---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Tue, 24 May 2005 12:26:55 +0200 (CEST)
From: EDRI-gram newsletter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: EDRI-gram newsletter - Special edition 3.10, 24 May 2005
============================================================
EDRI-gram
biweekly newsletter about digital civil rights in Europe
SPECIAL EDITION
Number 3.10, 24 May 2005
============================================================
Contents
============================================================
1. Report about UNESCO conference St. Petersburg
2. Council of Europe declaration on human rights and Internet
3. Interview with Sergei Smirnov, Human Rights Russia
4. New data protection authority in Romania
5. Agenda
6. About
============================================================
1. Report about UNESCO conference St. Petersburg
============================================================
>From 17 to 19 May UNESCO organised a large conference in St. Petersburg,
Russia, 'Between two phases of the World Summit on the Information
Society'. The 450 participants from all over the world were invited to the
luxurious Konstantinovsky Palace.
In her opening speech Françoise Rivière, the Assistant Director-General of
UNESCO, described the context of St. Petersburg conference and the special
involvement of UNESCO Paris head quarters with a session on cultural
diversity.
This session was the 4th of a series of thematic meetings held in 2005 in
the Information for All programme. In February Paris head quarters hosted
a conference on freedom of expression (see EDRI-gram 3.3), early in May
the capital of Mali (Bamako) hosted a conference on multi linguism in
cyberspace and on 10 May Paris head quarters debated about the use of ICT
for capacity building. The Bamako conference produced as main result a
clear recognition that the debate about the level of IT development must
be changed and in stead of just counting internet usage equal attention
should be given to lesser used languages, education and literacy programs.
The third meeting in Paris was dedicated to effective use of new methods
for learning, focussing on groups such as refugees, the visually impaired,
rural areas and the urban poor.
Rivière added that UNESCO will round up these discussions during the
second phase of WSIS in Tunis in November with a high level round table
about the question what knowledge suits what society. With this initiative
UNESCO clearly wants to move away from the overly technical concept of
information society towards an inclusive, equitable knowledge society. Not
an easy goal, she admitted with a grand smile, with 150 different tasks
already lined out for UNESCO in the WSIS plan of action adopted in Geneva
in the first phase. The only way to achieve concrete results was to create
broad partnerships and a multi-stakeholder approach. This latter concept
proved to be a hot topic during the 11 separate workshops organised the
next two days, together with strong criticism of the current imbalance
between intellectual property rights and access to public domain
knowledge.
The session on stakeholder partnerships recommended that UNESCO should set
up a new working group on multi-stakeholder partnerships, that should
develop ethical standards and guidelines for these partnership and learn
from the free and open software paradigm about the sharing of knowledge.
This conclusion was echoed by the rapporteur from the separate round table
of civil society representatives. Divina Frau-Meigs, professor at the
Sorbonne university in Paris, France and representative of the WSIS
science and academia Caucus, opened her contribution with a mostly
negative evaluation of the present state of the WSIS process from an NGO
perspective. She said most participants felt the process was moving back
from the goals set in Geneva, with governments in the developed world
trying to infiltrate the civil society representation with
government-oriented NGOs (GONGO) and governments in the developing
countries shying away from actions they supported in the first phase. On
the other hand, NGOs should also look at themselves, not being
democratically elected, how they can develop trust in their goals and
strategies. Ideally NGOs should function as pepper in the salad and plain
adversary towards plans to privatise public goods and implement new
surveillance methods. In all, she concluded the NGOs should continue to
participate in WSIS to represent the forgotten constituents of WSIS and
its inter governmental decision making.
The session on education for knowledge societies recommended a general
governance of knowledge, prevention of pure commercial development and
strong policy support from UNESCO for open educational sources. This was
broadened to all kinds of open content in the sharp conclusions from the
workshop on infrastructure. According to rapporteur Vladimir Minkin, the
chairman of ITU-Russia, UNESCO should use its influence in the United
Nations to endorse a digital public lending right and promote open
architectures and new methods to facilitate the global exchange of
knowledge. Though national governments should take care of digitising
their national patrimony and make sure it is available in the public
domain, UNESCO should broaden the funding for the Information for all
programme to include commercial partnerships.
Perhaps the strongest conclusions were presented by the rapporteur on the
session on freedom of expression in cyberspace, Taras Shevchenko, Director
of Kiev Institute of Media Law (Ukraine). Any form of self-regulation
should at least involve the media and journalists and ethics should be
developed by professionals themselves. Internet governance must not be a
pretext to regulate Internet content, nor should considerations of ethics
lead to a veiled form of censorship. The Internet should enjoy the same
freedom of expression principles, Shevchenko stated firmly, and the battle
against terrorism should not imperil these rights. He also reflected on
the role of ISPs. They should not be held liable for content, nor should
governments try to modify the technical architecture to enhance control.
The sessions on access to public domain information, on the business
environment and on science were largely devoted to specific developments
in Russia. In the session on science rapporteur Sergey Shaposhnik from the
Institute of the Information Society warned the audience that the interest
in fundamental science in Russia is waning, due to insufficient funding,
absence of competition based resources and an alarming lack of access to
leading academic publications. For example when it comes to nuclear
research, there is not a single institution in Russia anymore that can
afford a subscription to the leading academic magazine. Talking about the
dangers of brain drain, Shaposhnik pointed out that it was an ambivalent
problem, not just a negative process. In his view, Russia could also
develop as a donor of scientific researchers, as long as this would be
accompanied by open access to scientific information. To start with,
Russia should develop a national policy of rights transfer from the state
to the researcher. Researchers would be much more effective in using the
intellectual property rights than the state currently does.
Rapporteur Alexander Yevtiushkin from the same institute painted a bleak
outlook of the current business environment in Russia, with a high level
of corruption and very difficult access to capital for small and medium
sized enterprises. On a national level he recommended the creation of a
legal environment for IT and innovation and administrative and legal
measures to promote transparent interrelationships between state and
businesses. Last but not least, on an international level civil servants
should be trained in e-governance, possibly with the help of a new
multi-language information portal.
The session on access to public domain information, in which the editor
participated as speaker, did not produce very sharp conclusions. Most of
the contributions focussed on the lack of access to the law in Russia, and
the incredible difficulty of participating in a democratic process without
any easy access to legal and policy resources. Many speakers demanded more
transparency and realisation of a bill on access to governmental policy
information that has been underway for over 3 years. Also, current laws
make it impossible for libraries and research institutions to digitise
their materials. In the conclusions presented to the general audience,
this 8 hour debate was brought back to the conclusion that Russia is not a
world leader in transparency of decision making. At the same time,
rapporteur Victor Naumov from Ernst & Young consultants added that the
level of legal protection for confidential business information should be
raised to a more adequate standard. This was completely inaccurate, since
the workshop participants had in majority voiced strong complaints about
the excessive list of exceptions contained in one version of the draft
law, focussing especially on the problem of business confidentiality
hindering publications about environmental problems. In general, the
rapporteur was right in concluding that the knowledge society in Russia
could only be developed if a stronger legal culture was developed. He also
told the audience that excessive property rights should be balanced
against the general public interest.
The different recommendations will be collated by UNESCO head quarters in
the next few weeks, represented at the WSIS in Tunis and sent to all the
representatives of national governments.
St. Petersburg conference website
http://confifap.cpic.ru/conf2005/eng/info/str_117.html
Presentation Sjoera Nas, editor EDRI-gram on access to information
(18.05.2005)
http://www.bof.nl/docs/stpetersburg.pdf
EDRI-gram: Two Unesco conferences on internet and human rights (09.02.2005)
http://www.edri.org/edrigram/number3.3/unesco
============================================================
2. Council of Europe declaration on human rights and Internet
============================================================
On 13 May 2005 the Council of Europe's Committee of Ministers adopted a
declaration on human rights and Internet that was prepared by a special
committee of academic experts and government representatives. According to
the press release, "the declaration is the first international attempt to
draw up a framework on the issue and breaks ground by up-dating the
principles of the European Convention on Human Rights for the cyber-age."
Indeed the declaration contains a very reassuring confirmation of the fact
that "all rights enshrined in the Convention for the Protection of Human
Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR) remain fully valid in the
Information Age and should continue to be protected regardless of new
technological developments" and a firm statement that "Both the content
and traffic data of electronic communications fall under the scope of
Article 8 of the ECHR and should not be submitted to restrictions other
than those provided for in that provision."
But from a digital civil rights point of view, on close reading the
declaration doesn't offer any specific new rights to internet users when
it comes to privacy, freedom of speech and access to knowledge. Though
these rights and freedoms are all mentioned and reaffirmed repeatedly in
the declaration, they are balanced against 'challenges' posed by the
Internet, such as violation of intellectual property rights, access to
illegal and harmful content and "circumstances that lead to the adoption
of measures to curtail the exercise of human rights in the Information
Society in the context of law enforcement or the fight against terrorism."
A good example of such an ambivalent statement is the following: "They
(Member States) should also seek, where possible, to put the political,
social services, economic, and research information they produce into the
public domain, thereby increasing access to information of vital
importance to everyone. In so doing, they should take note of the Council
of Europe's Convention on Cybercrime, in particular Article 10 on offences
related to infringements of copyright and related rights."
Most remarkable are the paragraphs on e-voting and freedom of assembly.
With regards to e-voting member states "shall take steps to ensure
transparency, verifiability and accountability, reliability and security
of the e-voting systems". The text also contains an explicit warning about
some current practices: "(...) improper use of ICTs may subvert the
principles of universal, equal, free and secret suffrage, as well as
create security and reliability problems with regard to some e-voting
systems."
With regards to freedom of assembly the declaration calls on member states
"to adapt their legal frameworks to guarantee freedom of ICT-assisted
assembly and take the steps necessary to ensure that monitoring and
surveillance of assembly and association in a digital environment does not
take place, and that any exceptions to this must comply with those
provided for in Article 11, paragraph 2, of the ECHR."
Under 'no punishment without law' the Council much more hesitantly
addresses the problem of states exercising jurisdiction beyond their
borders. The declaration calls on Member States "to consider whether there
is a need to develop further international legal frameworks on
jurisdiction to ensure that the right to no punishment without law is
respected in a digital environment."
The declaration was initiated by the Dutch ministry of the Interior and
Kingdom Relations, after attempts to modernise the constitution to include
secrecy of electronic communication failed. The highest legal council
advised government to wait for the development of international standards.
The ministry now seems to get in gear for a new attempt.
Press release Council of Europe (13.05.2005)
http://press.coe.int/cp/2005/260a(2005).htm
Full text declaration on human rights and Internet (13.05.2005)
http://www.minbzk.nl/contents/pages/42826/declaration.pdf
Earlier report in EDRI-gram 3.8 (20.04.2005)
http://www.edri.org/edrigram/number3.8/CoE
============================================================
3. Interview with Sergei Smirnov, Human Rights Online Russia
============================================================
"Do what you must do and let come what may. Due to circumstances like the
Putin presidency you can hope and you can make plans, more or less
realistic, and work to get closer to your aim and to help people," that's
the more or less stoic attitude that characterises Sergei Smirnov from the
Russian Human Rights Network.
Smirnov (1973), with a degree in geophysics, lives in Moscow. He has been
the co-ordinator of the Human Rights Network group since its foundation in
1997. He started his NGO career in 1992 as interpreter at the Moscow
Research Centre for Human Rights. In 1993 he initiated the 'Information
Human Rights Network' program to build a sustainable computerised network
of human rights groups all over Russia. He distributed computer equipment
and maintained Internet connections to over 40 Russian human rights groups
from different regions of the country and conducted a number of technical
workshops. More over, he edited the "Human Rights in Russia" bulletin from
1994 to 1997. In 1996, together with colleagues from Ryazan, he started
the Human Rights Online website which by now is the largest source of
information on human rights in Russia. Since 1998 he works on cyber-rights
issues, including online privacy.
- Sergei, can you introduce the Human Rights Network?
"Human Rights Network is a small non-partisan, not-for-profit public
organisation founded in 1997. The general aim is to build a civil society
in Russia where human rights are considered fundamental values.
Specifically we disseminate human rights materials on the Net and we
provide support for interesting projects initiated by local human rights
groups. The projects of the Human Rights Network have been supported by
various foundations, including (but not limited to) the Ford Foundation,
the National Endowment for Democracy and others. The Human Rights Network
now plays an important role by providing technical and informational
support for Russian human rights community. Most of our events are online.
For example, in 2003 and 2004 we organised campaigns where webmasters
replaced the front pages of their sites with a black 'memorial' page and a
candle image as signs of sorrow and protest in connection with the ongoing
war in Chechnya. Among the off-line events we organised are two
international conferences "Outlook for Freedom" (in 2000 and 2002, devoted
to cyber-rights) and a number of seminars, workshops and discussions on
public campaigns, networking and information security. Besides, Human
Rights Network issued two reports on the situation with privacy in Russia
and many articles on this topic."
- Which problems do you encounter in demanding attention for human rights,
especially digital civil rights?
"The biggest problem is indifference of Russian citizens to their rights,
"legal nihilism". If we talk about digital rights, especially privacy,
many people (including some of our colleagues) reply "I don't care about
someone reading my personal data since I've nothing to hide" or "You've no
chance to protect your rights in this country". Other great problems we
encounter are the growing government pressure and the lack of popularity
of human rights groups in Russian society in general, perhaps partially
due to the marginal and radical tradition of the human rights community
and many of its activities."
- In the western media, the policy of President Putin is depicted as
increasingly authoritarian, with severe effects on the freedom of speech.
Did your work change since President Putin came to power?
"I cannot say that the Human Rights Network itself suffered some shock or
persecution. However, there are direct signs that human rights activities
in this country have become more difficult."
- The Russian minister of Science and Education supposedly said during a
conference in Kyoto in November 2004 that internet access is dangerous for
ordinary citizens, and "The government bears responsibility for control
over the use of scientific technologies, including the Internet."
"This was indistinct language. The minister was attacked immediately by
the Russian media and Internet community and provided explanations. In
all, we didn't perceive this as a deliberate attempt to announce
governmental control over the Internet."
- Very recently, according to an article in the Times from 30 April 2005,
a representative from Russia's security service, the FSB, has demanded
tighter control of the internet in a meeting with the Upper House of
parliament. According to Mr. Frolov new regulations were necessary to stop
the spread of extremist ideas. He also said the FSB should get access to
telephone companies' databases and information on sites accessed by their
subscribers, besides introducing obligatory registration for all mobile
phone users.
"True, he said this. And this also became a scandal in the media. In 2004
there were at least two more such scandals connected with an article of
Moscow major Yuri Luzhkov and an interview with senator Ludmila Narusova.
Both said that Internet contains dangerous material and the government
must consider some regulation."
- But at the same time, on 12 April 2005 the Russian Minister of
Information Technologies and Communications, Leonid Reiman, announced a
comprehensive new government program during an economic forum in London,
to make Russia a leading player in the global IT market. The so-called
e-Russia initiative is aimed to provide equal access to information to all
Russian citizens, enhance government transparency, eliminate the digital
divide, and create a vibrant civil society in Russia. How do you explain
these contradictory developments?
"There are no Internet-specific laws in Russia, and much has to be done to
bring the existing laws in compliance with the phenomenon of the Internet.
The legislative process remains far behind the development of IT. Russia
lacks some important regulations. For example there's still no law on
privacy and/or personal data. Russia has signed but not ratified the CoE
Convention for the Protection of Individuals with Regard to Automatic
Processing of Personal Data (ETS No. 108)."
"Thus, some politicians and spokesmen of governmental structures express
their own view of the Internet as an environment threatening Russian
society. Sometimes their plans and suggestions don't meet our conception
of Russia as democratic country where human rights are secured and
respected. But I don't see a clear repressive policy of the government. On
the other hand, due to the 'legal nihilism' of many Russian people, the
absence of essential legislation and the weakness of civil institutions
there are chances that some restrictive initiatives may be implemented. In
this climate, the Human Rights Network has an important role to
disseminate information about the value of digital rights. For example, we
developed a website on privacy, a comprehensive source of information on
the topic, from the basic concept to software for personal privacy
protection."
- Supposedly, all Russian internet providers must provide a direct uplink
to the Russian secret services, for monitoring. Is that true?
"The system is called SORM-2. ISPs don't speak frequently about their
connections to secret services but we can say that these connections
exist."
- In January 2004 you wrote a report for EDRI-gram about a proposal to
create a new ID system in Russia, that would give all Russians a unique
universal identifier by 2006. You also wrote the plan raised a lot of
concern amongst human rights experts. What is the current situation?
"The government has made no new announcements about this system in public.
Most of our concerns are connected with the lack of legislation - the law
on personal data and the institution (privacy commissioner) that should
monitor the implementation of this data."
- During the workshop about access to information at the UNESCO conference
in St Petersburg, many Russian scientists complained about the fact that
it was so extremely difficult to obtain knowledge about the law. A bill
intended to create more transparency about policy and legislation has been
underway for 3 years but many MPs have different versions and it is almost
impossible to obtain the official draft version. How hard is it for you to
obtain policy information?
"In the previous Duma we had some reliable channels of information. Thus,
the Russian human rights community was able not only to get drafts but
also analyse them and sometimes arrange for interviews. My colleagues have
issued periodic reviews of the legislation process. After the last
parliamentary elections the number of liberal MPs dramatically decreased
and it became more difficult to get information about processes within the
Parliament."
- How do you feel about the future?
"If you are a human rights activist who lives and works in Russia you
can't be confident that you can build a strong civil society anytime soon.
This is not because of some specific Russian mentality but due to
circumstances like the Putin presidency. You can hope and you can make
plans, more or less realistic, and work to get closer to your aim and to
help people. Do what you must do and let come what may."
Human Rights Online
http://www.hro.org
Privacy website Human Rights Online
http://privacy.hro.org
EPIC and Privacy International, Privacy and Human Rights report 2004:
Privacy in the Russian Federation (16.11.2004)
http://www.privacyinternational.org/article.shtml?cmd[347]=x-347-83789
Human Rights Network, Privacy in the Russian Internet (in English, 2003)
http://www.russianlaw.net/english/ae05.htm
Human Rights Network, Privacy in the Russian Internet (in Russian, 2005)
http://privacy.hro.org/docs/report2005
============================================================
4. New data protection authority in Romania
============================================================
Romania has adopted a new law to establish a data protection authority. In
the last EU access progress report, Romania was severely criticised for
failing to enforce privacy rules. "However, progress in implementing
personal data protection rules has only been limited. There are grounds
for concern regarding the enforcement of these rules: enforcement
activities are far below levels in current Member States and additional
posts have not been filled during the reporting period."
The new law was initiated by the Ministry of European Integration in
October 2004 and submitted to a formal public consultation. The draft was
sent to the Parliament in December 2004. The law was quickly adopted by
both chambers of the Parliament (Senate and Chamber of Deputies) with
minor changes.
Law 102/2005 was finally published in the Official Monitor on 9 May 2005
and will enter into force 30 days after the publication date. The new data
protection authority will be created in 45 days after the entry into
force.
The new law replaces the current privacy office, residing within the
Office of the Public Prosecutor for the 'National Authority for the
Control and Supervision of Personal Character Data Processing' (ANSPDCP).
The new Data Protection Authority should have at its disposal all
necessary resources in order to ensure an efficient and correct promotion
and implementation of the data protection law.
The DPA will have a President with the rank of Secretary of State and a
Vice-President with the rank of Sub-Secretary of State, both appointed by
the Romanian Senate (the Romanian upper chamber of parliament) for a 5
year term. The Permanent Bureau of the Senate will appoint the candidates
for the 2 positions, after consulting proposals from parliamentary groups
from the 2 parliamentary chambers. The candidates need to have a legal
background and have at least 10 years of experience. The law also demands
more subjective qualifications, such as 'good reputation' and 'enjoys high
civic integrity'. No minimum expertise in personal data protection or
human rights is required, and candidates are not obliged to present a
public activity plan before their appointment.
The law does not create any consultative role or even the obligatory
opinion of the new authority on draft laws that are debated in public or
in parliament. The only possibility for the new DPA to make
recommendations on draft acts is in the yearly report it needs to present
to the Senate.
The new authority will have a maximum of 50 employees but cannot have more
than 37 employees in 2005. It remains to be seen how effective the new DPA
will be, since the current 20 employees of the privacy office will just be
shifted to this new institution and their tasks will exactly be the same
as before. In fact, the main problem was not the fact that the
institution was not independent enough, but because they didn't care about
it.
2004 Regular Report on Romania's progress towards accession (Page 61)
http://europa.eu.int/comm/enlargement/report_2004/pdf/rr_ro_2004_en.pdf
Law 102/2005 (In Romanian only)
http://www.legi-internet.ro/autoritate_date_pers.htm
Research paper by Bogdan Manolea on the Institutional Framework for data
protection in Romania (In English, 08.04.2005)
http://www.apti.ro/DataProtection_ro.pdf
(Contribution by Bogdan Manolea, legal advisor, Romania)
============================================================
5. Agenda
============================================================
27-28 May 2005, Florence, Italy, E-Privacy Conference 2005
This edition of the foremost Italian conference on privacy in the digital
age will focus on automatic data collection and retention. During the
conference the first Italian Big Brother Award Ceremony will be held in
the stunningly beautiful Palazzo Vecchio.
http://e-privacy.firenze.linux.it/
30 May - 1 June 2005, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
First Holland Open Software Conference, with keynotes by representatives
from IBM, Sun, Philips, Apache, Wikipedia and the FFII.
The fee for attendees is 185 euro including coffee, tea, two lunches, a
dinner and party. Reduced entrance fee for students.
http://www.hosc.nl
6-11 June 2005, Benevento (Naples), Italy
Digital Communities 2005
http://www.ssc.msu.edu/~espace/DC2005.html
13 June 2005, Luxembourg, Luxembourg
European Commission Information day on the first call for proposals of the
Safer Internet plus programme. Subject to the completion of all the
necessary procedures, it is intended to launch a call in June 2005 with a
deadline for proposals in October 2005.
http://europa.eu.int/information_society/activities/sip/news_events/infoday_2005/index_en.htm
14 June 2005, Luxembourg, Luxembourg
Plenary session of the Safer Internet Forum focussed on child safety and
mobile phones
http://europa.eu.int/information_society/activities/sip/news_events/mobile_2005/index_en.htm
17-18 June 2005, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
3d Amsterdam Internet Conference organised by OSCE Representative on
Freedom of the Media
http://www.osce.org/fom/item_6_9759.html
30 June - 1 July 2005, Geneva, Switzerland
International Symposium on Intellectual Property (IP) Education and
Research, organised by WIPO
http://www.wipo.int/academy/en/meetings/iped_sym_05/
11-15 July 2005, Genova, Italy, OSS 2005
http://oss2005.case.unibz.it/index.html
28-31 July 2005, Den Bosch, The Netherlands
What The Hack, major open air hacker / internet lifestyle event.
-PLEASE ALSO NOTE THE PRESS RELEASE ON THE EDRI HOMEPAGE-
http://www.whatthehack.org/
8-9 September 2005, Brussels, Belgium
EuroSOCAP Workshop on confidentiality and privacy in healthcare
3 year programme to develop new ethical standards for privacy and patient
access to (electronical) files, started on 31 January 2003.
http://www.eurosocap.org
============================================================
6. About
============================================================
EDRI-gram is a biweekly newsletter about digital civil rights in Europe.
Currently EDRI has 17 members from 11 European countries. European Digital
Rights takes an active interest in developments in the EU accession
countries and wants to share knowledge and awareness through the
EDRI-grams. All contributions, suggestions for content or agenda-tips are
most welcome.
Except where otherwise noted, this newsletter is licensed under the
Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 License. See the full text at
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/
Newsletter editor: Sjoera Nas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Information about EDRI and its members:
http://www.edri.org/
- EDRI-gram subscription information
subscribe by e-mail
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: subscribe
You will receive an automated e-mail asking to confirm your request.
unsubscribe by e-mail
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: unsubscribe
- EDRI-gram in Ukrainian and Italian
EDRI-gram is also available in Ukrainian and Italian, a few days
after the English edition. The contents are the same.
Translations are provided by Privacy Ukraine and autistici.org, Italy
The EDRI-gram in Ukrainian can be read on-line via
http://www.internetrights.org.ua/index.php?page=edri-gram
The EDRI-gram in Italian can be read on-line via
http://www.autistici.org/edrigram/
- Newsletter archive
Back issues are available at:
http://www.edri.org/edrigram
- Help
Please ask <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> if you have any problems with subscribing or
unsubscribing.
============================================================
Publication of this newsletter is made possible by a grant from
the Open Society Institute (OSI).
============================================================
_______________________________________________
asbl-libre mailing list
asbl-libre@ael.be
http://www.ael.be/mailman/listinfo/asbl-libre
ASBL Association Electronique Libre http://www.ael.be/
