<p dir="ltr"><br>
McTim,</p>
<p dir="ltr">.."Can you elaborate on your experience, especially on which issues are "sensitive"?</p>
<p dir="ltr">Here my submission is that it wud be apt to refer to contributions/papers posted at NETmundial website, especially the ones advocating multilateralism and the ones saying need for all inclusive stakeholderism. These papers are covering sensitivities too besides reasonings.</p>
<p dir="ltr">"... In addition, to echo what Dr. Pisanty says downthread, there is a great deal of outreach going on. I recall that in the AFRINIC region, they have built a new WG to engage government folks and to help bring them into the PDP. The RIPE region also has a similar outreach program for governments specifically."</p>
<p dir="ltr">First of all, my submissions are in my personal capacity and discussions are not on trivial issues like engagements. When I am referring to outreach programs, it is for expanding stakholderism or costituencies with rights.</p>
<p dir="ltr">Regards & best wishes</p>
<p dir="ltr">Naresh Ajwani</p>
<div class="gmail_quote">On 13 Mar 2014 16:16, "McTim" <<a href="mailto:mctimconsulting@gmail.com">mctimconsulting@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br type="attribution"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="ltr">Hi Naresh,<div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 10:24 PM, Naresh Ajwani <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:ajwaninaresh@gmail.com" target="_blank">ajwaninaresh@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><p dir="ltr">Thanks Greg for the elaborative response. Frankly, it has raised yet more queries, may be because of my firm belief in all inclusiveness and no spiritless processes. </p>
<p dir="ltr">"..... In a sense, the best protection for a potential “minority view” is not to end up as a minority view, but rather to end up influencing the consensus so that it resembles that view to the extent possible, with the result that the consensus is thus acceptable to the group holding what might otherwise have been a minority view....."</p>
<p dir="ltr">To the best of my experience, especially in case of sensitive issues, such spirit is lacking. Be that as it may, you would appreciate that even in your explained ideal environment, the processes are at the most blending minorty views but not protecting them and that itself, in my view is against multistakeholderism. It is a known fact that every stakeholder isn't entitled to same equity and justifiably because internet commenced from one corner of the world.</p>
</blockquote><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>Can you elaborate on your experience, especially on which issues are "sensitive"?</div><div><br></div><div>My experience is the opposite of yours. I have always found the Technical Community processes to be very accommodating of minority views. As a former WG Chair in the RIR system I actually have experience finding consensus among a disparate community of policy volunteers.</div>
<div>In addition, to echo what Dr. Pisanty says downthread, there is a great deal of outreach going on. I recall that in the AFRINIC region, they have built a new WG to engage government folks and to help bring them into the PDP. The RIPE region also has a similar outreach program for governments specifically.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Regards,</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>McTim</div><div><br></div></div></div></div>
</blockquote></div>