<p dir="ltr">sent from Google nexus 4<br>
kindly excuse brevity and typos.<br>
On 25 Mar 2014 14:27, "George Sadowsky" <<a href="mailto:george.sadowsky@gmail.com">george.sadowsky@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
> I am in Singapore and involved in Internet governance discussions resulting from the recent NTIA announcement. <br>
><br>
I am too ;)</p>
<p dir="ltr">> It was clearly stated at the first meeting that input would be obtained from many sources, and that the goal of the consultations would be as inclusive as possible.<br>
><br>
Yes and that needs to be practical</p>
<p dir="ltr">> It was also clearly stated that the 1net discussion list — this list — would be a significant source of input to the consultations.<br>
><br>
Well maybe not necessarily significant but it's one of the sources</p>
<p dir="ltr">> Our community — the community of people interest in and affected by Internet governance decisions — is numerous and distributed around the globe. It’s unrealistic to think that input can be gathered inclusively through physical meetings. <br>
><br>
Yes I agree and budget wise it's also unrealistic and I believe others know this. However, for me I think the ground for which the few physical meeting happen is more important. ICANN was mandated to coordinate this process, however it should not solely do this within it's structure. So while ICANN discuss this issues within it's community events (since ICANN community can be seen as a stakeholder) it should organise physical meeting(1 or 2) on a neutral ground where all stakeholders (including outside ICANN) come in to discuss their views and that is where an outcome should be determined.<br>
><br>
However, it is possible to contribute through this list, which is being read by a large number of people. <br>
><br>
Yes and no. Yes because this list is open and ofcourse allow for any contribution. No because of 3 major reasons:<br>
- /1Net does not have/have lost major stakeholder representation.<br>
- It's perceived to be ICANN centric<br>
- It does not have a clarified process to collecting the contributions.</p>
<p dir="ltr">> Please, can we focus somewhat more tightly on the purpose of this list? We have cross-stakeholder conversations going, <br>
><br>
Hmm... that is debatable<br>
><br>
but (at least in my opinion) in order to be helpful to progress in Internet governance, whether for Net Mundial or for a longer term goal such as the transfer of the stewardship of the IANA functions, can we use this list productively to be heard in the global Internet governance discussions?<br>
><br>
Great suggestion for the SC to come up with a process that will encourage other stakeholders by-in</p>
<p dir="ltr">Cheers!<br>
> George <br>
><br>
> <br>
>>><br>
>>> ]On 24 Mar 2014 17:23, "Ian Peter" <<a href="mailto:ian.peter@ianpeter.com">ian.peter@ianpeter.com</a>> wrote:<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> The draft timeline (link provided below) is nothing more than a list of ICANN meetings, each described as a "meeting of the global multistakeholder community". No other events are included.<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> Of course many, if not most, of the global multistakeholder community do not attend ICANN meetings. Many people with only a passing interest in the day to day operations of ICANN have an interest in how this transfer of powers is resolved.<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> One would hope consultation spreads well beyond the narrow set of stakeholders involved in ICANN.<br>
>>>><br>
>>>><br>
>>>> Ian Peter.<br>
>>>><br>
><br>
</p>