A Reflection on India's ITU Document 98

[McTim]

I don't grok this at all.

Can't non-commercial/civil society stakeholders represent themselves?

Why would they need to be "represented"?

On Sun, Nov 16, 2014 at 8:25 AM, Sam Lanfranco <lanfran at yorku.ca> wrote:

>  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.
>
> 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.
>
> Sam Lanfranco (NPOC, Policy Committee Chair)
>



-- 
Cheers,

McTim
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route
indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20141116/fb1565fd/attachment.htm>