<div dir="ltr">Thank you Garth.<div>I was thinking along the same lines. The problem with categories is that they limit freedom - for example if you are in a "private sector" category it then becomes difficult to put forward your concerns as "civil society" and "end user" both of which categories you also belong to. Divide and rule. :-)</div>
<div>I understand that there may be a solution in the works, but meanwhile, as a little light relief, please have a look at this very short short story from Rudyard Kipling:</div><div><span style="font-size:medium;font-family:'Times New Roman'">And yet Suleiman-bin-Daoud was not proud. He very seldom showed off, and when he did he was sorry for it. Once he tried to feed all the animals in all the world in one day, but when the food was ready an Animal came out of the deep sea and ate it up in three mouthfuls. Suleiman-bin-Daoud was very surprised and said, 'O Animal, who are you?' And the Animal said, 'O King, live for ever! I am the smallest of thirty thousand brothers, and our home is at the bottom of the sea. We heard that you were going to feed all the animals in all the world, and my brothers sent me to ask when dinner would be ready.' Suleiman-bin-Daoud was more surprised than ever and said, 'O Animal, you have eaten all the dinner that I made ready for all the animals in the world.' And the Animal said, 'O King, live for ever, but do you really call that a dinner? Where I come from we each eat twice as much as that between meals.' Then Suleiman-bin-Daoud fell flat on his face and said, 'O Animal! I gave that dinner to show what a great and rich king I was, and not because I really wanted to be kind to the animals. Now I am ashamed, and it serves me right. Suleiman-bin-Daoud was a really truly wise man, Best Beloved. After that he never forgot that it was silly to show off;</span><br>
</div><div><a href="http://www.boop.org/jan/justso/butter.htm" target="_blank">http://www.boop.org/jan/justso/butter.htm</a><br></div><div><br></div><div>Best wishes</div><div>Deirdre</div></div><div class="gmail_extra">
<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On 19 April 2014 10:42, Garth Graham <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:garth.graham@telus.net" target="_blank">garth.graham@telus.net</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
I do share your concern, and can offer an opinion as to why the hubs method of participation was chosen. I just completed a fast scan of the meaning of stakeholder implicit in the NETmundial document and posted it as a “whole page” comment to that introduction page. I found that stakeholders are not anyone who self-identifies as such. They are qualified into collective categories of organizations that are then “represented.” It would be consistent with that implicit assumption to aggregate individuals into “hubs” (or as ICANN does, into internal “communities”). But it’s not good “Internet” if the choice to connect doesn’t rest at the level of the individual.<br>
<span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br>
GG<br>
</font></span><div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><br>
On 2014-04-19, at 6:52 AM, Deirdre Williams wrote:<br>
<br>
> The apparent limitations on remote participation for this meeting are of great concern at least to me.<br>
> I have added this comment:<br>
> The absence of a truly open remote participation for this meeting is of great concern. The lack of something like Webex, or whichever system is used by ICANN for all of its public meetings, automatically limits the participation of the majority of the largest stakeholder group named by this document, the users.<br>
> to paragraph 1 of the introduction <a href="http://document.netmundial.br/introduction/" target="_blank">http://document.netmundial.br/introduction/</a><br>
> Does anyone share this concern?<br>
<br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br>“The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979
</div>