<div dir="ltr"><div><div>I don't grok this at all.<br><br></div>Can't non-commercial/civil society stakeholders represent themselves?<br><br></div>Why would they need to be "represented"?<br></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sun, Nov 16, 2014 at 8:25 AM, Sam Lanfranco <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:lanfran@yorku.ca" target="_blank">lanfran@yorku.ca</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<p class="MsoNormal">An NCSG colleague has suggested that my posting
on India’s
Document 98 was a bit too dense in terms of its recommendations
for action.
Here is what I see as necessary here. The activity is quite apart
from ICANN, but will have an impact on the effectiveness of
ICANN’s
multistakeholder process. At the level of civil of the and their
respective national
governments there is a need to come to a common understanding, if
not an
agreement, on how non-commercial/civil society stakeholders will
be represented,
and interact, in the processes of the articulation of internet
policies,
whenever and wherever. <u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">This needs dialogue to take place outside
ICANN, probably at
the IGF. There is need for a focused dialogue between governments
(as
significant stakeholders) and non-commercial/civil society
stakeholders The
need for a policy framework (terms of reference) for these
specific discussions
goes far beyond India and could be a recurrent dialogue track at
the IGF. Brazil’s
history in the area might contain useful lessons learned. <u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Sam Lanfranco (NPOC, Policy Committee Chair)<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
</blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br><div class="gmail_signature">Cheers,<br><br>McTim<br>"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel</div>
</div>