In a short response to David Cake's excellent comments I would like to 
clarify that there are fewer "deep differences in thinking here" that 
appear on the surface. The core issue is about strategies for greater 
awareness and engagement, and at all levels., and within ICANN the issue 
of an effective move to greater accountability.

/First, a brief personal aside: For a quarter of a century I have been 
involved with an Indian NGO, the Ambedkar Centre for Justice and Peace. 
ACJP is 99.99% composed of untouchables (Dalits) who account for around 
250 million Indians. ACJP focuses on human rights, atrocity prevention, 
and access to justice and support for those abused. Dalit abuse is 
constant and wide spread. I am well versed in the complexities of Indian 
policy positions and behavior, both at home and in international fora.///

There are two general parts to the Indian position with regard to 
Internet governance. One part is its self-serving proposals for greater 
national control, which need to be opposed as contrary to the spirit and 
core values of the Internet. The other part is India's approach to the 
civil society elements engaged in Internet governance. There too the 
India intent is to contain and constrain civil society, again in the 
government's own self interests. What this does is raise a "red flag" 
(pick you colour) around strategies for civil society awareness and 
engagement. Here we tend to all agree.

There needs to be more, deeper and broader stakeholder awareness and 
engagement at all levels. This includes within India (and elsewhere). 
Not in the terms set by the Indian government, but on terms that are the 
outcome of a multistakeholder dialogue within India (pick your country). 
One risk is that in the absence of country level engagement at that 
level, countries will have more scope to marginalize civil society 
representation within the larger multistakeholder processes. For me that 
is the key challenge here.

Sam L.
(Chair, NPOC Policy Committee)