[governance] CONSENSUS CALL - STATEMENT ON IGF REVIEW

[Anriette Esterhuysen]

Hi Ian

I (speaking in my personal capacity at this point, not for APC) am happy
to endorse this. 

There is a misplaced full stop in the third pargraph.

I find the second paragraph a bit confusing.. but that is probably
because I have been traveling and in meetings, and have not been able to
follow the discussion.

> The process of consultations should especially keep in mind
> constituencies that have lesser participation in IG issues at present,
> including constituencies in developing counties including those of
> civil society. Other groups with lower participation in IG issues like
> women, ethnic minorities and disability groups should also be
> especially reached out to.

If the intention is to consult people who have an interest in IG issues
but who have not participated in the IGF then it makes sense. We need to
know why people such as the many involved in ccTLDs, for example, have
not been present in IGF spaces.

Perhaps the paragraph should simply make it clear that we are not
talking about 'minorities', 'women', etc. in general, but about groups
that are IG stakeholders, and that have an interest in IG issues, but
who have not, to date, participated.

In other words, we are still taking about the IGF's intended audience.

But I have desire to split hairs... and I am happy to give the statement
a 'Yes'.

Anriette






____________________________________________________________
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