Thanks to Peter's insightful and thoughtful comments. I've some thoughts. See below.

1. The name - as its about Internet Governance, it seems sensible to me to include that in the name of the document and the name of the exercise.
Its not just about "Internet Leadership" which is being done in many areas, of registry management, law, security etc, but specifically about IG. I think its healthier to acknowledge and display that focus.

Good point. Perhaps we could consider the alternative name something like "AP Internet Governance School or Institute".

2. I am not accustomed to describing the Asia Pacific area as "APAC", so started to re-name it AP - but didn't continue....happy to defer if there is a widespread acceptance of that abbreviation.

Completely agree.

3. I am somewhat concerned at the current focus on the domain name industry: I have highlit the term a few times. I think both that there is more to the IG topic than that, and also that the domain name industry can be expected to be busy taking care of itself through such organisations as APTLD, ICANN and the newly formed Domain Name Association ( "DNA"). Although I think we need to be careful about opening the door to an unlimited range of topics, I have added IP address allocation mechanisms, multistakeholderism, online human rights, network security and network neutrality as possible topics. In any event, these should be signals, rather than instructions to those who will eventually draft the actual curriculum.

Definitely, I think e-commerce (involving consumer protection, privacy and security in big data and cloud computing, etc.) industry is another big stakeholder that we should engage.

4. I have separated out and made clearer the tasks of preparing the curriculum from preparing business and financial plans to support it.

Yes.

Hong