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 <[log in to unmask]> 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