[P2P-F] Fwd: [NetworkedLabour] [Debate-List] (Fwd) On Avaaz clicktivism (Richard Poplak) ... On praising the G7... surely not, especially for climate malgovernance? (Avaaz, GP, critics)

Sun Aug 16 15:34:23 CEST 2015

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: peter waterman <peterwaterman1936 at gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 2:10 PM
Subject: Re: [NetworkedLabour] [Debate-List] (Fwd) On Avaaz clicktivism
(Richard Poplak) ... On praising the G7... surely not, especially for
climate malgovernance? (Avaaz, GP, critics)
To: Patrick Bond <pbond at mail.ngo.za>, WSFDiscuss List <
WorldSocialForum-Discuss at openspaceforum.net>
Cc: "<networkedlabour at lists.contrast.org>" <
networkedlabour at lists.contrast.org>, DEBATE <debate-list at fahamu.org>

On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 6:28 AM, Patrick Bond <pbond at mail.ngo.za> wrote:

> Don’t let the baby eat carbs, and other reasons why Avaaz won’t change the
> world
>
>    - Richard Poplak
>    - Life, etc <http://www.dailymaverick.co.za/section/life-etc/>
>    - 23 Jul 2015 11:54 (South Africa)
>
> [image: Poplak-on-AvaazSUBBED.jpg]
> <http://www.dailymaverick.co.za/article/2015-07-23-dont-let-the-baby-eat-carbs-and-other-reasons-why-avaaz-wont-change-the-world/>
>
> Remember when all your friends had a great dot.org idea, all of which
> were one click away from transforming the world into a rainbow-tinged
> Utopia? Me neither. But then my circle doesn’t include an
> Oxford/Harvard/Kennedy School Brahman like Ricken Patel, founder of Avaaz.
> The site focuses on change through online petitioning, and it is currently
> “helping” concerned South Africans battle the African National Congress’s
> (ANC’s) draconian proposed internet regulations. But middle-class South
> Africans don’t need help to not leave the house for a good cause. RICHARD
> POPLAK wonders if Avaaz hasn’t finally perfected the art of whining from
> behind electrified walls.
>
> *He had fallen under a spell and was writing letters to everyone under the
> sun. He was so stirred by these letters that from the end of June he moved
> from place to place with his valise full of papers* *… Hidden in the
> country, he wrote endlessly, frantically, to the newspapers, to people in
> public life, to friends and relatives and at last to the dead, his own
> obscure dead, and finally the famous dead.*
>
> Saul Bellow, *Herzog*
>
> Let’s begin with the definition of a social media mishap: a
> professor/celebrity foodie dispenses infant nutritional advice over
> Twitter. The perpetrator in question is none other than Tim Noakes, prince
> of the low-carb, high-fat diet craze, and the man who pummelled
> middle-class South African bookshelves with *The Real Meal Revolution*.
> The scenario: a mother wanted to know what she should start feeding her
> baby, and in response Noakes advocated “low carbohydrate, moderate protein,
> nutrient-dense food”. The tweet was reported to the Health Professions
> Council of South Africa, and a hearing was set for early June.
>
> The issue is not whether we should be turning our babies into svelte
> supermodels before they can walk. Nor is it whether hamburgers are
> healthier than tuna salad garnished with air.
>
> The issue is whether this is an issue.
>
> And yet, one of those whizzbang new “agents for social change” — AKA a
> website with an .org at the end of it — believes Tim Noakes’s baby food
> Tweet
> <https://secure.avaaz.org/en/petition/Health_Professions_Council_of_South_Africa_Support_Prof_Tim_Noakes_in_his_quest_to_improve_eating_guidelines/?pv=3>
> is worthy of an online petition in support of the professor and his “quest
> to improve eating guidelines”. Or, rather, the website’s community believes
> so. The 16,006 “signatures” “signed” in support of Noakes cited the 150,000
> copies of *Real Meal* he’s sold, and the “new book on infant feeding”
> he’s been working on “for the past year”. The petition hopes to reach
> 20,000 signatures backing this “initiative” at some point in the near
> future. This is what Avaaz.org does—blast petitions into the ether and, in
> some cases, develop robust letter writing campaigns. Each and every cause
> scrolling across their website’s carousel — “Stop food waste, end hunger!”;
> “ISA: Save our Oceans!”; “From G7 to Paris: Goodbye Fossil Fuels!”— would
> bring a smile to the face of the most hardened progressive. This was what
> the internet was supposed to be about! Coding change, connecting people,
> rewiring the world.
>
> *Anything *is possible.
>
> But anything is *not* possible. Avaaz proves the limitations of liberal
> discourse in the internet age as definitively as any site online. Avaaz has
> entered the South African conversation on a number of occasions: there are,
> after all, many animals in this country, and therefore numerous
> opportunities to save them. But their most recent South African campaign is
> somewhat different. Entitled “SA internet ████ censorship”, an e-mail blast
> sent out to Avaazers and their ilk went like this:
>
> Dear friends across South Africa,
>
> *A new set of regulations threatens the very essence of our internet
> freedom.* They want to police and crack down on our digital democracy - but
> we are thousands of South Africans getting this email and *we have the
> power to bring down their barricades. *
>
> *But we only have 48 hours to do it.*
>
> If the Film and Publication Board’s (FPB’s) new internet regulations are
> implemented, they’d have the right to *review and classify almost every
> blog, video, and personal website* — even Avaaz campaigns like this one.
> Think *apartheid-era censorship*, reloaded and super-charged for an
> all-out assault on our digital freedoms.
>
> *Public consultations end this week*, and the FPB is on the back foot
> because their regulations have been so widely ridiculed — *a massive
> viral response could finally pull the plug *on these dangerous
> regulations.
>
> To make it happen, all of us need to *sign and share urgently* — Avaazers
> make up 1% of the internet users in South Africa so if each of us gets just
> one person to sign, we can reach 2%. If each of us gets two people to sign,
> we can get to 3%, etc etc. *Sign now and share on Facebook, Twitter,
> e-mail *... everywhere …
>
> *(Bold courtesy of Avaaz)*
>
> So many questions. Who, I wanted to know, are “they”? What, I wondered, is
> a “digital democracy”, when did we get one, and what does “they’d have the
> right to review and classify almost every blog, video, and personal
> website” actually *mean*? The above six paragraphs are classic Avaaz, but
> also classic internet activism — a context-free mulch of “holy fuck!”
> declarations, followed by an invocation to post something on your Facebook
> status update while hysterically tweeting about the evils of *something*.
>
> And here’s the thing: the FPB’s proposed regulations are extraordinarily
> unpleasant. But they require more than a shouty e-mail to decipher. *(Ed *
> —* Exactly what Daily Maverick’s Julie Reid masterful presented in **Africa’s
> worst new Internet Censorship Law: Everything you don’t want to know – but
> need to*
> <http://www.dailymaverick.co.za/opinionista/2015-06-10-africas-worst-new-internet-censorship-law-everything-you-dont-want-to-know-but-need-to/#.VbFcJOiqqko>
> *)* They also fall into a far broader political story — the snail-like
> but unceasing attempts of the Zuma ANC to roll back freedom of expression,
> especially in the media. Ultra-conservative and ham-fisted, the FDB’s
> attempts at remaking the SABC circa 1988 is re-upped National Party
> nonsense. Things like:
>
> 5.1.1 Any person who intends to distribute any film, game, or certain
> publication in the Republic of South Africa shall first comply with section
> 18(1) of the Act by applying, in the prescribed manner, for registration as
> film or game and publications distributor.
>
> 5.1.2 In the event that such film, game or publication is in a digital
> form or format intended for distribution online using the internet or other
> mobile platforms, the distributor may bring an application to the board for
> the conclusion of an online distribution agreement, in terms of which the
> distributor, upon payment of the fee prescribed from time to time by the
> minister of the Department of Communications as the executive authority,
> may classify its online content on behalf of the board, using the board's
> classification guidelines and the Act …
>
> And also:
>
> 7.5 In the event that such content is a video clip on YouTube or any other
> global digital media platform, the board may of its own accord refer such
> video clip to the classification committee of the board for classification.
>
> 7.7 Upon classification, the board shall dispatch a copy of the
> classification decision and an invoice payable by the online distributor
> within 30 days, in respect of the classification of the content in question.
>
> But why did Avaaz choose not to include these clauses in the e-mail? Does
> Avaaz assume that Avaazers are too daft or too time-constrained to actually
> digest all the legalese? Indubitably. But if so, we must all die in a fiery
> pit, along with our classification committee of the board for
> classification-approved YouTube bar-mitzvah videos.
>
> This is a planet for adults, and citizenship is an active process. Almost
> every day in this country, people leave their homes in poorer communities
> in order to burn shit on the streets of their community. In quieter climes
> — in the middle-class enclaves in which we are told revolutions typically
> germinate — nothing happens. Nothing at all. Crickets.
>
> One begins to wonder if internet slacktivism isn’t a genius ploy by the
> establishment to geld those who would, in years past, have hit the streets
> en masse, looking to change the way government operates. The thought of
> something spontaneous — a rearing back against government policy — is
> almost laughable. Next month, Zwelinzima Vavi will host an “anti-corruption
> march,” but the amorphousness of the issue almost seems pulled from Avaaz’s
> playbook:
>
> *Who likes corruption? *
>
> *No one!*
>
> *What are we gonna do about it? *
>
> *Um …? *
>
> This stuff has become a cliché, but it doesn’t make it any less dangerous.
> This week, South Africans have to fight on two digital fronts. The first is
> the FPB and their attempts to equate our family videos with pornography.
> And the second is Avaaz and their endeavours to help us click our way to
> freedom. We need the ‘net, but we don’t *need* the ‘net, if you hear what
> I’m saying.
>
> The rules of history are: occasionally things need to be burned. No amount
> of clickbait is going to change that. Just ask Noakes. Last I checked, fat
> babies were still a good thing. *DM*
>
>
> -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: [Debate-List] On praising
> the G7... surely not, especially for climate malgovernance? (Avaaz, GP,
> critics) Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2015 23:42:04 +0200 From: Patrick Bond
> <pbond at mail.ngo.za> <pbond at mail.ngo.za>
>
>
> triplecrisis.com
>
> *Avaaz’s Climate Vanity <http://triplecrisis.com/avaazs-climate-vanity/>*
>
> *Upward gazing can be politically blinding*
>
> Patrick Bond <http://triplecrisis.com/author/patrick-bond/>
>
> Who’s not heard the great African revolutionary Amilcar Cabral’s
> injunction
> <https://www.marxists.org/subject/africa/cabral/1965/tnlcnev.htm>, fifty
> years ago, “*Tell no lies and claim no easy victories*”? If, like me,
> you’re a petit bourgeois who is hopeful for social progress, then let’s be
> frank: this advice hits at our greatest weakness, the temptation of
> back-slapping vanity.
>
> The leading framers for the 41-million strong clicktivist team from Avaaz
> need to remember Cabral. They over-reached ridiculously last week in
> praising the G7:
>
> [image: Bond Avaaz]
>
> *Many told us it was a pipe dream, but the G7 Summit of leading world
> powers just committed to getting the global economy off fossil fuels
> forever!!! Even the normally cynical media is raving that this is a huge
> deal. And it’s one giant step closer to a huge win at the Paris summit in
> December – where the entire world could unite behind the same goal of a
> world without fossil fuels – the only way to save us all from catastrophic
> climate change… Our work is far from done, but it’s a day to celebrate –
> click here to read more and say congratulations to everyone else in this
> incredibly wonderful community!!*
>
> Actually, according to *The Economist*
> <http://www.economist.com/news/international/21653964-why-g7-talking-about-decarbonisation-sort>*:
> *“*no fossil-fuel-burning power station will be closed down* in the
> immediate future as a result of this declaration. The goal will *not make
> any difference to the countries’ environmental policies*, since they are
> mostly consistent with this long-range goal anyway. Where they are not
> (some countries are increasing coal use, for example) they will *not be
> reined in* because of the new promises… the G7’s climate effort raises as
> many questions as it answers. The group seems to have *rejected proposals
> for more demanding targets*, such as decarbonisation by 2050.”
>
> Or *Time*
> <http://time.com/3918982/g7-summit-obama-united-states-isis-russia/>: “*The
> results were disappointing* to say the least… The G7 announced an
> ‘ambitious’ plan to phase out all fossil fuels worldwide by 2100.
> Unfortunately, *they didn’t make any concrete plans to scale back their
> own conventional fuel consumption.* That’s a big deal when 59 percent of
> historic global carbon dioxide emissions—meaning the greenhouse gases
> already warming the atmosphere—comes from these seven nations. Taken as a
> group, G7 coal plants produce twice the amount of CO2 as the entire African
> continent, and at least 10 times the carbon emissions produced by the 48
> least developed countries as a whole. *If the G7 is serious about
> tackling climate change, they should start at home*.”
>
> So what was going on, really? Here’s a talking head from the *Council on
> Foreign Relations*
> <http://atimes.com/2015/06/what-matters-and-what-doesnt-in-the-g7-climate-declaration/>
> (an imperialist braintrust): “The United States has long pressed for a*
> shift away from binding emissions reduction commitments* and toward a mix
> of nationally grounded emission-cutting efforts and binding international
> commitments to transparency and verification. European countries have often
> taken the other side, emphasizing the importance of binding targets (or at
> least policies) for cutting emissions. Now it looks like the* big
> developed countries are on the same page as the United States*. The
> language above is all about binding countries to transparency – and *there
> isn’t anything elsewhere in the communiqué about binding them to actual
> emissions goals*.”
>
> There is an even tougher critique from the left, e.g. from Oscar Reyes of
> the Institute for Policy Studies, who annotated the G7 climate communique
> here
> <http://genius.com/6767353/G7-leaders-declaration-g7-summit-climate-section/The-upper-end-of-the-latest-ipcc-recommendation-of-40-to-70-reductions-by-2050-compared-to-2010>.
> He lands many powerful blows, not least of which is that you simply cannot
> trust these politicians. This is well known
> <http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/07/02/us-g8-africa-idUSL0162462220080702>
> in Africa. Exactly a decade ago, Tony Blair led the (then-G8) Gleneagles
> Summit that made all manner of ambitious redistributive promises for the
> continent that weren’t fulfilled.
>
> Another promise to look at more critically is whether ‘net zero’ carbon
> emissions by 2100 will be gamed through ‘false solutions’ like Carbon
> Capture and Storage, dropping iron filings in the ocean to create algea
> blooms, and expansion of timber plantations to suck up CO2. The most
> serious watchdogs here, the ETC group
> <http://www.geoengineeringmonitor.org/2015/06/net-zero-is-not-zero-the-g7s-dystopian-decarbonization/>,
> ActionAid
> <http://www.actionaid.org/sites/files/actionaid/caught_in_the_net_actionaid.pdf>
> and Biofuelwatch
> <http://dcgeoconsortium.org/2014/11/10/uncertainties-is-an-understatement-when-it-comes-to-beccs/>,
> agree that the G7 needs to reverse its energy ministers’ recent endorsement
> of these Dr Strangelove strategies.
>
> Put it all together, and after last week’s Elmau G7 Summit, admits even
> Oxfam
> <http://www.euractiv.com/sections/sustainable-dev/ngos-unsure-lukewarm-g7-climate-deal-315218>
> (often also upward gazing), “This lukewarm summit result will *only make
> the fight harder, if not impossible*.”
>
> Avaaz are not only embarrassingly contradicted on their right flank. The
> organisation’s premature celebration is *dangerous. *After all, the
> conservative (pro-market pro-insiderism anti-activism) wing of ‘climate
> action’ politics – as distinct from climate *justice *advocacy – is
> gaming us all now, arguing that the Paris COP21 can result in a victory.
> Avaaz just amped up that narrative.
>
> Will the mild-mannered Climate Action Network (CAN) join a big all-in tent
> to maximise Paris popular mobilisations? In 2011 at the COP17, that’s the
> approach that civil society tried in Durban, to my regret. I think CJ
> activists drawing in CAN – and Avaaz – may be making a serious mistake
> <http://www.telesurtv.net/english/opinion/Climate-Movement-Across-Movements-20150326-0035.html>.
> For this surprising Avaaz spin – declaring victory at the G7 – compounds
> the essential problem of mis-estimating the rigour of the fight ahead.
>
> The reality: if we don’t dramatically change the balance of forces and
> applaud activists who do much more militant modes of engagement, then
> global COP malgovernance continues another 21 years. Civil disobedience has
> been breaking out
> <https://zcomm.org/znetarticle/reversing-climate-change-what-will-it-take/>
> in all sorts of blockadia spaces, and so surely Avaaz should put 99% of its
> climate advocacy effort into amplifying the work of those heroes?
>
> From Paris, one of the main organisers of COP21 protests, Maxime Combes,
> was suitably cynical
> <http://blogs.mediapart.fr/blog/maxime-combes/090615/linertie-du-g7-prepare-de-nouveaux-crimes-climatiques-decryptage>
> about the G7, which “had already committed in 2009 (in Italy) to not exceed
> 2° C and to achieve a reduction of at least 50% of global emissions by
> 2050. So nothing new in the 2015 declarations except that at that time they
> had also committed to reduce by 80% or more their own emissions by 2050. No
> mention of this target is present in the declaration this year.” Avaaz is
> young, yes, but still should be able to recognise *backsliding *over the
> half-dozen years.
>
> Last September, I was greatly heartened
> <http://www.telesurtv.net/english/opinion/Climate-Justice-Resurfaces-amidst-New-Yorks-Corporate-Sharks-20140924-0082.html>
> by Avaaz mobilising (not messaging), against what were my own prior
> predictions
> <http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=12381>
> (on *RealNews *from 4’00”, reflecting pessimism thanks partly to Avaaz’s
> awfully unfortunate New York subway adverts
> <https://twitter.com/pinelli_adrien/status/505485038381965312>, putting
> “hipsters and bankers in the same boat march”). That wonderful mass march
> linked the issues and put non-compromising placards high into the air (way
> higher than ‘climate action’ or pro-nuke or pro-cap-and-trade), and the
> next day, the Flood Wall Street protest hit corporations hard for a few
> hours. Avaaz and allies appropriately had us marching *away *from the UN,
> because after all nothing useful has happened there regarding air pollution
> – or any global crisis for that matter – since the 1987 Montreal Protocol
> addressed the ozone hole by banning CFCs.
>
> And I am also one who appreciates Avaaz’s excellent petition machinery.
> (It’s in use now generating awareness and solidarity for truly excellent
> anti-mining campaigns two hours south
> <https://secure.avaaz.org/en/petition/Investors_of_Mineral_commodities_LTD_MRC_Stop_forced_mining_on_South_Africas_Wild_Coast/?sTLrPib>
> and north
> <https://secure.avaaz.org/en/petition/Susan_Shabangu_Minister_of_Mineral_Resources_Reject_Ibutho_Coals_application_for_a_mine_on_the_boundary_of_iMfolozi/?pv=14>
> of where I live in Durban, for example.) So this is not a standard lefty
> critique of clicktivism. It is a recognition of how desperately important
> it is for Avaaz to retain maximum credibility in the mainstream and among
> hard-core activists alike. Endorsing the world’s 1% politicians is quite
> surreal, given how little they did last week in Bavaria, what with their
> 85-year time horizon and orientation to false solutions.
>
> Avaaz wasn’t alone, by the way. From a press release
> <http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/media-center/news-releases/Greenpeace-Responds-to-Climate-Progress-at-Todays-G7-Meeting/>
> I learned from Greenpeace’s international climate politics officer Martin
> Kaiser: “Elmau delivered.” Also, from Greenpeace US Energy Campaign
> director Kelly Mitchell, “Leaders at the G7 meeting have put forward a
> powerful call to move the global economy away from fossil fuels and toward
> a renewable energy future. Heading into the Paris climate meeting this
> year, it’s a significant step toward securing a commitment to 100%
> renewable energy by 2050.”
>
> Tell no lies, claim no easy victories. What I hope might happen is that in
> future Avaaz, Greenpeace and similar well-meaning activists might at least
> see it in their interest to tell the truth and intensify the battle
> *against* the leaders of the G7 (and the BRICS too) *and especially
> against *the corporations that yank their chains. Instead of Avaaz
> massaging <https://www.facebook.com/Avaaz?rf=106321336073398&filter=2>
> the G7 elites for “sending an immediate signal to dirty and clean energy
> investors that will help accelerate the clean-energy boom we desperately
> need,” as if capitalism can solve the climate crisis, why not re-boot the
> power relations?
>
> How about this wording, instead: “Since the G7 rulers finally recognise
> that fossil fuels must stay underground, *duh!*, but still* fail to act
> decisively to that end*, we in Avaaz condemn the politicians. We’ll
> redouble our efforts to target their biggest fossil investors. We’ll do so
> through not only divestment – achieved by small investor committees in
> wealthy Global North institutions – but now we’ll also turn Avaaz’s mighty
> 41-million strong listserve towards consumer boycotts of the corporations
> and especially the banks that have the most power over these G7-BRICS
> politicos. And we’ll get legal and media support for anyone blockading
> these firms, since the ‘necessity defence’ for civil disobedience is
> becoming much more vital to our world’s near-term survival. Even the Pope’s
> new climate Encylical agrees.”
>
> Wouldn’t that be a more satisfying and nutritious strategy than the
> climate junkfood email that millions just received from Avaaz? I really
> felt a little sick after consuming it. Surely Avaaz can see the merits of
> shifting the goalposts to the left each time they have a chance, and thus *enhancing
> the climate justice struggle* – not joining the G7 in a* fatal climate
> snuggle*.
>
> *Patrick Bond is author of *Politics of Climate Justice* and, in Durban,
> directs the University of KwaZulu-Natal Centre for Civil Society
> <http://ccs.ukzn.ac.za/>.*
>
> --
> To view previous posts, create a Google account with your current email
> and log in using gmail to access the archives.
> https://accounts.google.com/newaccount?hl=en
> ---
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "debate-list at fahamu.org" <debate-list at fahamu.org> group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to debate-list+unsubscribe at fahamu.org.
> To post to this group, send email to debate-list at fahamu.org.
> Visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/a/fahamu.org/group/debate-list/.
>
>
> --
> To view previous posts, create a Google account with your current email
> and log in using gmail to access the archives.
> https://accounts.google.com/newaccount?hl=en
> ---
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "
> debate-list at fahamu.org" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to debate-list+unsubscribe at fahamu.org.
> To post to this group, send email to debate-list at fahamu.org.
> Visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/a/fahamu.org/group/debate-list/.
>

-- 
*Recent publications*

1. 2014. From Coldwar Communism to the Global Justice Movement: Itinerary
of a Long-Distance Internationalist.
http://www.into-ebooks.com/book/from_coldwar_communism
_to_the_global_emancipatory_movement/ (Free). 2. 2014. Interface Journal
Special (Co-Editor), December 2014. 'Social Movement Internationalisms'.
(Free).3. 2014. with Laurence Cox, ‘Movement Internationalism/s’,
Interface: a Journal for and about Social Movements. (Editorial), Vol. 6
(2), pp. 1–12. 4. 2014. ‘The International Labour Movement in, Against and
Beyond, the Globalized and Informatized Cage of Capitalism and Bureaucracy.
(Interview). Interface: a Journal for and about Social Movements. Vol. 6
(2), pp. 35-58. 5. 2014. 'The Networked Internationalism of Labour's
Others', in Jai Sen (ed), Peter Waterman (co-ed), The Movement of
Movements: Struggles for Other Worlds  (Part I). (10 Euros). 6. 2015.
Waterman, Peter. ‘Beyond Labourism, Development and Decent Work’.
<https://escarpmentpress.org/globallabour/article/download/2338/2433>
Global Labour Journal, 2015, 6(2), pp. 246-50.

*More publications, click [////]*

_______________________________________________
NetworkedLabour mailing list
NetworkedLabour at lists.contrast.org
http://lists.contrast.org/mailman/listinfo/networkedlabour

-- 
Check out the Commons Transition Plan here at: http://commonstransition.org

P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net  - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net

<http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation>Updates:
http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens

#82 on the (En)Rich list: http://enrichlist.org/the-complete-list/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://lists.ourproject.org/pipermail/p2p-foundation/attachments/20150816/57045525/attachment-0001.htm 