<HTML><BODY style="word-wrap: break-word; -khtml-nbsp-mode: space; -khtml-line-break: after-white-space; "><BR><DIV><DIV>On 15 dec 2005, at 16.51, l.d.misek-falkoff falkoff wrote:</DIV><BR class="Apple-interchange-newline"><BLOCKQUOTE type="cite"><SPAN class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: separate; border-spacing: 0px 0px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; text-align: auto; -khtml-text-decorations-in-effect: none; text-indent: 0px; -apple-text-size-adjust: auto; text-transform: none; orphans: 2; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; "><DIV>LDMF Comment and Query:</DIV><DIV> </DIV><DIV>A recurring typology of who is "in the set" of multistakeholders goes something like: </DIV><DIV> </DIV><DIV>Governments, Civil Society including but not only Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs), <BR></DIV></SPAN></BLOCKQUOTE><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV>i think the academicians fall into this category as well</DIV><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV><BLOCKQUOTE type="cite"><SPAN class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: separate; border-spacing: 0px 0px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; text-align: auto; -khtml-text-decorations-in-effect: none; text-indent: 0px; -apple-text-size-adjust: auto; text-transform: none; orphans: 2; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; "><DIV>Private Sector, Parliamentarians. </DIV></SPAN></BLOCKQUOTE><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV>The Tunis Agenda (35) includes:</DIV><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV>Intergovernmental Orgs</DIV><DIV>International Organizations</DIV><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV>and recognizes in (36) and recommends in (72) the academic scientific and technical communities.</DIV><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV>Another group that is arguing for inclusion is the " Internet Technical Community" Or what I prefer to call it the "Internet Technical Community" In some sense this lines up with the academic, scientific and technical commnities, but is some sense, because of its policy roles (speaking specifically of ICANN and maybe ISOC here) somewhat wider then that definition.</DIV><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV><BR><BLOCKQUOTE type="cite"><SPAN class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: separate; border-spacing: 0px 0px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; text-align: auto; -khtml-text-decorations-in-effect: none; text-indent: 0px; -apple-text-size-adjust: auto; text-transform: none; orphans: 2; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; "><DIV> </DIV><DIV>Perhaps I missed one or two (?), but for purposes of discussion and without nominating this as the only possible top level list of course, what might you think of adding: </DIV><DIV> </DIV><DIV><STRONG style="font-weight: bold; "><SPAN class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: bold; ">Individuals.</SPAN></STRONG></DIV><DIV> </DIV><DIV>[And all that might entail]</DIV></SPAN></BLOCKQUOTE><BR></DIV><DIV>Yes, they need to be discussed as well. though I still find many aspects of how unaffiliated individuals can be included very confusing as long as we are not intending that they should be represented by some sort of [ad-hoc] affinity grouping.</DIV><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV>a.</DIV><BR></BODY></HTML>