[NCUC-DISCUSS] Scope creep and renegade was Re: NCUC Statement on PRISM?

[Dan Krimm]

Don't know the five-pronged version.  Larry didn't present that in his
book, only mentioned he'd adapted his four-way version from somewhere else.

As for software code, it certainly is a new form of human-devised
architecture that most certainly constrains us even while it sometimes
empowers us (but *whom* it empowers is the million-dollar question).  But
as I mentioned, legal code and market forces also constrain software code
in many ways -- this stuff all has cross-influences on each other.

No doubt at all that the digital-tech revolution is the Gutenberg
Revolution of our era, and it has already had profound effects on society,
culture, and especially *power*.  I see it as the "nuclear power" of the
21st Century, and it can be used productively or destructively.  And I *do*
think it will change some fundamental aspects of how society glues itself
together, and how humans embed themselves in that network.  Whether we are
collectively smart enough to avoid the pitfalls on the downside I can't
predict.  The jury is still out.  Many individuals on the planet are smart
enough, but the collective is something completely different, and how we
evolve collectively depends a great deal on how we set up the *political
structures* of technical evolution that shape how the collective glues
itself together through its technology.

But, despite Ray Kurzweil, I don't think we are destined to become Borg
(ala Star Trek) any time very soon...  ;-)

Dan


--
Any opinions expressed in this message are those of the author alone and do
not necessarily reflect any position of the author's employer.



At 5:41 PM +0100 10/29/13, JFC Morfin wrote:
>Dear Dan,
>
>I would be interested in the five-pronged vision. IMHO, the problem
>we face is that the code is the law is the law. This is something Man
>has never faced before. Epistemologically, we have known four legal
>layers identified by Aristotle:
>
>- themis: the law of the Greek gods. The Plato/Aristotle debate
>stalled until we replaced the law of the gods by the scientific laws
>of nature. This was until it bluntly forked in 1889 when Poincare
>(non-resolution of the n-body problem) started the current
>identification of nature as a deterministic fractal chaos. Then, we
>tried to keep considering things as we have done for millenary, but
>this is not very smooth. This is relativity and quantum physics. This
>is what Alvin Tofler identified in 1970 as a general disease that he
>called "future shock": too many changes in too little time.
>
>- patria: the law of the family, that extended to the city (or the
>gang as in mafias) as the monarch's family law/practice.
>
>- nomos: the law agreed among citizens through a democratic process.
>This presupposed a "philia" (i.e. a friendly brotherhood mutual
>trust). This was managed (as per today) through three "archonies":
>the leading magistrate (eponymous archon) in charge of policy, the
>archon in charge of the internal and religious life of the City
>(Basileus), and the archon in charge of external relations and war
>(Polemarch) supervising the strategos council. The number of people
>involved (demography), and events like e-Snowden (showing us at WWW,
>whole world war), eroded that philia and kills the trust.
>
>- architectonics: this is the architecture of architectures. Until
>now, architectonics was about the care of the human environment and
>the building of houses, cities, roads, etc. With the dramatic
>increase of networks, architectonics is not only about the
>construction and maintenance of the walls of the City; it is also to
>build the real new digital environment, the digital soil of the City.
>Up to now, we have used the world, and now we are building (and
>polluting) it. Aristotle, as we still do, considered that the
>politicians could be in charge of the City's architectonics: (1) this
>is no more sustainable (2) we do not know if politicians can scale to
>the Architarch new magister responsibility. For example, "green
>parties" think the Architarch should be at least a co-first magistrate.
>
>The result is that if "the medium is the message", and if the law
>that builds the medium influences the message, to the point that -
>when the message becomes (as per Mc Luhan's loved pun) the massage -
>the code is the law becomes the medium of the law. This becomes
>intricate, hence complex. In this context, votes become irrelevant,
>and the decision process must adapt. This is because what you can say
>depends on the law that everyone accepts when hearing you. IMHO, this
>is what MS-ism is about: everyone agrees that everyone can use a law
>that permits him/her to be heard and securely protected. This is the
>polycratic equivalent to the democratic vote. Making the vote concept
>defined, accepted, and respected in Athens was probably as difficult
>as MS-ism for us.
>
>The question is: are we smart enough to scale and enter the
>digisphere of our new world?
>jfc
>
>At 00:04 29/10/2013, Dan Krimm wrote:
>>This sounds like a reference to Larry Lessig's book "Code and Other Laws of
>>Cyberspace" but it's incomplete.  SW code is only part of one of four forms
>>of "code" that Larry puts forth (adapting from someone else's five-pronged
>>vision):
>>
>>  (1) Legal Code (constitutions, statutes, regulations, treaties -- all
>>enforced by state coercion)
>>
>>  (2) Social Code (social norms: cultural self-regulation)
>>
>>  (3) Market Code (economic dynamics)
>>
>>  (4) Architectural Code (physical laws of nature, terrestrial geography,
>>human architecture -- including software code)
>>
>>
>>They *all* play a role in constraining the range of actions of human
>>societies.
>>
>>So the answer to "code is law" is: yes, *inclusively*, but not *exclusively*.
>>
>>Don't get too excited about software taking over everything, because
>>software itself is constrained by all the other forms of code, especially
>>including Legal and Market Codes.
>>
>>ICANN, BTW, seems to operate a great deal on Social Code (consensus
>>agreements), which is the softest of them all when push comes to shove.
>>
>>And have no doubt, push *will* come to shove when it really matters to the
>>Powers That Be.
>>
>>Dan
>>
>>
>>--
>>Any opinions expressed in this message are those of the author alone and do
>>not necessarily reflect any position of the author's employer.
>>
>>
>>
>>At 5:02 PM -0500 10/28/13, Jorge Amodio wrote:
>> >OK I'm back in the office, and seating.
>> >
>> >Let me a story that you can research by yourself. During the Echelon days,
>> >do you know how many lines of code the NSA had to compromise to gain
>> >access to long distance microwave links in Brazil ? ... Zero ... it only
>> >took a corrupt enough government official and old hard cash ... so your
>> >"Code is Law" is not good when "Cash is King" ...
>> >
>> >Are there still corrupt government officials in Brazil (and everywhere
>> >else) you bet !! Do some research about all the corruption going on with
>> >the 2014 World Cup ... I'll give you a link for
>> >starters
>>
>><http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/may/15/brazil-bribery-scandal-politicians>http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/may/15/brazil-bribery-scandal-politicians
>> >
>> >Does Brazil engages in domestic espionage ? You bet !! ...
>> ><http://www.fidh.org/en/americas/brazil/14173-brazil-must-investiga
>>
>>te-illegal-spying-and-infiltration-activities>http://www.fidh.org/en/americas/brazil/14173-brazil-must-investigate-illegal-spying-and-infiltration-activities
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >-J
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 4:13 PM, Marc Perkel
>> ><<mailto:marc at churchofreality.org>marc at churchofreality.org> wrote:
>> >
>> >As to enforcement I'm with EFF on the theory that "Code is Law" and that
>> >if we can control the protocols and if we can make the requirements for
>> >open source be a required policy (IE - you can't sell a router in most
>> >countries if not open to spyware inspection) then we can prevent nations
>> >from being able to break the law in the first place.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >On 10/28/2013 12:40 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
>> >
>> >>Hi,
>> >>
>> >>I don't go a far as some in seeing the ICANN version of the MS model as
>> >>necessarily fit for prime time world government.  Though I do see the
>> >>evolution of new multistakeholder models as producing good democratic
>> >>improvement to the current national and international methods of doing
>> >>things in the general case.
>> >>
>> >>I do however see the necessity of Internet governance not falling into
>> >>the control of multi-lateral groups that include nothing but the second
>> >>order representatives of governments that may or may not have a clue
>> >>about what is going on.   Mutlistakeholder governance of the Internet is
>> >>the best option we have for Ig in my opinion.  As far I am concerned
>> >>ICANN is one of the models that is currently in the crucible and I find
>> >>it useful both from a governance and an experimental perspective
>> >>
>> >>I am fine with the multilateral junta having an equal voice to other
>> >>stakeholders, but not a controlling voice or even a vetoing voice.
>> >>
>> >>As for armies to enforce the edicts of MSism:  that is what professional
>> >>operational staff with their 'armies' of compliance cops are supposed to
>> >>be for.  Normatively, we make the policy, the professional staff use them
>> >>to police the Internet using contractual compliance to make the Internet
>> >>fit for the people.  Or something like that.
>> >>
>> >>avri
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>On 28 Oct 2013, at 15:09, Dan Krimm wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>Using Bill's dichotomy of multi-stakeholderism versus multi-lateralism
>> >>>(functional representation versus geographic representation), these
>>are in
>> >>>some sense two orthogonal ways to slice the pie.  There seems to be a
>> >>>notion among MSism advocates that MLism has been a failure and that MSism
>> >>>can step in to save the day.
>> >>>
>> >>>I'm highly skeptical about this.  In fact, these two dynamics exist
>>in and
>> >>>around each other.  At ICANN, MLism encroaches upon MSism in the form of
>> >>>the GAC.  At the national/international level of MLism (and to a lesser
>> >>>extent at lower levels), MSism exists as "special interest
>> lobbies."  (When
>> >>>I first became involved at ICANN, I was nonplussed to realize that "the
>> >>>lobbyists are making all the policy directly without any
>> >>>publicly-accountable representatives getting in the way!"  I still think
>> >>>there is an element of truth to this view, though I've expanded it
>> >>>considerably since then.)
>> >>>
>> >>>The practical difference between these two models right now is that
>>MLists
>> >>>have military and economic power to enforce their desires, while MSists
>> >>>have voluntary good-faith consensus-building "on the honor system" to
>>hope
>> >>>for agreement along the way.
>> >>>
>> >>>My gut feeling is that the MLists have viewed ICANN up until recently
>>as a
>> >>>bunch of kids playing in the sandbox.  As long as nothing matters very
>> >>>much, they don't pay attention.  Which is why GAC is, from the GNSO PoV,
>> >>>such a dismal failure.
>> >>>
>> >>>But the shenanigans of GAC over the last couple years speak to growing
>> >>>attention of the MLists, and I think it is just the start -- a
>> warning shot
>> >>>across the bow.  If they don't get their way, they will figure out new
>> >>>strategies to attack the MS system.  There are ample
>> opportunities for them.
>> >>>
>> >>>Consider that root operators adhere to ICANN "rules" on a voluntary basis
>> >>>as a path of least resistance.  There is no military (i.e., ML
>>regulatory)
>> >>>enforcement of this, just a sort of "what else is better?" attitude.
>> >>>
>> >>>FSo for example, one other point of attack for MLists would be to take
>> >>>control over the root servers directly with their superior tools of
>> >>>enforcement (ICANN doesn't have an army, though it is beginning to grow a
>> >>>bit in economic resources).  Then they can just ignore ICANN
>> utterly and go
>> >>>on and do whatever they choose.  There are lots of ways to "route around
>> >>>damage" and it depends on who is doing the routing and what they consider
>> >>>"damage" to be.
>> >>>
>> >>>Bottom line: I don't think MSism as implemented at ICANN has any
>> >>>significant hope of scaling up to the level of influence that MLism
>>has at
>> >>>this time.  To think that consensus can be achieved without hard
>> >>>enforcement is dreamy, but not realistic to me.  Stakeholders
>> play along as
>> >>>long as the negotiated solution is better than any alternative.  But as
>> >>>soon as some alternative to negotiated solution is better, they will
>> >>>inevitably walk away from the table, and nobody is going to force them to
>> >>>come back.
>> >>>
>> >>>To think that you can govern the world without armies and national
>> >>>(sometimes significantly private) wealth is to ignore the realities of
>> >>>human nature.
>> >>>
>> >>>To endeavor to take this path at this time is really scary to
>> me.  MSism is
>> >>>not at all ready for prime time.  It's just a bunch of kids playing
>>in the
>> >>>sandbox, and when things get real the parents will come in and
>> lay down the
>> >>>law with real enforcement.  (I know this flips some folks' ideas of kids
>> >>>and adults on its head: real adults rationally address consensus
>> while kids
>> >>>fight over power.  But when it comes to matters of real power, adults in
>> >>>positions of power become kids and often don't play well together.)
>> >>>
>> >>>I'm all for trying to add MS dynamics to existing ML institutions, to
>> >>>increase the breadth of popular voice in the system.  But trying to take
>> >>>ICANN as a platform to build on is just not workable, IMHO.
>> >>>
>> >>>Institutional structures need to be built to channel human impulses in
>> >>>productive ways, and the structures that exist at ICANN have
>> betrayed clear
>> >>>and systemic limitations. They only work to the extent that not *too*
>>much
>> >>>is depending upon them.  The more serious things get, the more these
>> >>>structures break down, and I see this only getting worse as the
>> things that
>> >>>ICANN does become increasingly important to power players
>> outside of ICANN.
>> >>>
>> >>>Dan
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>--
>> >>>Any opinions expressed in this message are those of the author
>> alone and do
>> >>>not necessarily reflect any position of the author's employer.
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>At 10:57 AM -0400 10/28/13, Avri Doria wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>>Content-Type: multipart/signed;
>> >>>>boundary="Apple-Mail=_B20AE3CF-89B3-468C-8FF3-2FBC7C03CE6D";
>> >>>>protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1
>> >>>>
>> >>>>Hi,
>> >>>>
>> >>>>We will have to agree to disagree on this because I think that
>> >>>>multistakeholdersim builds on the other forms of democracy and
>> is itself a
>> >>>>form of participatory democracy - we participate by voting in some
>>parts,
>> >>>>by stakeholder participation in other parts, direct democracy (voting on
>> >>>>each and every issue) in yet other parts and rough consensus of
>> >>>>individuals in still other parts.  The multistakeholder system itself is
>> >>>>formed of many democratic forms and leads to a larger more inclusive
>> >>>>democracy.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>I see representational democracy as just one part of democracy,
>> a critical
>> >>>>one, but not the entire story.  And not one that works very will in the
>> >>>>absence of some other forms of participatory democracy.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>For me a big part of ICANN is figuring out how to make this form of
>> >>>>participatory democracy work as well as possible to represent our
>> >>>>diversity of interests.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>avri
>> >>>>
>> >>>>On 28 Oct 2013, at 09:13, Avri Doria wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>>>Hi,
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>Not all democracy involves direct representational democracy in
>>choosing
>> >>>>>each person.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>The people in the Board who picked Fadi, were selected in various
>>ways -
>> >>>>>all of which are arguably forms of democratic (se)election.
>>Include one
>> >>>>>of which who was elected by representatives we had elected. (yes in
>>that
>> >>>>>case 3 of them had been selected by the Board)
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>Participatory democracy involves many forms, some of which a
>> >>>>>representational voting events, some of which are nominating committee
>> >>>>>events and some of which require someone who was elected, appointing
>> >>>>>someone, who  appoints someone else.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>I did not elect the Supreme court justices or the Fed Chairman and yet
>> >>>>>they are part of democracy.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>For better or worse, Fadi was selected by people the community put in
>> >>>>>the role to do such things.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>As fat as I am concerned that is how representational democracty works
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>avri
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>On 28 Oct 2013, at 06:54, Jorge Amodio wrote:
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>>What democracy ? I didn't vote for Fadi ... Or any of the board
>>members
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>-Jorge
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>On Oct 28, 2013, at 1:11 AM, Avri Doria
>> >>>>>>><mailto:avri at ella.com><avri at ella.com> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>Hi,
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>In my view there is no better alternative to these experiments with
>> >>>>>>>ever improving MSism at all level of the governance
>> architecture.  Sure
>> >>>>>>>the ICANN implementation, as well as the other
>> implementations in other
>> >>>>>>>I* and IGF as well as in other subject areas, need great improvement,
>> >>>>>>>But for now, in my opinion, the are the best approaches there are on
>> >>>>>>>participatory democracy governance.
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>Of course we have to be careful what we are asking for.  And we have
>> >>>>>>>to be involved every step of the way.
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>Obviously we have a different view of scope.
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>avri
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>On 28 Oct 2013, at 02:01, Dan Krimm wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>To the extent that Fadi is trying to address Internet Governance
>> >>>>>>>>generally
>> >>>>>>>>(forgive me if I am reading too much into his actions?), that would
>> >>>>>>>>seem to
>> >>>>>>>>be out of scope, regardless of whether ICANN/IANA and general-IG
>>both
>> >>>>>>>>would
>> >>>>>>>>benefit from internationalization.
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>As for multistakeholderism, in principle this all sounds
>> great, but in
>> >>>>>>>>practice it seems to have fallen far short of its intended
>> >>>>>>>>potential.  In
>> >>>>>>>>practice is where the rubber hits the road, and in practice MSism at
>> >>>>>>>>ICANN
>> >>>>>>>>has recently fallen prey to ad hoc action when some "more equal than
>> >>>>>>>>others" stakeholders decide the outcome is not to their liking.
>>They
>> >>>>>>>>apparently start to think along the lines of "God is not Mocked."
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>I see MSism as still an experimental work-in-progress, hardly with
>> >>>>>>>>all the
>> >>>>>>>>bugs worked out, and not necessarily "ready for prime time"
>> in terms of
>> >>>>>>>>overall world governance.  The only reason it has worked as free
>>from
>> >>>>>>>>collapse at ICANN as it has up to now, I think, is that the big
>> >>>>>>>>Powers That
>> >>>>>>>>Be in the world (nations and big corporations) hadn't really seen
>> >>>>>>>>ICANN as
>> >>>>>>>>all that meaningful in their general scheme of things.  The more
>> >>>>>>>>important
>> >>>>>>>>ICANN's actions become, the more the big powers will pound on it to
>> >>>>>>>>shape
>> >>>>>>>>it to their desires.  I think you've only seen the bare beginning
>> >>>>>>>>of this
>> >>>>>>>>in the ad hoc shenanigans of the last few years.  Just beginning to
>> >>>>>>>>rev up
>> >>>>>>>>the engines.  MSism has not reached up out of the play-pen to play
>> >>>>>>>>with the
>> >>>>>>>>Big Boys yet, as far as I can tell, and it remains to be seen how
>> >>>>>>>>it will
>> >>>>>>>>fare if it is brought up to the Big Time.
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>That's a big risk, IMHO.  Be careful what you ask for, you might
>> >>>>>>>>get it.
>> >>>>>>>>And if it doesn't turn out how you expected, what then?  This whole
>> >>>>>>>>MSism
>> >>>>>>>>experiment is a huge exercise in unintended consequences (in the gap
>> >>>>>>>>between theory and practice), if you ask me.  It's worth doing the
>> >>>>>>>>experiment, but I'd be more comfortable if the experiment were
>> >>>>>>>>closer to
>> >>>>>>>>completion before trying it out on anything *really* important.  I
>> >>>>>>>>don't
>> >>>>>>>>see it anywhere near that point, yet.
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>Dan
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>--
>> >>>>>>>>Any opinions expressed in this message are those of the author alone
>> >>>>>>>>and do
>> >>>>>>>>not necessarily reflect any position of the author's employer.
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>At 12:59 AM -0400 10/28/13, avri doria wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>Hi,
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>In terms of legitimacy, isn't one of the topics that needs to be
>> >>>>>>>>>explored
>> >>>>>>>>>internationalisation of ICANN, and IANA? Isn't that a topic at the
>> >>>>>>>>>top of
>> >>>>>>>>>the list? That seems to be in scope.
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>And the ICANN Board seems to be on-board as Fadi was meeting with a
>> >>>>>>>>>subset
>> >>>>>>>>>of them (including the Chair) and AC/SO leadership every morning. I
>> >>>>>>>>>wasn't
>> >>>>>>>>>in the meetings, and don't know who the rep from gnso was since
>> >>>>>>>>>Jonathan
>> >>>>>>>>>wasn't there, so don't know what the level of buy in was, but I
>> >>>>>>>>>heard no
>> >>>>>>>>>complaints on the ground.
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>So whatever we might say about scope creep Fadi is not
>> being renegade.
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>As for scope creep Fadi and the leaders of the other I* seem to be
>> >>>>>>>>>acting
>> >>>>>>>>>in coordinated faction, so it is within their scope, and would seem
>> >>>>>>>>>to be
>> >>>>>>>>>in scope for any one of them to act on I*'s behalf in
>>organizational
>> >>>>>>>>>talks with governments on a meeting planning.
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>So, in this case at least, I see no fundamental problem of
>> >>>>>>>>>overreach by
>> >>>>>>>>>Fadi.  And, whether he fully understand what it means, he
>> seems to be
>> >>>>>>>>>carrying the banner of multistakeholderism into these discussions.
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>So, at least this once, I am not ready to join in Fadi-attack.
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>avri
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>Sent from a T-Mobile 4G LTE Device
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>_______________________________________________
>> >>>>>>>>>Ncuc-discuss mailing list
>> >>>>>>>>><mailto:Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org>Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
>> >>>>>>>>><http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discus
>> s>http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>_______________________________________________
>> >>>>>>>Ncuc-discuss mailing list
>> >>>>>>><mailto:Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org>Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
>> >>>>>>><http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss>
>> http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>_______________________________________________
>> >>>>>>Ncuc-discuss mailing list
>> >>>>>><mailto:Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org>Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
>> >>>>>><http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss>h
>> ttp://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>_______________________________________________
>> >>>>>Ncuc-discuss mailing list
>> >>>>><mailto:Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org>Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
>> >>>>><http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss>ht
>> tp://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>_______________________________________________
>> >>>>Ncuc-discuss mailing list
>> >>>><mailto:Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org>Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
>> >>>><http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss>htt
>> p://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss
>> >>>>
>> >>>
>> >>>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>> >>>Content-Disposition: attachment;
>> >>>     filename=signature.asc
>> >>>Content-Type: application/pgp-signature;
>> >>>     name=signature.asc
>> >>>Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
>> >>>
>> >>>Attachment converted: Macintosh HD:signature 92.asc (    /    )
>>(005A3B0B)
>> >>>_______________________________________________
>> >>>Ncuc-discuss mailing list
>> >>><mailto:Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org>Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
>> >>><http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss>http
>> ://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss
>> >>>
>> >>_______________________________________________
>> >>Ncuc-discuss mailing list
>> >><mailto:Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org>Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
>> >><http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss>http:
>> //lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >_______________________________________________
>> >Ncuc-discuss mailing list
>> ><mailto:Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org>Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
>> ><http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss>http:/
>> /lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >_______________________________________________
>> >Ncuc-discuss mailing list
>> ><mailto:Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org>Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
>> ><http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss>http:/
>> /lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >_______________________________________________
>> >Ncuc-discuss mailing list
>> >Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
>> >http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>Ncuc-discuss mailing list
>>Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
>>http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss

_______________________________________________
Ncuc-discuss mailing list
Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss