<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 7:55 AM, parminder <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net">parminder@itforchange.net</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<div bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#333333"><div class="im">
<br>
<br>
On Monday 09 May 2011 10:07 AM, McTim wrote:
</div><blockquote type="cite"><div class="im">
<pre>On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 7:29 AM, Jeremy Malcolm <a href="mailto:jeremy@ciroap.org" target="_blank"><jeremy@ciroap.org></a> wrote:
</pre>
</div><blockquote type="cite">
<pre>Thanks Parminder and Avri. Here's a consolidated draft with Avri's edits.
SNIP
Big businesses already have a disproportionately large influence on
government bureaucracies. For governments to sanction a dedicated
meeting
with top G8 leaders and officials to plan the global agenda for Internet
related
policies is inappropriate. What is required is a discussion that
includes civil
society actors
</pre>
</blockquote><div><div></div><div class="h5">
<pre><insert>
and the Internet technical community
</insert>
</pre>
</div></div></blockquote><div><div></div><div class="h5">
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre></pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre>, who will bring to the table the concerns of global
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre>public interest
derived from a diversity of people's, of many sections of society,
interests and
concerns.
It is also pertinent to state here that since the Internet is
essentially a
global phenomenon, policies framed together by the most powerful
nations,
quite likely, will become the default global norm. This is most true for
architectural and economic issues, while the global impact on other
areas
will also be substantial. It is therefore appropriate that G 8 countries
engage with the same, and other issues, of Internet policies at the more
democratic global forums where all countries
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre>dlete "countries" above
and insert "stakeholders"
and I will be happy with the draft as edited by Avri.
</pre>
</blockquote></div></div>
Lets not start that old debate again. If you mean tech community
which is involved with public interest advocacy - you for instance -
then it is already included when we say 'include civil society',</div></blockquote><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>I thought you denied that the tech community was part of CS?</div><div><br></div><div><br>
</div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;"><div bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#333333"> if
they are serving big business and representing their interests, it
is hardly in keeping with the principal thrust of this submission to
push for greater inclusion of them. <br></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I thought that including everybody was the point?</div></div><br clear="all"><br>-- <br>Cheers,<br><br>McTim<br>"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel<br>