@eff.org"
target="_blank">jmalcolm@eff.org</a><br>
><br>
> 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>
><br>
> :: Defending Your Rights in the
Digital World ::<br>
><br>
> On Aug 13, 2014, at 6:57 PM, Jordan
Carter <<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz"
target="_blank">jordan@internetnz.net.nz</a>>
wrote:<br>
><br>
> Can someone explain why a noted
business centred forum is the place to<br>
> launch an Internet governance
initiative?<br>
><br>
> I genuinely don't understand that.<br>
><br>
> I thought the whole lesson of
netmundial was that genuine multi
stakeholder<br>
> approaches work well, not that it
was a nice experiment to be ignored.<br>
><br>
> It would be helpful if those who
rule us, as it were, would rapidly
disclose<br>
> some authoritative information.<br>
><br>
> Jordan<br>
><br>
> On Thursday, 14 August 2014,
Stephen Farrell <<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie"
target="_blank">stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie</a>><br>
> wrote:<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> Gotta say... seems like elitist
nonsense to me having looked<br>
>> at the invite list and other
docs. The elitist part should be<br>
>> obvious. The nonsense part is
due to almost none of the list<br>
>> of invitees being known for
knowing about the Internet. It<br>
>> seems much more an elite than
an Internet-savvy list of folks<br>
>> being asked to form a new
cabal. That said, cabals aren't all<br>
>> bad, and I've no reason to
think very badly of this particular<br>
>> subset of the elite and its I
guess just more meaningless policy<br>
>> stuff so I don't need to care
very much.<br>
>><br>
>> That said, it seems a pity for
this to be the next step after<br>
>> the Brazil gig which seemed
relatively open.<br>
>><br>
>> S.<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> On 14/08/14 02:36, William
Drake wrote:<br>
>> > Hi<br>
>> ><br>
>> > I proposed several times
to the 1NET Co Com that 1NET explore
serving as<br>
>> > a more open
multistakeholder vehicle for connecting
people to the NETmundial<br>
>> > Initiative. Several
members expressed support for that, but
since how the<br>
>> > NMI will evolve remains
very unclear it’s hard to know ex ante
how this<br>
>> > could work. I made the
same suggestion to Fadi in London,
didn’t get much<br>
>> > reaction.<br>
>> ><br>
>> > As I understand the basic
idea, NMI will have a six month launch
managed<br>
>> > by WEF but the hope would
be that this leads to something broader
and more<br>
>> > inclusive in a second
phase. Not how I would have done it,
but that said I<br>
>> > wouldn’t assume before the
fact that the second phase will not
come. We<br>
>> > have to see for starters
how the conversation goes 28 August and
what is<br>
>> > possible…<br>
>> ><br>
>> > Bill<br>
>> ><br>
>> > On Aug 13, 2014, at 10:00
PM, Avri Doria <<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:avri@ACM.ORG"
target="_blank">avri@ACM.ORG</a>>
wrote:<br>
>> ><br>
>> >> Hi,<br>
>> >><br>
>> >> Just wondering, is
this a proper list for those who have
been catching<br>
>> >> bits and pieces of the
ICANN/WEF 'NetMundial Initiaitve' to be<br>
>> >> discussed.<br>
>> >><br>
>> >> I think it might be,
and have even suggested it to others,
but figured<br>
>> >> I<br>
>> >> better check first.<br>
>> >><br>
>> >><br>
>> >> avri<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><br>
>> ><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><br>
>> ><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><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> --<br>
> --<br>
> Jordan Carter<br>
> Chief Executive, InternetNZ<br>
><br>
> <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>
><br>
> Sent on the run, apologies for
brevity<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><br>
><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><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>