[A2k] consolidated text of paris accord, in english
Philippe Aigrain
philippe.aigrain@wanadoo.fr
Sun Jun 18 10:17:05 2006
I am producing a French translation likely to be available by 7pm French ti=
me
on Sunday.
Philippe
Le Samedi 17 Juin 2006 20:04, James Love a =E9crit :
> In three document formats....
>
> http://www.cptech.org/a2k/pa/ParisAccord-june17draft.pdf
> http://www.cptech.org/a2k/pa/ParisAccord-june17draft.odt
> http://www.cptech.org/a2k/pa/ParisAccord-june17draft.doc
>
>
> In plain text:
>
> June 17, 2006 DRAFT
>
> Working Discussion draft for: The Paris Accord
>
> The following is the draft text as of June 17, 2006, for a proposed
> "Paris Accord" between creative communities and the public. This
> text will be discussed at a TACD meeting in Paris on June 19-20.
> Discussions about the text are also taking place online at: http://
> lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/a2k.
>
> The point of the Paris Accord is to establish an agreement between
> creative communities and the public, that includes recognition of
> (and suggestions for improvising) (1) access to, and (2) income for,
> the knowledge goods produced by creative communities.
>
> This text is far from final. It reflects bottom-up suggestions and
> comments from a number of different persons, does not have a
> consistent editorial style, there is no consensus on the substantive
> proposals, some sections are place holders, and it is often presented
> in relatively bloodless prose. It is however useful to see what has
> been proposed, and to find out where we need to go, and I think it is
> an excellent start. jl
>
>
> Table of Contents
>
> Preamble=091
> Medical Research and Development=091
> Software=092
> The Public as Creative Community=094
> Films, Video and Art - Filmakers, Artists, Actors, and the Viewing
> Public=094
> Recorded Music: Songwriters, Performers, and Listening Public=096
> Proposal on DRM=097
> Scholarly Publishing: Authors and Readers=098
>
> Preamble
>
> There has not been much work yet on the introduction/preamble, which
> was going to be done after there was some agreement on the
> substantive portions. It may or may not reference other documents
> like the Geneva Declaration on the Future of the World Intellectual
> Property Organization (2004), the Adelphi Charter on creativity,
> innovation and intellectual property (2005) or various other
> declarations and statements.
>
>
> Medical Research and Development
>
> 1.=09Research and development is a necessary and valued component of
> the health care system.
>
> 2.=09A number of different institutions are essential for the support
> of medical R&D, including government, intergovernmental, non-
> government not-for-profit and for-profit organizations.
>
> 3.=09The systems for supporting research and development of new drugs
> should ensure sustainable sources of finance that support employment
> in R&D organizations, but also should not undermine the goal of
> access for all for new medical inventions. [TF: I'm not sure why we
> should be "supporting employment in R&D organizations." Suppose, for
> instance, that we concluded that malaria research could be conducted
> more effectively and efficiently by university labs than by private
> drug companies. Should we be troubled by the fact that, shifting
> funding from the latter to the former would put some research
> scientists out of work?]
>
> 4.=09Systems for stimulating R&D should address areas of greatest
> health need and public interest. [TF: When does "the public
> interest" diverge from the "areas of greatest health need"? Perhaps
> when pursuit of a pure utilitarian criterion would neglect the
> victims of rare diseases (the orphan drug problem)? If that's the
> only circumstance, I suggest that we spell it out. Are there others?]
>
> 5.=09Separation of markets for innovation and products that incorporate
> those innovations. When possible and appropriate, the elements of
> the current systems of stimulating R&D through high prices for
> [essential] medical products (through such measures as market
> exclusivity for innovators), should be replaced with new systems that
> reward developers of new products directly for improved health care
> outcomes. This can be easily accomplished when systems of public or
> private insurance exist for medicine, and when it is feasible to
> estimate the impact of new medicines on health outcomes.
>
> 6.=09There is also a need to expand methods of funding projects that
> support open research, the development of databases and other
> research tools, as well as high-risk R&D projects that are likely to
> be useful for follow-on innovation.
>
> 7.=09Science depends upon access to knowledge. Hoarding of data and
> materials must be discouraged.
>
> 8.=09Intellectual property rules should not prevent experimental use of
> inventions or materials, nor should they discourage or prevent
> investments in any field of invention.
>
> 9.=09National governments should eliminate visa restrictions that limit
> the ability of students to study at universities in another nation,
> or restrict the ability of scientists or engineers to participate in
> conferences or gain experience at firms in another nation.
>
> 10.=09Methods of protecting investments in clinical trials for new
> medicines should not prevent governments from making medicines
> available at affordable prices or require unethical or unnecessary
> replication of human experiments.
>
> 11.=09Individuals and communities that collaborate in scientific
> research should receive appropriate recognition for contributions to
> new scientific discoveries.
>
> 12.=09Governments must support global agreements to share in the costs
> of evaluating new medicines. Such testing should be transparent, and
> funded by sources that do not have incentives to distort or
> misrepresent findings, and which address the most useful scientific
> and medical questions. [TF: Could we add that governments should
> assert and exercise the power to select the drugs that merit testing
> and the diseases for which they should be tested? The purpose of
> such a provision would be to avoid outrages like that discussed in
> The Guardian today, in which the British version of the FDA is
> powerless to determine whether small doses of Avastin are effective
> in dealing with a common source of blindness, because the maker and
> patent holder (Genentech) refuses to apply for a license to use
> Avastin on blindness. Why? Because Genentech hopes to make much
> more money by licensing a closely related drug, Lucentis, for
> blindness.]
>
> 13.=09Patients should freely share biological materials, and consider
> participation in clinical trials to test new medicines, with the
> expectation that new scientific advancements will be accessible to
> all, that clinical trials and other experiments follow appropriate
> ethical standards, and that the trials are reported to public
> databases, in order to provide for greater transparency of the
> scientific evidence, subject to appropriate protections of personal
> privacy.
>
> Software
>
>
> 1.=09Concentration of ownership and control of software operating
> systems and applications presents risks and dangers to programmers
> and users.
>
> 2.=09Monopolies or cartel like ownership of PC operating systems and
> office productivity applications harms users and programmers, and
> must be addressed by governments, programmers and purchasers of
> software.
>
> 3.=09Programmers of software need access to certain interface data, in
> order to design products that work with other products.
>
> 4.=09Some high quality software products, standards and protocols can
> and will be produced without regard to ownership or control of
> software code, or any expectation of remuneration or other pecuniary
> reward from the sale or licensing of the code. On the other hand,
> some important software products are unlikely to be produced without
> an expectation of economic rewards.
>
> 5.=09[Consumers agree that infringement of software applications
> undermines economic incentives for firms to employ programmers to
> develop certain new products. Programmers agree that excessive
> prices for software programs contribute to infringement of software
> copyrights. [PA comment on earlier formulation: I don't agree with
> the present drafting of 5. I am not in favour of infringing software
> copyright. In many cases, free software is the obvious solution to
> avoid infringing on proprietary software copyright. However, there is
> strictly no evidence that infringement of software copyrights by
> (whom? missing word in your draft) has "deterred firms from employing
> programmers to develop new products". In contrast, there is strong
> evidence that monopoly positions of installed software providers
> (created including by letting "illegal" copying develop to lock in
> users) acts as an innovation deterrent within these companies,
> inducing a predominantly rent-seeking behaviour and the search for
> innnovation that protects oligopolistic business models (DRMs for
> instance) instead of providing new useful functionality to users.
> Patent and other legal or regulatory developments that provide
> dominant players with weapons of massive deterrence or destruction o
> course reinforce this trend (as shown be Bessen, Maskin and Hunt).]]
>
> 6.=09Commercial software products should not be designed to lock-in
> users to particular vendors.
>
> 7.=09Business models for software development should reward programmers
> for making users better off, and not reward programmers or software
> publishers for anticompetitive and anti-consumer practices.
>
> 8.=09Open document formats are essential for the development of a
> competitive and open software industry.
>
> 9.=09Users and programmers should lobby large buyers of software to
> demand open document formats, and other measures that promote
> interoperability.
>
> 10.=09Proprietary technologies that undermine the World Wide Web should
> be discouraged.
>
> 11.=09Experience has shown that the costs of extending patent
> protection to software exceed the benefits.
>
> 12.=09For any software functionality that is essential to creative,
> expressive knowledge and innovation activities in today's or
> tomorrow's information society, there should exists, as soon as
> possible, at least one practical solution that is implemented as
> FLOSS (free/libre/open source software), and whose usage does not
> depend on proprietary software. [PA: The legal, standards and
> interoperability, competition and other points can be derived from
> this prerequisite. Most cannot be credibly ensured without this being
> fulfilled. See also number 13, which PA proposed]
>
> 13.=09Consumers and programmers support the legitimacy for governments
> or other parties to support the creation of missing components of
> essential FLOSS alternatives, either directly (German policy) or
> indirectly (research and development policy, other forms of
> incentives, pro-active competition policy with corrective measures
> based on irrevocable royalty-free non-IP constrained licenses).
>
> The Public as Creative Community
>
> 1.=09The development of the Internet and other computing, audio, video
> and information technologies have opened up a wide range of new
> opportunities for the public to directly participate as creative
> individuals and communities.
>
> 2.=09Many of the most widely viewed web sites are those that point to,
> showcase or host works that are created and made available for free
> by the public.
>
> 3.=09The explosion of web pages, listserves, personal weblogs and other
> new publishing platforms and technologies, such as search engines and
> collaborative editing and publishing tools, are part of the rise of a
> new and dynamic creative community that will change society, and
> challenge older publishing models.
>
> 4.=09Intellectual property rules must be evaluated to determine if or
> how copyright and other norms will accommodate and these
> developments, in order to support rather than undermine the
> opportunities for more democratic, open and collaborative
> participation in the production and disseminations of creative works.
>
> 5.=09It is essential that the public have the opportunity to freely use
> world wide web hypertext links and other tools to point to
> information, and to make copies and use excerpts of other published
> works, in order to engage in criticism, commentary and analysis, and
> to design new technologies and methods to expand the power of
> collaborative creative efforts.
>
> 6.=09These rights should not be undermined by DRM measures.
>
> 7.=09The ability of persons to engage in anonymous speech is important,
> as well as the right to protect confidential sources.
>
> 8.=09Bloggers must be protected from frivolous or abusive threats and
> lawsuits by copyright owners, or others that assert limits of speech
> or the use or sharing of information, particularly in the context of
> reviews or criticisms of important political, economic or cultural
> figures or institutions.
>
> 9.=09Bloggers should not be liable for third parties' comments on
> blogs. Immunity for online publishers should be extended to the
> public when engaged in that activity..
>
> 10.=09Bloggers must have the same right to access to blog from public
> events as to journalists from traditional news organizations.
>
> 11.=09The ability of the public to use web pages, blog, listserves and
> other platforms to address issues relating to whistle blowing . . .
>
> 12.=09All workshops and conferences should provide open wifi-
> connections for participants.
>
> Films, Video and Art - Filmakers, Artists, Actors, and the Viewing
> Public
>
> 1.=09It is vital to ensure that both content makers and consumers have
> unimpeded, but fair, access to communicate and engage in transactions
> with each other. Access to audiovisual content is essential to help
> ensure the public can readily obtain diverse sources of information,
> including cultural products.
>
> 2.=09The growing availability of a multiplatform digital distribution
> systems, such as the broadband Internet, Internet Protocol TV (IPTV),
> and mobile services, provides an important opportunity for both
> audiovisual content creators and consumers. For example, media
> makers can now sell content directly to consumers using broadband
> connections. Consumers also have the ability to view and acquire a
> diverse array of audiovisual content.
>
> 3.=09We support the following rights:
>
> 4.=09Audiovisual makers should be able to directly sell/distribute
> their products and services to all consumers, regardless of regional
> boundaries;
>
> 5.=09All broadband networks/ media service providers available to the
> public should readily foster such communications and transactions;
>
> 6.=09Audiovisual makers should have access to the full range of
> distribution modalities, including video on demand, switched video,
> and mobile networks;
>
> 7.=09Audiovisual makers should [respect all] [adhere to] appropriate
> laws and regulatory regimes[, including] [and] rules protecting
> privacy, advertising safeguards for minors; and human rights.
>
> 8.=09Audiovisual makers should [respect] [adhere to] reasonable
> measures including copyright law, that protect the moral and material
> interests of creative communities. However, these measures should
> not be overly burdensome, with regard to the ability of audiovisual
> makers to use portions of works to create new works.
>
> 9.=09Audiovisual makers should have access to a universal and
> affordable system of rights clearances, [as well as appropriate
> limitations and exceptions in copyright law to protect the ability to
> use works or portions of works without remuneration in appropriate
> cases];
>
> 10.=09Audiovisual makers should expect national governments and other
> governmental bodies would provide financial support and other
> assistance to aide the production and distribution of works;
>
> 11.=09Audiovisual makers should expect national governments and other
> governmental bodies to facilitate agreements between themselves and
> access providers, if needed;
>
> 12.=09Audiovisual makers should expect that broadcasting and computer
> networks receive the necessary investment to ensure state of the art,
> efficient, delivery of digital content to users;
>
> 13.=09Audiovisual makers should expect government and network providers
> to help ensure that digital distribution is equitably available and
> affordable, including to rural and low-income consumers.
>
> 14.=09Consumers:
>
> 15.=09Have the right to directly contact and acquire the multimedia/
> audiovisual content of their choice;
>
> 16.=09Their privacy should be protected and purchases protected by
> effective consumer standards;
>
> 17.=09Consumer representatives must be included as a core constituency
> in any deliberation involving government or government-sponsored
> entities related to digital distribution (such as the recent European
> Charter related to online film, etc);
>
> 18.=09Consumers should expect that networks would receive the necessary
> investment to ensure state of the art, efficient, delivery of digital
> content to them;
>
> 19.=09Consumers should expect government and network providers to help
> ensure that digital distribution is equitably available an
> affordable, including to rural and low-income communities;
>
> 20.=09Consumers benefit from cultural diversity in all aspects of
> broadcasting and publishing of cultural works. Mechanisms to support
> such diversity, including promotion for diverse languages, and
> minority productions are needed. States or Regional entities must
> consider diverse methods to support the creation and diffusion of
> communitarian or artistic works, from quotas to subventions for
> scripting, filming or diffusion and theaters.
>
> 21.=09Concentration of ownership of the distribution systems presents
> risks and dangers to both consumers and makers of audio visual works,
> in terms of high prices (for distribution), lack of diversity of
> content, and undue influence on cultural and political life. Global
> concentrations of ownership of media outlets are even more risky and
> dangerous than concentrations of ownership of national systems.
> Monopolistic control over "last mile" delivery of digital content, if
> combined with the ability to discriminate among content providers,
> presents the same type of problems.
>
> 22.=09Creative communities and consumers oppose government imposed
> censorship and other restrictions on the freedom of opinion and
> expression; including the freedom to hold opinions without
> interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas
> through any media and regardless of frontiers.
>
> 23.=09Both creative communities and consumers are harmed by excessive
> prices costs associated with the distribution and sharing of
> audiovisual works.
>
> 24.=09Consumers and makers of audiovisual works agree that broadcasting
> or webcasting organizations should not be given intellectual property
> rights in the content of audo visual works.
>
> 25.=09Audiovisual makers and consumers support efforts such as the 2005
> Documentary Filmmakers Statement of Best Practices in Fair Use to
> provide guidance for the appropriate practices in using copyrighted
> material in documentary films.
>
> Recorded Music: Songwriters, Performers, and Listening Public
>
> 1.=09Authors, composers and performers of musical works, and consumers
> agree that we have common interests and new opportunities to
> collaborate. Enormous differences in bargaining power currently lead
> to unfair outcomes between creative individuals users and the
> commercial entities that sell culture and knowledge goods.
>
> 2.=09We need legal regimes and public and private systems that support
> the [incomes] [livelihoods] [economic security] of artists and
> determine the access to works. These legal regimes and systems should:
>
> 3.=09provide protections from censorship or control by governments,
>
> 4.=09provide for a diversity of distribution channels, free from
> excessive concentrations of ownership;
>
> 5.=09foster artistic freedom and creative control over works by artists,
>
> 6.=09protect artists from unfair contract between artists and music
> publishers;
>
> 7.=09permit artists to benefit from and reinterpret and explore works
> of other artists, while giving appropriate credit;
>
> 8.=09allow consumers opportunities to discover new artists and music
> genres;
>
> 9.=09lower the amount of money being spend on the distribution of
> works, at the expense of artists and consumers;
>
> 10.=09provide access to works that area older, and not necessarily the
> best known;
>
> 11.=09provide opportunities for consumers to engage in criticism;
>
> 12.=09commentary and promotion of works they enjoy, provide measures to
> overcome technological or other means that restrict access that
> harms creators, libraries, educational, institutions, archives and
> persons with disabilities, and undermine privacy and freedom;
>
> 13.=09Permit measures that provide essential information about creative
> goods and allow the creator to be identified, provided any data
> produced is not linked to individual consumer purchases/access;
>
> 14.=09Provide quick and easy means of redress to consumers.
>
> Proposal on DRM
>
> Short form:
>
> 1.=09The use of digital technology is changing the production,
> distribution, and use of content Not only can users access and copy
> content ,they can also manipulate works to create entirely new
> products. Creators can bypass traditional intermediaries and have
> direct contact with the public.
>
> 2.=09 At the same time, in the digital environment it is easier to
> control access to content. Encryption methods and other similar
> techniques are used to block access or to monitor the use that a
> person makes of such content.
>
> 3.=09We oppose technological and other measures that restrict access to
> knowledge goods, harm creators, libraries, educational institutions,
> archives and persons with disabilities, and undermine privacy and
> freedom. Such measures should not be granted legal protection.
>
> 4.=09We support measures that provide essential information about
> creative goods and allow the creator to be identified, provided any
> data produced is not linked to individual consumer purchases/access.
>
> 5.=09We consider that current redress systems for consumers are
> inadequate and that new approaches are needed which are quick and
> easy to use, with meaningful sanctions for wrongdoing.
>
> Long form:
>
> 1.=09The use of digital technology is changing the production,
> distribution, and use of content Not only can users access and copy
> content ,they can also manipulate works to create entirely new
> products. Creators can bypass traditional intermediaries and have
> direct contact with the public.
>
> 2.=09At the same time, in the digital environment it is easier to
> control access to content. Encryption methods and other similar
> techniques are used to block access or to monitor the use that a
> person makes of such content In the digital enviroment Rights
> Management Information (RMI) ( definition: need one e.g but ask Nick!
> which identifies the artist and can be used to track usage and
> Technical Protection Measures (TPM) ( e.g which act as locks and can
> block copying or usage on non authourised equipment are used b
> intermediaries to unreasonably restrict legitimate use by the public
> without the consent or involvement of the creators or the public on
> the contrary, usually over the strong objections of both.
>
> 3.=09There is a clear failure of the marketplace to provide
> implementations of these technologies that are constructive,
> interoperable, reasonable, and equitable. For example [ RMI can be
> used constructively , by helping the development of systems to
> equitably remunerate creators and rights-holders based upon actual
> uses of cultural goods in the digital environment,provided such usage
> data is not used to tracj individual s usage. Despite repeated calls
> for a rethink of the current uses of these technologies by the
> consumer movement, creators themselves, and even independent
> phonogram producers, the abuse of these technologies continues
> Creators and Consumers agree on the following principles and believe
> that they should be given the force of law in any part of the world
> where RMI and TPMs are themselves the subject of legal protection:
>
> 4.=09RMI should only be given legal protection only if:
>
> 5.=09The RMI is used to provide information, not as the basis for a
> TPM, is accurate, and anonymous (?) only receive the privilege of
> legal protection if they cannot:
>
> a.=09Prohibit, or limit, access and/or use which is lawful with respect
> to the works and/or performances being protected,
>
> b.=09Prohibit, or limit, access and uses which would be possible and/or
> permitted when the same materials are acquired in physical form,
>
> c.=09Be deployed without the active, informed consent of the creators
> and relevant rights-holders, or without successfully passing through
> the testing process referenced below;
>
> d.=09Fail to work (interoperate) on all devices and/or platforms like
> personal computers, mobile communications devices, and consumer
> electronics which might reasonably be used by the public. In
> particular, interoperability must not:
>
> i.=09prevent the author/artist from making works or performances
> available under any licence terms he or she wishes;
> ii.=09Restrict the freedom of software developers to disclose and
> licence under any terms whatever the source code which helps achieve
> interoperability;]}
> iii.=09Fail to comply with data protection rules or privacy rights
> generally,
>
> e.=09Prevent access and use, or make access and use difficult, to
> anything that is in the public domain
>
> 6.=09The extent and nature of any limitations these technologies may
> impose on the user should be clearly visible on any product or
> service so that the members of the public may make informed choices;
>
> 7.=09We believe that an essential component of giving legal effect to
> the above is the following:
>
> 8.=09A regulatory regime that requires advance registration, and
> testing of new TPMs by an independent agency to ensure that they
> comply with the rules governing their use as outlined above, both
> when released and at any further time. No TPM which fails to pass
> through the testing regime should be used in the marketplace; [(Keep
> in brackets do not like this idea but others might), successfully
> passing the tests should allow the vendor of the TPM to display a
> mark that makes clear that the TPM has been approved and certified,
> giving the public, and the creative community, confidence that the
> TPM is both within the law and follows the rules]
>
> 9.=09As a safeguard there should be in addition be a legal right to
> remove a TPM or circumvent it if it breaches the above principles,
>
> 10.=09The public and the creative individual or community must have
> access to quick, cheap and transparent redress systems to use against
> the vendors and/or suppliers of TPMs.,e to remedy any breaches
> of the above principles. Such systems must also have the power to
> impose sanctions that are sufficient to form a deterrent to future
> infringements.
>
> Scholarly Publishing: Authors and Readers
>
> 1.=09Authors and readers of scholarly and scientific works have a
> common interest in the broad dissemination and wide sharing of works.
>
> 2.=09Concentration of ownership of scholarly and scientific publishing
> presents risks and dangers to authors and readers, in terms of high
> prices, lack of diversity of content, and undue influence on
> \discourse involving scientific, cultural, professional and political
> life.
>
> 3.=09Authors and readers of scholarly and scientific works oppose
> government imposed censorship and other restrictions on the freedom
> of opinion and expression; including the freedom to hold opinions
> without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and
> ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
>
> 4.=09Authors and readers are are harmed by excessive prices for
> scholarly and scientific works.
>
> 5.=09Acknowledging the profound impact the Internet has on the conduct
> of scientific research and the benefits of research being shared as
> widely as possible, authors and readers of scholarly and scientific
> works and consumers agree that:
>
> 6.=09Authors should retain the right to make their work available in a
> non-commercial open digital archive on the World Wide Web [such as
> the National Institutes of Health's PubMed Central or an
> institution's open digital archive] or to make copies of their
> article for use in the classes they teach.
>
> 7.=09Authors should retain:
>
> 8.=09The rights to reproduce, distribute, publicly perform,and publicly
> display the Article in any medium for non-commercial purposes;
>
> 9.=09the right to prepare derivative works from the Article; and
>
> 10.=09the right to authorize others to make any non-commercial use of
> the Article so long as the author receives credit as author and the
> journal in which the Article has been published is cited as the
> source of first publication of the Article.
>
> 11.=09Authors/Researchers funded by governments should submit an
> electronic version of their final, peer-reviewed manuscript to a
> publicly available online archive upon acceptance for publication in
> a journal.
>
> 12.=09Authors, researchers and readers of scientific works express
> their support for the following:
>
> a.=09Association of College & Research Libraries (ACRL) Principles and
> Strategies for the Reform of Scholarly Communication, August 28,2003,
> http://www.ala.org
>
> b.=09Bethesda Statement on Open Access Publishing, June 20, 2003,
> http://www.earlham.edu/~peters
>
> c.=09Berlin Declaration on Open Access to Knowledge in the Sciences and
> Humanities, October 22, 2003, http://www.zim.mpg.de/openaccess-berlin
>
> d.=09The Budapest Open Access Initiative,, http://www.soros.org/
> openaccess/read.shtml
>
> e.=09Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD),
> Declaration on Access to Research Data From Public Funding, January
> 30, 2004, http://www.oecd.org
>
> f.=09The International Federation of Library Associations and
> Institutions (IFLA) Statement on Open Access to Scholarly Literature
> and Research Documentation, February 24, 2004. http://www.ifla.org
>
> 13.=09Authors, researchers and readers of scholarly and scientific
> works call upon governments, professional societies, publishers and
> others to explore new business models, public subsidies and private
> incentives to support professional editing and publishing services
> that do not rely upon high prices for access to works.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> James Love, CPTech / www.cptech.org / mailto:james.love@cptech.org /
> tel. +1.202.332.2670 / mobile +1.202.361.3040
>
> "If everyone thinks the same: No one thinks." Bill Walton
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> A2k mailing list
> A2k@lists.essential.org
> http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/a2k
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------=
--
>------------ Orange vous informe que cet e-mail a ete controle par
> l'anti-virus mail. Aucun virus connu a ce jour par nos services n'a ete
> detecte.
--
Philippe Aigrain
(message personnel)