[governance] Fwd: [igf_members] MAG Renewal

[Keith Davidson]

Agreed. Also, ICANN processes would be more functional if ICANN used an 
issues based approach rather than the current constituency based 
approach to its meetings and its work.

Cheers

Keith

On 16/05/2013 4:17 a.m., David Cake wrote:
>
> On 15/05/2013, at 7:05 AM, Roland Perry <roland at internetpolicyagency.com> wrote:
>>
>> Of course, one way that governments can participate in ICANN, other than by sending people to the GAC, is by sending their technical people to some of the other silos. (They could send GAC-type people to other silos too, but it seems they can usually only justify the trip by having a whole silo of their own, and I fully understand the dynamic of that).
>
> 	Government participation in ICANN would be a lot more functional if they did not feel the need to limit it to within GAC processes.
>
> 	Cheers
>
> 		David
>
>

-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t