On 11 October 2012 23:45, Adam Peake <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:ajp@glocom.ac.jp" target="_blank">ajp@glocom.ac.jp</a>></span> wrote:<br><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<<a href="http://www.circleid.com/posts/20121009_multi_stakeholderism_revisited_icann_we_can_do_better/" target="_blank">http://www.circleid.com/posts/20121009_multi_stakeholderism_revisited_icann_we_can_do_better/</a>><br>
</blockquote><div><br></div><div>The flaws in Katim's article are quite numerous, but that's a different thread.</div><div><br></div><div>My first instinct is probably completely in left field but I'll put it out there anyway:</div>
<div><br></div><div>Merge the proposed group with the ISP stakeholders and call the newly-rechartered result the "infrastructure constituency" -- which is what I thought it should have been in the first place.</div>
<div><br></div><div>- Evan</div><div><br></div></div>