In response to D. Silver's comments, Chris Werry's paper is also available at- http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue4_9/werry/index.html This may make it more accessible. Best, Sandeep --- Do visit my Thought Central-http://faculty.washington.edu/sandeep/blog/blogger.html -----Original Message----- From: air-l-admin@aoir.org [mailto:air-l-admin@aoir.org]On Behalf Of air-l-request@aoir.org Sent: Monday, December 17, 2001 9:01 AM To: air-l@aoir.org Subject: Air-l digest, Vol 1 #242 - 8 msgs Today's Topics: 1. December 2001 executive committee report (Steve Jones) 2. Re: Air-l digest, Vol 1 #240 - 2 msgs (dca4@georgetown.edu) 3. CFP2: Computer Games and Digital Cultures, gamesconference.org (=?Windows-1252?B?RnJhbnMgTeR5cuQ=?=) 4. Re: Company vs. Community (Andrew Perrin) 5. Re: Company vs. Community (craig stroupe) 6. Social vs Internet (R.A.Hope-Hume@open.ac.uk) 7. Re: Re: Company vs. Community (D. Silver) 8. Re: Re: Company vs. Community (john.white) --__--__-- Message: 1 Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2001 16:48:55 -0600 To: air-l <air-l@aoir.org> From: Steve Jones <sjones@uic.edu> Subject: [Air-l] December 2001 executive committee report Reply-To: air-l@aoir.org December 15, 2001 Report of the a(o).i.r. executive committee Prepared by Steve Jones AoIR Executive Committee President: Steve Jones Vice-President: Nancy Baym Secretary: Ulla Bunz Treasurer: Benjamin Bates Open Seats: David Silver and Barry Wellman Appointed Seats: Matthew Allen and Leslie Shade Student Seat: Lisbeth Klastrup Publications Officers: Jeremy Hunsinger and Charlie Breindahl 2002 Conference Coordinator: Monica Murero 2002 Conference Program Chair: Klaus Bruhn Jensen Ethics Working Group Chair: Charles Ess 1. Introduction & General (Jones) Below is the monthly report from AoIR executive committee members. 2. Executive Officers' Reports 2.1 President (Jones) 2.1.1 I had planned on using this bit of space to talk about some of the challenges facing AoIR in the near future (none of them bad...just challenging), but let's save that for the new year's first report. Instead, I urge you to take a look at the AoIR 2001 conference report at http://www.infotoday.com/it/dec01/conhaim.htm. It's terrific, independent affirmation, and another tip of the hat to John Logie and Leslie Shade, and all who contributed in some way to the conference. And it's a very favorable note on which to close out the 2001 reports of the executive committee, along with my thanks to all those who have helped, and are helping, AoIR to serve as a meeting place (virtual or otherwise) for those interested in Internet research. May we all have a peaceful, healthy and happy new year. 2.2 Vice President (Baym) 2.2.1 I have been helping the flow of conference organization. There was very little response to my database suggestion posted to air-l, so I am not quite sure where, if anywhere, to go with that. There seemed to be the most expressed interest in at least indexing online archives. If anyone else has thoughts on this or is interested in helping to develop online resources for aoir members, please share your thoughts with me. 2.3 Secretary (Bunz) 2.3.1 I have completed the (non-electronic) AoIR folder that now contains all items required by bylaws, including a membership list, conference programs from previous conferences, all CfP, etc. 2.3.2 Matthew Allen, David Silver, and I are putting the final touches on a project tentatively called Internet Research List of Lists. For more information, please check David's posting. 2.3.3 In addition, I've been using some of my European connections, trying to help Monica Murero and Klaus Bruhn-Jensen to recruit Liikanen as one of our keynote speakers. I have made a few suggestions regarding conference planning and volunteered as a reviewer. 2.4 Treasurer (Bates) 2.4.1 Since the last report, we've had about 10 renewals and 10 new memberships, roughly equally split between US and non-US email addresses. We've also had one chargeback (a payment that did not go through, which we still have to pay a transaction fee on). I'll be sending out the December renewal reminders before I leave for break. Will be mostly out of touch between 18 Dec and 28 Dec. 2.5 Open Seats (Silver, Wellman) 2.5.1 Silver: I've been helping out with the conference committee, working on the (now ready for prime time) CFP. It's been exciting working with Monica Murero and the rest of the committee and this conference promises to raise the bar in Internet research. Matthew Allen, Ulla Bunz, and I are putting the final touches on a project tentatively called Internet Research List of Lists. The purpose of the project is to provide a comprehensive index of mailing lists and online forums. Contributions from all academic or non-academic origins and from all over the world are welcome, as long as the content of the list is devoted to the study of the Internet and new media. We are hoping that this project will be member-generated and plan to release the project in early January. 2.5.2 Wellman: Gave whatever advice I could, volunteered to be on an awards committee, represented AoIR at Kyto Digital Cities conf in October, represented AoIR at Canadian Policy Research Initiatives conference (with Fed. govt) in Ottawa -- so did Leslie! 2.6 Appointed Seats (Allen, Shade) 2.6.1 Allen: In the past few weeks, the main activity was to attend the inaugural ::fibreculture:: conference, including a public debate 'Digital Publics', in Melbourne. At the conference we handed out AoIR information and I wore my interconnections t-shirt *grin*. There was a great buzz of excitement about fibreculture, which will develop I believe into a great network of projects, information, and creative/intellectual production within Australia and beyond. 2.6.2 Shade: Nothing to report. 2.7 Student Seat (Klastrup) 2.7.1 Nothing to report. 2.8 Publications Officers (Hunsinger, Breindahl) 2.8.1 Hunsinger: the usual for this time of year did a little bit of everything and a whole lot of some things mainly conference stuff secondarily exec stuff some list stuff and finally some members support stuff. 2.8.2 Breindahl: Not nada, but then not mucho, either. If that's a double negative, it's a double negative. If that's redundant, so what - it's my research subject. 2.9 2002 Conference (Monica Murero, Coordinator; Klaus Bruhn Jensen, Program Chair) 2.9.1 Murero: During this period many activities have been done to organize 2002 AoIR conference. I have prepared the Action Plan for the months ahead: the activities are proceeding very successfully. The Call for paper was approved and issued. The list of the invited speakers (amazing!)was prepared and approved by the planning committee, and the process of invitation is on its way. People from all over the world have _already_ started to register for next year's conference, form Japan to Finland! 1 year before!!! I am looking forward to meeting you all next year! 2.9.2 Jensen: I have been working with Monica Murero, Jeremy Hunsinger, and other contributors to air-meet in preparing the 2002 call for papers as well as the structures facilitating submission and review. The CFP is out, the submission system and its categories are in place, and a good number of volunteer reviewers are awaiting submissions. Next up is aiding in the review process and stimulating submissions. 2.10 AoIR Ethics Working Group (Charles Ess, Chair) 2.10.1 No report. --__--__-- Message: 2 From: dca4@georgetown.edu To: air-l@aoir.org Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2001 13:08:01 -0500 Subject: [Air-l] Re: Air-l digest, Vol 1 #240 - 2 msgs Reply-To: air-l@aoir.org This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ----494d4ae214472185 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sandeep: I think it is better to speak of community is terms of social networks as opposed to organizational structures (see Barry Wellman's work). An organization may contain many communities within it that exist for formal and informal reasons. Dorine Andrews Georgetown University ----- Original Message ----- From: air-l-request@aoir.org Date: Friday, December 14, 2001 12:01 pm Subject: Air-l digest, Vol 1 #240 - 2 msgs

Today's Topics:

1. Company vs. Community (Sandeep Krishnamurthy) 2. RE: Statistics on Email Messages Sent in US and Internationally in 2000 (Cem Timurkan)

-- __--__--

Message: 1 From: "Sandeep Krishnamurthy" <sandeep@u.washington.edu> To: <air-l@aoir.org> Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2001 09:17:59 -0800 Subject: [Air-l] Company vs. Community Reply-To: air-l@aoir.org

Colleagues,

I teach an MBA E-Commerce class. In the customary class on online communities, we started off with a simple question- "What is the differencebetween a (for-profit)company and a community?"

This seemingly simple question tied us up into knots as we tried to identify attributes that distinguished the two. The ones we did come up with included contractual vs. voluntary membership, rigid vs. loose organizational structure, paid vs. unpaid participants etc. I think you see where I am going.

At the end of the discussion, one student(who has a Ph.D in biology) said- "Isn't community an all-encompassing construct? Can it not be argued that a company is really a type of community?" While I respected his comments, it really underscored the need to understand this better.

I know community is a construct that is backed by decades of research. I have seen some of the seminal works- but perhaps, not all.

How would you answer the basic question I started out with?

Best, Sandeep

--- Visit my Thought Central-http://faculty.washington.edu/sandeep/blog/blogger.html

-- __--__--

Message: 2 From: "Cem Timurkan" <timurkan@olisys.com> To: <air-l@aoir.org> Subject: RE: [Air-l] Statistics on Email Messages Sent in US and Internationally in 2000 Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2001 12:08:32 -0500 Reply-To: air-l@aoir.org

I think I might answer to this question. First of, log on to www.emarketer.com. Scroll down, and type 'e-mail messages sent' in the search box. After that, you'll receive 9 documents at the resulting page. I think the first two might help. However, those two would likely focus on the U.S. Have a nice day.

Sincerely,

Cem Timurkan Information Department MeZUN.COM, Inc. 3500 Boston St. Suite 322 Baltimore, MD 21224 Phone (USA): +1-410-327-9100 Fax (USA) : +1-410-327-0909 ctimurkan@mezun.com The First Turkish-American Portal www.MeZUN.com

-----Original Message----- From: air-l-admin@aoir.org [mailto:air-l-admin@aoir.org]On Behalf Of nbaron@american.edu Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2001 7:26 PM To: air-l@aoir.org Subject: [Air-l] Statistics on Email Messages Sent in US and Internationally in 2000

Would anyone have handy statistics (and credible references) on the approximate number of email messages sent in the US as well as globally in 2000? Thanks.

Naomi Baron Professor of Linguistics American University Washington, DC 20016

_______________________________________________ Air-l mailing list Air-l@aoir.org http://www.aoir.org/mailman/listinf

-- __--__--

_______________________________________________ Air-l mailing list Air-l@aoir.org http://www.aoir.org/mailman/listinf

End of Air-l Digest

----494d4ae214472185 Content-Type: text/x-vcard; name="dca4.vcf"; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="dca4.vcf" Content-Description: Card for <dca4@georgetown.edu> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable begin=3Avcard n=3AAndrews=3BDorine fn=3ADorine C=2E Andrews tel=3Bhome=3A703-412-3113 tel=3Bwork=3A202-784-4338 org=3AGeorgetown University=3BCommunications=2C Culture =26 Technology Pr= ogram adr=3A=3B=3B=3BWashington=3BD=2EC=2E=3B=3B version=3A2=2E1 email=3Binternet=3Adca4=40georgetown=2Eedu title=3AResearch Professor end=3Avcard ----494d4ae214472185-- --__--__-- Message: 3 From: "=?Windows-1252?B?RnJhbnMgTeR5cuQ=?=" <tlilma@uta.fi> To: <Air-l@aoir.org> Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2001 09:49:12 +0200 Subject: [Air-l] CFP2: Computer Games and Digital Cultures, gamesconference.org Reply-To: air-l@aoir.org ** Computer Games and Digital Cultures Conference ** Call for Papers (2) June 6-8, 2002 Tampere, Finland Note: the new website is now open, see http://www.gamesconference.org Computer Games and Digital Cultures (CGDC) conference is organised by the Hypermedia Laboratory, University of Tampere. It is arranged in co-operation with the University of Turku and the IT University of Copenhagen, the UIAH Medialab, Helsinki, and partners in the digital content industry. The conference continues the series of international game studies conferences opened by Computer Games and Digital Textualities (Copenhagen, March 1-2, 2001). Deadline for proposals January 30, 2002 --- :: --- Overview Computer games have rapidly become a significant and expanding field of entertainment industry and modern culture. The research and development of games has reached an important phase. Various conceptual and theoretical models to understand games and their working are being created, while the games themselves are growing into new dimensions with their online and multiplayer capabilities. The transition into the world of mobile gaming is creating even more challenges and further possibilities. The Computer Games and Digital Cultures conference offers a comprehensive view into the current state of digital games, and their research, as well as forums for interdisciplinary discussion. Conference includes presentations from leading experts, both from the academic research institutions and game industry, including the opening words by Espen Aarseth (University of Bergen), keynote presentations by Greg Costikyan (Unplugged Games, USA), Steven Poole (author of the "Trigger Happy", UK) and designer of games like Ultima Underworld, System Shock, Thief and Deus Ex, Warren Spector (Ionstorm, USA). Agenda Computer games have grown into an increasingly important cultural form, that has a profound impact on the way interactivity, digital aesthetics and online environments are currently understood. The conference will explore the aesthetic as well as narrative and structural issues of computer games, while also functioning as a bridge and intermediary between the academic research and professional gaming community. The approach of conference is interdisciplinary and comprehensive; the analysis of games and the gaming communities will advance the study of interactive media, create fruitful exchange of perspectives with the professional game developers, and further the development of digital culture. Workshops The CGDC has two parts, the first day consisting of workshops that explore the pragmatic and creative issues of games as a form of culture and industry. The participants can register for this day separately, or for the whole three-day conference. The participants may submit proposals for workshops, focusing on creative design processes, dynamics of gameplay in particular game types, or, e.g., issues related to technical implementation or economics of contemporary game projects. Workshops with an academic focus are also invited. The conference venues will have facilities suitable for most digital media production tasks. The first day will also include keynote workshops, to be announced later. In addition, participants are encouraged to offer suggestions for topics for the panel discussions. Research Papers The second and third days are dedicated to the research papers dealing with games. Both specific analyses of games as a form of art and entertainment are welcome, as well as more general approaches dealing with the cultural practices related with games and social activities in online environments. Suggested topics include, but are not limited to: - design and analysis of games, - communication and community in relation to games, - online and mobile gaming. Since the aim of the CGDC is to foster dialogue between the game developer and researcher communities, organisers wish that even the more theoretical papers would include concrete examples or references to games or game-related practices. The paper and workshop proposals should be submitted in the form of abstracts by the end of January 2002. The deadline for full papers is April 8, 2002, and papers will be included in the printed conference publication. There is a half an hour time reserved for presenting each paper in the programme. The Conference Publication The publication including the conference proceedings will be delivered to the participants at the conference. Submission Format The proposal for a research paper should consist of an abstract of at least 1000 words. A short biography of the author should be included. The proposal for a workshop has no fixed format. Rather, innovative topics and creative working practices are encouraged. The workshop proposals should include a description of the topic, goals and methods applied in the workshop. The time available for a workshop process is either three hours (a half-day workshop), or seven hours (a full day workshop). A proposal should state which alternative it is describing. All proposals should be submitted through the online form at the CGDC web site. Further Inquiries: For further information and updates on the conference programme, please consult the conference website: www.gamesconference.org (the old address http://www.uta.fi/cgdc is no longer available). The organising committee can be reached through professor Frans Mäyrä (frans.mayra@uta.fi; the conference programme) or conference producer Carolina Pajula (hyperactive@uta.fi; the conference arrangements). --- :: --- --__--__-- Message: 4 Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2001 08:47:48 -0500 (EST) From: Andrew Perrin <andrew_perrin@unc.edu> To: air-l@aoir.org Subject: [Air-l] Re: Company vs. Community Reply-To: air-l@aoir.org Hmmm - well, the concept of 'community' certainly is a very hot one, and one for which no widely-accepted definition exists. "Communitarians" (e.g., Amitai Etzioni and others, probably including Robert Putnam) would probably exclude companies from their idea of "community," but it's never clear exactly why; they seem to see community as being a sort of nostalgic, small-town thing. There are of course lots of other uses of the word: "community" as physical social space (as in "Welcome to the community of Chapel Hill"), "community" as social-but-not-physical space (online communities), "community" as identity-based interaction (the Catholic community, the African-American community), and "community" as an opt-in, opt-out sort of group (as in administrators' references to "the college community" or "utopian communities"). All of these do seem to belong to the "third sector" (non-market, non-state), and that does suggest that there's something about community that separates it from companies. But then you have to wonder whether company towns (e.g., Levittown) can't really be "communities." All of this, I suppose, is just to suggest that your student probably won't find many pat answers in the research on "community". ap ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Andrew J Perrin - andrew_perrin@unc.edu - http://www.unc.edu/~aperrin Assistant Professor of Sociology, U of North Carolina, Chapel Hill 269 Hamilton Hall, CB#3210, Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3210 USA --__--__-- Message: 5 Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2001 08:49:28 -0600 To: air-l@aoir.org From: craig stroupe <cstroupe@d.umn.edu> Subject: Re: [Air-l] Company vs. Community Reply-To: air-l@aoir.org --=====================_4415839==_.ALT Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Whether a company is a community depends on how people use it, not just its objective characteristics. You could also ask about the difference between a company and a religion. Best, - Craig At 09:17 AM 12/13/2001 -0800, you wrote:

Colleagues,

I teach an MBA E-Commerce class. In the customary class on online communities, we started off with a simple question- "What is the difference between a (for-profit)company and a community?"

This seemingly simple question tied us up into knots as we tried to identify attributes that distinguished the two. The ones we did come up with included contractual vs. voluntary membership, rigid vs. loose organizational structure, paid vs. unpaid participants etc. I think you see where I am going.

At the end of the discussion, one student(who has a Ph.D in biology) said- "Isn't community an all-encompassing construct? Can it not be argued that a company is really a type of community?" While I respected his comments, it really underscored the need to understand this better.

I know community is a construct that is backed by decades of research. I have seen some of the seminal works- but perhaps, not all.

How would you answer the basic question I started out with?

Best, Sandeep

--- Visit my Thought Central-http://faculty.washington.edu/sandeep/blog/blogger.html

_______________________________________________ Air-l mailing list Air-l@aoir.org http://www.aoir.org/mailman/listinfo/air-l

* * * * Craig Stroupe / Assistant Professor / University of Minnesota Duluth / Department of Composition / 1201 Ordean Court # 420/ Duluth, MN 55812 / 218-726-6249 / fax 218-726-8228 / <http://www.d.umn.edu/~cstroupe> * * * * --=====================_4415839==_.ALT Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" <html> <font size=3>Whether a company is a community depends on how people use it, not just its objective characteristics.  You could also ask about the difference between a company and a religion.  <br><br> Best, - Craig<br><br> At 09:17 AM 12/13/2001 -0800, you wrote:<br> <blockquote type=cite class=cite cite>Colleagues,<br><br> I teach an MBA E-Commerce class.  In the customary class on online<br> communities, we started off with a simple question- "What is the difference<br> between a (for-profit)company and a community?"<br><br> This seemingly simple question tied us up into knots as we tried to identify<br> attributes that distinguished the two.  The ones we did come up with<br> included contractual vs. voluntary membership, rigid vs. loose<br> organizational structure, paid vs. unpaid participants etc.  I think you see<br> where I am going.<br><br> At the end of the discussion, one student(who has a Ph.D in biology) said-<br> "Isn't community an all-encompassing construct? Can it not be argued that a<br> company is really a type of community?"  While I respected his comments, it<br> really underscored the need to understand this better.<br><br> I know community is a construct that is backed by decades of research.  I<br> have seen some of the seminal works- but perhaps, not all.<br><br> How would you answer the basic question I started out with?<br><br> <br><br> Best,<br> Sandeep<br><br> ---<br> Visit my Thought<br> Central-http://faculty.washington.edu/sandeep/blog/blogger.html<br><br> <br> _______________________________________________<br> Air-l mailing list<br> Air-l@aoir.org<br> <a href="http://www.aoir.org/mailman/listinfo/air-l" eudora="autourl">http://www.aoir.org/mailman/listinfo/air-l</a> </blockquote> <x-sigsep><p></x-sigsep> <br><br> * * * * Craig Stroupe / Assistant Professor / University of Minnesota Duluth / Department of Composition / 1201 Ordean Court # 420/ Duluth, MN 55812 / 218-726-6249 / fax 218-726-8228 / <<a href="http://www.d.umn.edu/~cstroupe" eudora="autourl">http://www.d.umn.edu/~cstroupe</a>> ; * * * * </font></html> --=====================_4415839==_.ALT-- --__--__-- Message: 6 From: R.A.Hope-Hume@open.ac.uk To: air-l@aoir.org Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2001 16:23:43 -0000 Subject: [Air-l] Social vs Internet Reply-To: air-l@aoir.org Robert Putnam (2001) laments the passing of community in contemporary society and, with it, the loss of "social capital". Putnam sees the lack of participation in voluntary organisations, like ten-pin bowling leagues, because of that loss. Contemporary culture, he claims is typified more by solitary pursuits, such as watching television, than with community activities. However, Putnam does wonder if the internet will generate increased social capital. However I've been told there is recent research that shows that internet users are more likely to be involved in social activities. Is anyone aware of this resarch? Bob Hope-Hume --__--__-- Message: 7 Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2001 08:48:48 -0800 (PST) From: "D. Silver" <dsilver@u.washington.edu> To: <air-l@aoir.org> Subject: Re: [Air-l] Re: Company vs. Community Reply-To: air-l@aoir.org On Mon, 17 Dec 2001, Andrew Perrin wrote:

All of these do seem to belong to the "third sector" (non-market, non-state), and that does suggest that there's something about community that separates it from companies. But then you have to wonder whether company towns (e.g., Levittown) can't really be "communities."

Intellectually and politically speaking, I agree wholeheartedly with Andrew's comment above. But it seems to me that one of the most common (and nefarious depending where you stand on the issue) developments in mainstream cyberculture during, say, 1997 - 2000 has been the commercialization of online communities. Is it just me or does it appear to the rest of you that the folks at Amazon, Yahoo, and fill-in-the-blank.com have been reading Howard Rheingold? For a number of dot.coms (and former dot.coms ... rip), there's a thin line between commerce and community: Online communities are set up and nurtured as portals to e-commerce. I've seen very little critical work on this angle but a good start is Chris Werry's "Imagined Electronic Community: Representations of Online Community in Business Texts" and Janelle Brown's "Three Case Studies," both in Online Communities: Commerce, Community Action, and the Virtual University, edited by Chris Werry and Miranda Mowbray (Hewlett-Packard Professional Books, 2001). david silver http://faculty.washington.edu/dsilver --__--__-- Message: 8 Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2001 10:49:33 -0600 From: "john.white" <john.white@wku.edu> To: air-l@aoir.org Subject: Re: [Air-l] Re: Company vs. Community Reply-To: air-l@aoir.org This may be a silly question, but I've been wondering what the difference between community and culture might be. Culture, particularly organizational culture, can be defined as a shared pattern of beliefs (see Schein 1985 and others). It seems to me that community, at least from what I've seen here, is similarly defined? --JW Andrew Perrin wrote:

Hmmm - well, the concept of 'community' certainly is a very hot one, and one for which no widely-accepted definition exists. "Communitarians" (e.g., Amitai Etzioni and others, probably including Robert Putnam) would probably exclude companies from their idea of "community," but it's never clear exactly why; they seem to see community as being a sort of nostalgic, small-town thing. There are of course lots of other uses of the word: "community" as physical social space (as in "Welcome to the community of Chapel Hill"), "community" as social-but-not-physical space (online communities), "community" as identity-based interaction (the Catholic community, the African-American community), and "community" as an opt-in, opt-out sort of group (as in administrators' references to "the college community" or "utopian communities").

All of these do seem to belong to the "third sector" (non-market, non-state), and that does suggest that there's something about community that separates it from companies. But then you have to wonder whether company towns (e.g., Levittown) can't really be "communities."

All of this, I suppose, is just to suggest that your student probably won't find many pat answers in the research on "community".

ap

---------------------------------------------------------------------- Andrew J Perrin - andrew_perrin@unc.edu - http://www.unc.edu/~aperrin Assistant Professor of Sociology, U of North Carolina, Chapel Hill 269 Hamilton Hall, CB#3210, Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3210 USA

_______________________________________________ Air-l mailing list Air-l@aoir.org http://www.aoir.org/mailman/listinfo/air-l

--__--__-- _______________________________________________ Air-l mailing list Air-l@aoir.org http://www.aoir.org/mailman/listinfo/air-l End of Air-l Digest