<HTML><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv=Content-Type></HEAD>
<BODY dir=ltr bgColor=#ffffff text=#000000>
<DIV dir=ltr>
<DIV style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000">
<DIV>Hi Anriette,</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Well put. I do personally hope that you and others invitees who have some
misgivings do attend this preliminary meeting, and take the opportunity
presented to explain some of the principles that matter as this evolves –
including transparency and inclusiveness (as so clearly stated by Kathy Brown).
</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Ian Peter</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV
style='FONT-SIZE: small; TEXT-DECORATION: none; FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri"; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; COLOR: #000000; FONT-STYLE: normal; DISPLAY: inline'>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt tahoma">
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV style="BACKGROUND: #f5f5f5">
<DIV style="font-color: black"><B>From:</B> <A title=anriette@apc.org
href="mailto:anriette@apc.org">Anriette Esterhuysen</A> </DIV>
<DIV><B>Sent:</B> Thursday, August 14, 2014 10:00 PM</DIV>
<DIV><B>To:</B> <A title=ceo@auda.org.au href="mailto:ceo@auda.org.au">Chris
Disspain</A> ; <A title=karklinsj@gmail.com
href="mailto:karklinsj@gmail.com">Jānis Kārkliņš</A> </DIV>
<DIV><B>Cc:</B> <A title=discuss@1net.org
href="mailto:discuss@1net.org">discuss@1net.org</A> </DIV>
<DIV><B>Subject:</B> Re: [discuss] NetMundial Initiative</DIV></DIV></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV></DIV>
<DIV
style='FONT-SIZE: small; TEXT-DECORATION: none; FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri"; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; COLOR: #000000; FONT-STYLE: normal; DISPLAY: inline'><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-SIZE: 13px; FONT-FAMILY: 'Verdana'; 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> </P>
<P class=p1> </P>
<P class=p2>Cheers, wha<BR></P>
<P class=p3><BR> </P>
<P class=p2>Chri <BR></P></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>On 14 Aug 2014, at 17:39 , Janis Karklins <<A
href="mailto:karklinsj@gmail.com"
moz-do-not-send="true">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 href="http://www/"
moz-do-not-send="true">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 href="mailto:joana@varonferraz.com" target=_blank
moz-do-not-send="true">joana@varonferraz.com</A>></SPAN> wrote:<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=gmail_quote
style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">
<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> </DIV>
<DIV>@jordan carter: "<SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 13px; FONT-FAMILY: arial,sans-serif">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-SIZE: 13px; FONT-FAMILY: arial,sans-serif"><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> </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> </DIV>
<DIV>hoping for the best, though looking at... the worst?</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>regards</DIV><SPAN class=HOEnZb><FONT color=#888888>
<DIV> </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 href="mailto:seth.p.johnson@gmail.com" target=_blank
moz-do-not-send="true">seth.p.johnson@gmail.com</A>></SPAN> wrote:<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=gmail_quote
style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: rgb(204,204,204) 1px 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
href="mailto:jmalcolm@eff.org" target=_blank
moz-do-not-send="true">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 href="https://eff.org/" target=_blank
moz-do-not-send="true">https://eff.org</A><BR>> <A
href="mailto:jmalcolm@eff.org" target=_blank
moz-do-not-send="true">jmalcolm@eff.org</A><BR>><BR>> Tel: <A
href="tel:415.436.9333%20ext%20161" target=_blank moz-do-not-send="true"
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
href="mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz" target=_blank
moz-do-not-send="true">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
href="mailto:stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie" target=_blank
moz-do-not-send="true">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 href="mailto:avri@ACM.ORG" target=_blank
moz-do-not-send="true">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
href="mailto:discuss@1net.org" target=_blank
moz-do-not-send="true">discuss@1net.org</A><BR>>> >> <A
href="http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss" target=_blank
moz-do-not-send="true">http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss</A><BR>>>
><BR>>> ><BR>>> >
_______________________________________________<BR>>> > discuss
mailing list<BR>>> > <A href="mailto:discuss@1net.org"
target=_blank moz-do-not-send="true">discuss@1net.org</A><BR>>>
> <A href="http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss"
target=_blank
moz-do-not-send="true">http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss</A><BR>>>
><BR>>><BR>>>
_______________________________________________<BR>>> discuss
mailing list<BR>>> <A href="mailto:discuss@1net.org" target=_blank
moz-do-not-send="true">discuss@1net.org</A><BR>>> <A
href="http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss" target=_blank
moz-do-not-send="true">http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss</A><BR>><BR>><BR>><BR>>
--<BR>> --<BR>> Jordan Carter<BR>> Chief Executive,
InternetNZ<BR>><BR>> <A href="tel:%2B64-21-442-649" target=_blank
moz-do-not-send="true" value="+6421442649">+64-21-442-649</A> | <A
href="mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz" target=_blank
moz-do-not-send="true">jordan@internetnz.net.nz</A><BR>><BR>> Sent
on the run, apologies for brevity<BR>><BR>>
_______________________________________________<BR>> discuss mailing
list<BR>> <A href="mailto:discuss@1net.org" target=_blank
moz-do-not-send="true">discuss@1net.org</A><BR>> <A
href="http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss" target=_blank
moz-do-not-send="true">http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss</A><BR>><BR>><BR>>
_______________________________________________<BR>> discuss mailing
list<BR>> <A href="mailto:discuss@1net.org" target=_blank
moz-do-not-send="true">discuss@1net.org</A><BR>> <A
href="http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss" target=_blank
moz-do-not-send="true">http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss</A><BR><BR>_______________________________________________<BR>discuss
mailing list<BR><A href="mailto:discuss@1net.org" target=_blank
moz-do-not-send="true">discuss@1net.org</A><BR><A
href="http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss" target=_blank
moz-do-not-send="true">http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss</A></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV><BR><BR
clear=all>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV><BR>_______________________________________________<BR>discuss
mailing list<BR><A href="mailto:discuss@1net.org"
moz-do-not-send="true">discuss@1net.org</A><BR><A
href="http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss" target=_blank
moz-do-not-send="true">http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss</A><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV></DIV>_______________________________________________<BR>discuss
mailing list<BR><A href="mailto:discuss@1net.org"
moz-do-not-send="true">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>
<P>
<HR>
_______________________________________________<BR>discuss mailing
list<BR>discuss@1net.org<BR>http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss</DIV></DIV></DIV></BODY></HTML>