[governance] multistakeholding was Re: N & CoI

[Suresh Ramasubramanian]

Michael Gurstein [05/06/08 14:25 -0700]:
>The real challenge of ICT4D is not getting the bits and bytes issues solved
>(necessary but most certainly not sufficient) rather it has to do with
>putting into place appropriate
>social/organizational/learning/management/content/service etc.etc.

Well yes, that'd actually go without saying. But as I've said before
there's enough shared synergy between these two groups. I work on the
boundary between policy and tech in my own little corner of the IG world ..
wsis action line C5. C2/4/6 access and capacity building issues are
critical as a support mechanism for C5, besides providing a solid base for
C5 activities to build on - and I've pointed that out in more than one
paper I've written, and implement that on a fairly regular basis.

My issue is not with those people (I've met them, I know what they do and I
sincerely appreciate it). But they're not the people who're playing ICANN
politics on this list.

>further discussion on the MAG nominations along with a simple declaration
>that the next NomCom undertake to only make substantive decisions concerning
>the criteria for selection after broad consultation with the group.

That is ALL I asked for. Parminder at least seems to think otherwise.

It is a simple resolution. If you get consensus on this, I'm fine with it.

thanks
srs
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance