[governance] CONSENSUS CALL - STATEMENT ON IGF REVIEW

[Roland Perry]

In message <1234775123.6545.36.camel at anriette-laptop>, at 11:05:23 on 
Mon, 16 Feb 2009, Anriette Esterhuysen <anriette at apc.org> writes
>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.

I've seen lots of ccTLD people involved.

>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.

Are these stakeholders represented within the MAG (in which case perhaps 
the MAG can reach out to them for views)?

I note from this week's meetings in Geneva that some think the answer is 
"no" for persons with disabilities.
-- 
Roland Perry
____________________________________________________________
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