<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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
<b><i>the</i></b> 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.<br>
<br>
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. <br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
Joe<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
n 8/14/2014 11:10 AM, Stephanie Perrin wrote
<blockquote cite="mid:53ECD181.8040704@mail.utoronto.ca" type="cite">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.<br>
Best wishes.<br>
Stephanie Perrin<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 14-08-14 8:00 AM, Anriette
Esterhuysen wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:53ECA4FB.5010900@apc.org" type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=ISO-8859-1">
<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"> <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 moz-do-not-send="true" 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 moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:discuss@1net.org">discuss@1net.org</a>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" 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 moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:anriette@apc.org">anriette@apc.org</a>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.apc.org">www.apc.org</a></pre>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
discuss mailing list
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:discuss@1net.org">discuss@1net.org</a>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" 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>
<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>
</body>
</html>