Re: Fw: [atlarge-discuss] ALOC Draft 3.0

[James Love <james.love@cptech.org>]

Lawrence Solum wrote:
> I think Jamie is over interpreting the word "dissenting," which is, in 
> context, most naturally read as referring to "other" opinions.  The 
> main document doesn't claim to represent the "majority" or "official" 
> view of the at-large community as a whole.
> 
> There is no substantive disagreement here, and Esther's original point 
> is on target.

    Lawrence,  Esther used the term "dissenting opinions," and if this means 
something else, well, whatever.  More generally, however, one could talk 
about the ongoing efforts to control and manage "public" input, and to 
package the work of a few selected people as the public.  ICANN as a 
corporate entity wants control over a unique DNS root for the global 
Internet, and even to collect a DNS tax from every domain holder.   They are 
where they are today because of a long list of broken promises to provide 
the public a voice in the ICANN affairs.  After Accra, Esther told people to 
go out and organize the at-large.  She asked Joop and Alexander to get 
ICANNatlarge.com off the ground.  Right after the election results were in, 
she and Denise announced "at-large.org" as the new ICANN approved at-large 
effort.  Then in Bucharest, Esther appeared with VB and Izumi to talk about 
the ALOC as the new "structure" for at-large input, and Denise crowed about 
how CPSR(Hans) was onboard.  The French and German governments told ICANN 
the NomCom had no legitimacy.  Alejandro made a big point of saying the ALOC 
would provide input to the NomCom membership.  Then Esther and Denise 
decided the ALOC had some people who were too democratic and assertive, so 
now it is yet another body that has the Esther/ICANN cronies in charge. 
This type of thing has been going on for years.  Where do you come in, and 
what are your goals in all this?

    Jamie


> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: James Love <james.love@cptech.org>
> Date: Saturday, July 27, 2002 3:20 pm
> Subject: Re: Fw: [atlarge-discuss] ALOC Draft 3.0
> 
> 
>>How do you determine if a view is the main recommendation or in 
>>the 
>>"dissenting" opinion?  Do you have authority to just decide what 
>>goes in the 
>>report by yourself, or is there some process that is followed to 
>>determine 
>>what the "at-large" types really think?
>>
>>Jamie
>>
>>
>>Esther Dyson wrote:
>>
>>>at the point when any document is posted or forwarded formally, 
>>
>>we 
>>
>>>should definitely note the existence of dissenting opinions, 
>>
>>with links 
>>
>>>to the various member groups' dissenting statements.
>>>
>>>Esther
>>>
>>>At 06:21 AM 7/26/2002, Sotiris Sotiropoulos wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Denise Michel ALSC wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>I must correct your inaccuracies, Hans.
>>>>>
>>>>>I am, along with the other members of the ERC "assistance group,"
>>>>>responsible for crafting a substantive draft ALAC proposal.
>>>>>
>>>>>"Version 3.0" is *not* "a team product of the ALOC" and does 
>>>>
>>*not*>> > "represent the consensus of the ALOC."
>>
>>>>>  -  I wrote the outline as a starting point for discussion;
>>>>>  -  an overwhelming majority of ALOC members have not 
>>>>
>>commented on the
>>
>>>>>text, let alone "approved" it;
>>>>
>>>>That's because we DO NOT APROVE!
>>>>
>>>>You and E. Dyson are simply railroading your version of the 
>>>
>>proposal 
>>
>>>>through
>>>>without consideration for the REALITY of the consensus among 
>>>
>>the ALOC 
>>
>>>>which
>>>>Hans' Draft 3.0 rightly points out.  The patsies you list as 
>>>
>>part of 
>>
>>>>your latest
>>>>cabal are predictably handpicked.  ICANNAtLarge.com MUST NOT be 
>>>
>>listed 
>>
>>>>as any
>>>>kind of support for whatever document you produce and sbmit to 
>>>
>>the ERC.
>>
>>>>Sincerely,
>>>>
>>>>Sotiris Sotiropoulos
>>>>        ICANNAtLarge.com
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>  -  I expressed my disapproval to your additions;
>>>>>  -  the text simply represents a starting point for 
>>>>
>>discussions to 
>>
>>>>which a
>>>>
>>>>>majority of assistance group members have not yet had a 
>>>>
>>chance to 
>>
>>>>contribute
>>>>
>>>>>on ALAC issues.
>>>>>
>>>>>The assistance group is not "replacing the ALOC as the voice 
>>>>
>>of the 
>>
>>>>user" as
>>>>
>>>>>you melodramatically suggested.  It's a temporary group that 
>>>>
>>will 
>>
>>>>draft a
>>>>
>>>>>proposal for an ALAC for ERC/public consideration.
>>>>>
>>>>>Denise
>>>>>
>>>>>Denise Michel
>>>>>coordinator@at-large.org
>>>>>
>>>>>----- Original Message -----
>>>>>From: "Hans Klein" <hans.klein@pubpolicy.gatech.edu>
>>>>>To: <atlarge-discuss@lists.fitug.de>
>>>>>Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2002 10:49 AM
>>>>>Subject: Re: [atlarge-discuss] ALOC Draft 3.0
>>>>>
>>>>>Denise works with us to facilitate our processes.  
>>>>
>>Substantive work 
>>
>>>>is the
>>>>
>>>>>responsibility of the ALOC members.
>>>>>
>>>>>Version 3.0 is a team product of the ALOC and enjoys the 
>>>>
>>support of
>>
>>>>>numerous ALOC members.  Indeed, I don't recall any 
>>>>
>>expressions of
>>
>>>>>disapproval. I believe it represents the consensus of the ALOC.
>>>>>
>>>>>If I interpret Denise's comments correctly, the newly created 
>>>>
>>"ERC>> > assistance group" (from which Sotiris Sotiropoulos and I 
>>were excluded)
>>
>>>>>will soon replace the ALOC as the "voice of the user."  Sigh!
>>>>>
>>>>>Hans
>>>>>
>>>>>At 09:34 AM 7/25/2002 -0700, Denise Michel ALSC wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>This is *not* the "latest version" or "Version 3.0" or a 
>>>>>
>>"Proposed 
>>
>>>>Final
>>>>
>>>>>>Draft" of the "At-Large Organizing Committee (ALOC)
>>>>>>Submission to the..ERC..On the Design of An At Large 
>>>>>
>>Advisory 
>>
>>>>Committee
>>>>
>>>>>>(ALAC)."  Hans Klein added these titles, along with a 
>>>>>
>>"Preamble" 
>>
>>>>and "Part
>>>>
>>>>>>I" to an *outline of approaches/issues* that needed to be 
>>>>>
>>>>considered by
>>>>
>>>>>>the ERC's "assistance group" in order to draft 
>>>>>
>>implementation 
>>
>>>>details for
>>>>
>>>>>>an ALAC.  Any ideas this list's participants have on how to 
>>>>>
>>>>structure an
>>>>
>>>>>>ALAC, of course, are welcome.  However, the point of this 
>>>>>
>>limited ERC
>>
>>>>>>assistance group is to quickly provide *detailed 
>>>>>
>>recommendations* 
>>
>>>>on an
>>>>
>>>>>>ALAC for public (your) consideration.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Hans may wish to slap some rhetoric on an outline and call 
>>>>>
>>it a 
>>
>>>>potential
>>>>
>>>>>>implementation plan, but that does not make it so. When the 
>>>>>
>>assistance>> > >group issues its submission to the ERC, it will be 
>>a detailed 
>>
>>>>proposal for
>>>>
>>>>>>establishing an ALAC on which anyone interested can comment, 
>>>>>
>>>>change, build
>>>>
>>>>>>upon.  It will not be, nor is it intended to be, a 
>>>>>
>>reflection of 
>>
>>>>the views
>>>>
>>>>>>of all ALOC member organizations or even all of the ALOC members
>>>>>
>>>>>themselves.
>>>>>
>>>>>>Denise
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Denise Michel
>>>>>>coordinator@at-large.org
>>>>>>
>>>>>>----- Original Message -----
>>>>>>From: "Sotiris Sotiropoulos" <sotiris@hermesnetwork.com>
>>>>>>Cc: "discuss" <atlarge-discuss@lists.fitug.de>
>>>>>>Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2002 4:37 AM
>>>>>>Subject: Re: [atlarge-discuss] ALOC Draft 3.0
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Hans Klein wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Sotiris,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>The draft that you posted is out of date, I believe.  
>>>>>>
>>There have 
>>
>>>>been
>>>>
>>>>>three
>>>>>
>>>>>>>revisions since then (2.0, 2.1, 3.0).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>The biggest change was to add a "Part I" that restates 
>>>>>>
>>the ALAC's
>>
>>>>>support
>>>>>
>>>>>>>for election of At Large directors.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Hans,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Thanks for the heads up!  Apologies to all.  Below is the 
>>>>>
>>latest 
>>
>>>>version.
>>>>
>>>>>>Comments are welcome and will be submitted.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>------
>>>>>>VERSION 3.0 (Proposed Final Draft)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>At-Large Organizing Committee (ALOC)
>>>>>>Submission to the ICANN Evolution & Reform Committee On the 
>>>>>
>>Design 
>>
>>>>of An At
>>>>
>>>>>>Large Advisory Committee (ALAC)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>25 July 2002
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>PREAMBLE
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The At Large Organizing Committee (ALOC) was set up by ICANN 
>>>>>
>>to 
>>
>>>>guide and
>>>>
>>>>>>encourage bottom-up efforts to organize At-Large mechanisms 
>>>>>
>>for 
>>
>>>>meaningful,
>>>>
>>>>>>informed participation in ICANN.  The membership list of the 
>>>>>
>>ALOC 
>>
>>>>can be
>>>>
>>>>>seen
>>>>>
>>>>>>at: http://www.at-large.org/at-large-members.htm
>>>>>>
>>>>>>This interim report offers recommendations on the 
>>>>>
>>organization of 
>>
>>>>an At
>>>>
>>>>>Large
>>>>>
>>>>>>Advisory Committee (ALAC).
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The ALOC finds itself faced with an inherent contradiction, 
>>>>>
>>and 
>>
>>>>therefore
>>>>
>>>>>the
>>>>>
>>>>>>ALOC comments are organized in two parts.  On the one hand, 
>>>>>
>>the 
>>
>>>>ALOC offers
>>>>
>>>>>>comments on how to implement certain features of the 
>>>>>
>>Evolution and 
>>
>>>>Reform
>>>>
>>>>>>Committee's Blueprint for ICANN reform.   However, the ALOC 
>>>>>
>>does not
>>
>>>>>support
>>>>>
>>>>>>all portions of that Blueprint, especially the elimination 
>>>>>
>>of the 
>>
>>>>elected
>>>>
>>>>>At
>>>>>
>>>>>>Large directors.  There is widespread support in the ICANN 
>>>>>
>>>>community for
>>>>
>>>>>>elected At Large Directors.  Pending final resolution of the 
>>>>>
>>election>> > issue,
>>
>>>>>>however, the ALOC offers advice on what the Evolution and 
>>>>>
>>Reform 
>>
>>>>Committee
>>>>
>>>>>>should do and how it should operate
>>>>>>within ICANN now.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>With ICANN's authority over the DNS up for review and 
>>>>>
>>renewal in 
>>
>>>>September
>>>>
>>>>>>2002, we hope that a way can be found to preserve the 
>>>>>
>>>>representation of
>>>>
>>>>>users.
>>>>>
>>>>>>User representation will ensure a foundation of legitimacy 
>>>>>
>>for 
>>
>>>>ICANN to
>>>>
>>>>>enable
>>>>>
>>>>>>it to survive and prosper as an institution.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>We urge the ERC and ICANN to proceed on these issues along a 
>>>>>
>>>>timetable that
>>>>
>>>>>>permits sufficient time for the At-Large Structures within 
>>>>>
>>ALOC to 
>>
>>>>engage
>>>>
>>>>>in
>>>>>
>>>>>>genuine deliberation with their constituencies on these 
>>>>>
>>important 
>>
>>>>issues.
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>PART I
>>>>>>SUPPORT FOR THE TERMS OF INTERNET PRIVATIZATION
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The At Large Organizing Committee (ALOC) supports the 
>>>>>
>>original 
>>
>>>>terms of
>>>>
>>>>>>Internet privatization, most notably the principle of balanced
>>>>>
>>>>>representation
>>>>>
>>>>>>of users and industry experts on the ICANN board.  The ALOC 
>>>>>
>>also 
>>
>>>>supports
>>>>
>>>>>the
>>>>>
>>>>>>implementation mechanisms developed for At Large users, most 
>>>>>
>>>>notably the
>>>>
>>>>>>direct
>>>>>>elections of directors.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>This support has been articulated in numerous documents, 
>>>>>
>>including:>> > >? Esther Dyson's letter of 6 November 1998 to the 
>>US Dept. of 
>>
>>>>Commerce on
>>>>
>>>>>>behalf of the ICANN board.  That letter noted that the ICANN 
>>>>>
>>Board 
>>
>>>>has an
>>>>
>>>>>>unconditional mandate to create a membership structure that 
>>>>>
>>will 
>>
>>>>elect nine
>>>>
>>>>>At
>>>>>
>>>>>>Large Directors.   
>>>>>
>>>>(http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/press/ICANN111098.htm)
>>>>
>>>>>>? The NGO and Academic ICANN Study, which concluded that 
>>>>>
>>ICANN should
>>
>>>>>retain
>>>>>
>>>>>>balanced representation of users and industry experts on its 
>>>>>
>>board and
>>
>>>>>should
>>>>>
>>>>>>continue to employ global elections. 
>>>>>
>>(http://www.naisproject.org/)>> > >? ICANN's At Large Study 
>>Commission, which found that ICANN's policies
>>
>>>>>affect
>>>>>
>>>>>>users and that users should be elected to the ICANN board.
>>>>>>(http://www.atlargestudy.org/)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The ALOC therefore prefers that ICANN not implement the 
>>>>>
>>>>recommendations in
>>>>
>>>>>the
>>>>>
>>>>>>ERC Blueprint and instead work to implement the conditions of
>>>>>
>>>>>privatization.
>>>>>
>>>>>>Only an ICANN whose legitimacy is beyond dispute can work in 
>>>>>
>>the 
>>
>>>>long run.
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>PART II
>>>>>>WORKING WITHIN THE ERC BLUEPRINT
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Whether the ERC blueprint will be the basis for a new ICANN 
>>>>>
>>will 
>>
>>>>not be
>>>>
>>>>>known
>>>>>
>>>>>>before the end of this year.  Despite the reservations about 
>>>>>
>>that>> > >Blueprint, we
>>
>>>>>>offer here some suggestions about how its terms might be 
>>>>>
>>implemented.>> > >
>>
>>>>>>1. Background
>>>>>>a. Need for At-Large: ICANN needs a mechanism for individual 
>>>>>
>>users'>> > >participation in ICANN.  This provides a formalized 
>>role in the policy
>>
>>>>>>development process for users that ensures that user views 
>>>>>
>>are 
>>
>>>>seriously
>>>>
>>>>>taken
>>>>>
>>>>>>into account.
>>>>>>2. Role and Responsibilities
>>>>>>a. ALAC is a standing advisory committee of the Board
>>>>>>b. Provides advice and guidance to the Board and to other 
>>>>>
>>>>organizations
>>>>
>>>>>within
>>>>>
>>>>>>ICANN on the needs of, and the impact of proposed policies 
>>>>>
>>on, the
>>
>>>>>Internet's
>>>>>
>>>>>>individual users ­ addressing pending issues and introducing 
>>>>>
>>new 
>>
>>>>issues
>>>>
>>>>>>relevant to Internet issues and within ICANN's purview.
>>>>>>c. Serves both as a resource for ICANN to pursue specific 
>>>>>
>>>>issues/questions
>>>>
>>>>>and
>>>>>
>>>>>>solicit user information, and as a meeting point for 
>>>>>
>>individual 
>>
>>>>Internet
>>>>
>>>>>users
>>>>>
>>>>>>and their organizations.
>>>>>>d. All ICANN policy-making entities will provide ALAC with 
>>>>>
>>appropriate>> > notice
>>
>>>>>>of upcoming and pending policy discussions and impending 
>>>>>
>>policy 
>>
>>>>decisions
>>>>
>>>>>to
>>>>>
>>>>>>ensure adequate opportunity for At-Large input
>>>>>>e. Through At-Large Structures, ALAC will engage in outreach 
>>>>>
>>to, and
>>
>>>>>education
>>>>>
>>>>>>of, individual Internet users about ICANN/ICANN issues and 
>>>>>
>>will 
>>
>>>>involve
>>>>
>>>>>users
>>>>>
>>>>>>and their representatives in decision making, aggregation of
>>>>>>views, and identification of relevant Internet user priorities
>>>>>>f. ALAC will work with other ICANN stakeholders to address 
>>>>>
>>issues and
>>
>>>>>develop
>>>>>
>>>>>>positions on relevant issues
>>>>>>g. ALAC will use on-line mechanisms as focal points for 
>>>>>
>>discussions 
>>
>>>>and
>>>>
>>>>>>information dissemination, ensuring broad public access to 
>>>>>
>>ALAC 
>>
>>>>activities
>>>>
>>>>>>h.
>>>>>>3. Structure/Membership
>>>>>>a. Should be structured so as to:
>>>>>>i. Provide effective, broadly inclusive mechanism for 
>>>>>
>>involving and
>>
>>>>>>representing individual Internet users in ICANN's policy and
>>>>>
>>>>>decision-making
>>>>>
>>>>>>activities
>>>>>>ii. Demonstrate that the organizations of which the ALAC is 
>>>>>
>>composed>> > actually
>>
>>>>>>do represent the populations they claim to represent.
>>>>>>iii. Have membership that is geographically diverse, and is 
>>>>>
>>selected>> > through a
>>
>>>>>>process which includes each At-Large Structure (group) that 
>>>>>
>>meets 
>>
>>>>specified
>>>>
>>>>>>criteria.
>>>>>>4. Involvement w/ Board, other entities
>>>>>>a. ALAC should have a liaison seat on the ICANN Board
>>>>>>b. It should have liaisons to other ICANN policy-making 
>>>>>
>>bodies as
>>
>>>>>appropriate
>>>>>
>>>>>>[To be defined.]
>>>>>>c. Appointment of four delegates to the Nominating Committee
>>>>>>5. "At-Large Structures" Criteria ­ new or existing 
>>>>>
>>organizations 
>>
>>>>that:
>>>>
>>>>>>a. Are open, participatory, and self-sustaining
>>>>>>b. Engage in outreach to, and education of, individual 
>>>>>
>>Internet 
>>
>>>>users about
>>>>
>>>>>>ICANN and ICANN issues
>>>>>>c. Involve individual Internet users in policy and decision-
>>>>>
>>making and
>>
>>>>>>activities related to involvement in ICANN, including 
>>>>>
>>soliciting 
>>
>>>>opinions
>>>>
>>>>>of
>>>>>
>>>>>>their members and having participatory mechanisms for the 
>>>>>
>>>>discussion and/or
>>>>
>>>>>>development of policies, aggregating views, and identifying 
>>>>>
>>relevant>> > Internet
>>
>>>>>>user priorities concerning ICANN
>>>>>>d. Maintain transparent and publicly accessible processes 
>>>>>
>>for 
>>
>>>>input, policy
>>>>
>>>>>>development, and decision-making
>>>>>>e. Post current information about the organization's aims, 
>>>>>
>>structure,>> > >membership, working mechanisms and current leadership
>>
>>>>>>f. Are open for new individual members
>>>>>>g. Are able to maintain themselves without requiring funding 
>>>>>
>>from 
>>
>>>>ICANN
>>>>
>>>>>>h. Are able to guarantee and demonstrate the real identity 
>>>>>
>>of their
>>
>>>>>>members and
>>>>>>to provide the relevant anagraphical data in electronic form.
>>>>>>6. At-Large Structure Designation/Development
>>>>>>a. ICANN should post and distribute a call for At-Large 
>>>>>
>>Structures,>> > providing
>>
>>>>>>organizations with an appropriate period of time apply to be 
>>>>>
>>>>eligible to
>>>>
>>>>>>participate in the initial ALAC.
>>>>>>b. Organizations fulfilling the criteria can apply to become 
>>>>>
>>At-Large
>>
>>>>>>Structures at any time and participate in the ALAC as 
>>>>>
>>appropriate>> > (immediately
>>
>>>>>>or during next selection cycle depending on process).
>>>>>>c. It will be the ALAC's responsibility:
>>>>>>i. to alter or update the admission criteria for new Structures;
>>>>>>ii. to exclude from itself any Structure which, after 
>>>>>
>>appropriate>> > >verification,
>>
>>>>>>fails to meet the current criteria;
>>>>>>iii. to state whether any prospective Structure meets the 
>>>>>
>>criteria and
>>
>>>>>>thus can
>>>>>>be accepted in the process. Deliberations of type i) and ii) 
>>>>>
>>require a
>>
>>>>>>majority
>>>>>>vote of 2/3 of the ALAC.
>>>>>>d. At Large Structures will not be required to fund ICANN or 
>>>>>
>>the 
>>
>>>>costs of
>>>>
>>>>>the
>>>>>
>>>>>>ALAC, even if partially.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>7. ALAC Composition (options)
>>>>>>a. (Variable membership) One member from each At-Large Structure
>>>>>>b. (Fixed membership) Fixed number from each region (ICANN has
>>>>>
>>>>>traditionally
>>>>>
>>>>>>addressed geographic diversity based on five regions of the 
>>>>>
>>world) 
>>
>>>>(the
>>>>
>>>>>>"Alexander plan")
>>>>>>c. Fixed membership, half appointed and half elected.
>>>>>>8. ALAC Funding and Staffing ALAC (options)
>>>>>>a. The ALAC could be funded either by its members, by ICANN, 
>>>>>
>>or by 
>>
>>>>some
>>>>
>>>>>>combination of the two.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>###
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>2
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>-------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>
>>--------
>>
>>>>>>To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-
>>>>>
>>unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de>> > >For additional commands, e-mail: 
>>atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de
>>
>>>>>--------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>
>>-------
>>
>>>>>To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-
>>>>
>>unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de>> > For additional commands, e-mail: 
>>atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de
>>
>>>>>--------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>
>>-------
>>
>>>>>To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-
>>>>
>>unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de>> > For additional commands, e-mail: 
>>atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de
>>
>>>>
>>>>----------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>-----
>>
>>>>To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
>>>>For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-
>>>
>>help@lists.fitug.de> 
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Esther Dyson                    Always make new mistakes!
>>>chairman, EDventure Holdings
>>>writer, Release 3.0 (on Website below)
>>>edyson@edventure.com
>>>1 (212) 924-8800    --   fax  1 (212) 924-0240
>>>104 Fifth Avenue (between 15th and 16th Streets; 20th floor)
>>>New York, NY 10011 USA
>>>http://www.edventure.com
>>>
>>>The conversation continues..... at
>>>http://www.edventure.com/conversation/
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>-----------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>----
>>
>>>To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
>>>For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>-- 
>>------
>>James Love, Consumer Project on Technology
>>http://www.cptech.org, mailto:love@cptech.org
>>voice: 1.202.387.8030; mobile 1.202.361.3040
>>
>>
>>-------------------------------------------------------------------
>>--
>>To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
>>For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de
>>
>>
> 
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
> For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de
> 
> 
> 


-- 
------
James Love, Consumer Project on Technology
http://www.cptech.org, mailto:love@cptech.org
voice: 1.202.387.8030; mobile 1.202.361.3040


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de