NMI, without the initial support that it had now appears to be subtle
evolution of another regional IGF activity. I don't think that NMI or
any such activity that happens elsewhere actually replaces at all any
IGF or intends to replace any IGF. Its like one of those groupings or
associations that in the end are only IGF participants with a couple
of workshops or maybe report during the regional IGFs report back
sessions. So I don't see any harm in commenting on the NMI TORs.

On Thu, Apr 2, 2015 at 4:38 PM, Flavio Rech Wagner <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> CGI.br's position on NMI is strongly in line with Bill's view and with the
> ToR draft.
>
> Best
>
> Flavio
>
>
>
> Hi Ed
>
> On Apr 2, 2015, at 11:53 AM, Edward Morris <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> Hi Bill,
>
> So the NMI will largely be another talk shop without teeth that allows
> people who care about this stuff to, well, talk and network and talk?
>
>
> No it’s not for talking, that’s the IGF
>
> Are we lacking in places to talk and network in the Internet governance
> world?
>
>
> Not to my knowledge, although whether they yield desirable dynamics and
> results is another matter.
>
> I don't mean to denigrate the hard work of those involved in this effort,
> I'm just trying to understand why we need the NMI, what niche it fills.
>
>
> The proposed functions are as described below.  Again, a platform to share
> info and coordinate projects consistent with the NM statement.  And a
> resource and connector so that when, e.g., a government says we’d like to
> think about establishing national/regional MS mechanisms, how do we do it,
> what have been the experiences, their only option isn’t to get on a plane
> and go as CGI.br or New Zealand and ask because there’s info available,
> model laws, best practices, etc. to refer to.  Or when a developing country
> government says we have a problem with spam or security or whatever and
> don’t know how best to approach, there’s another answer besides ‘ask the
> ITU,’ they can connect with actors via the platform that will help steer
> them to relevant people orgs and resources and construct a distributed
> network they can draw on in working toward solutions. Or when someone wants
> to do a thing like the Friends of IGF project or Bertrand’s or the Stanford
> IGF polling thing they can come there and find potential partners and
> funders. Or when we want to take stock of progress or the lack thereof in
> implementing the NM principles, someone can propose a report and find
> partners for finance organization etc. and the platform helps to
> disseminate.  If you know of another space where these and related functions
> mentioned below are all being done now, you are well ahead of the rest of
> us.  Please provide pointers.
>
> Thanks
>
> Bill
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Ed
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Apr 2, 2015, at 9:46 AM, William Drake <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> Hi Milton
>
> On Apr 1, 2015, at 8:31 PM, Milton L Mueller <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> NMI’s ToR released on April Fool’s day! I love it!
>
>
> Yes, and the joke’s on you, Kieren and others who’ve been endlessly
> fulminating that NMI is somehow a dastardly plot to take over the universe,
> even though your colleagues who are involved have been saying forever that
> no it’s not (why would we be involved in it if it were?).  What we propose
> to actually do, if facts matter, is
>
> http://comments.netmundial.org/iv-scope-of-activities/
>
> The Initiative will seek to complement and support the work of existing
> Internet governance dialogue and normative processes and institutions,
> including particularly the Internet Governance Forum (IGF), as well as the
> technical Internet community. In addition, the Initiative will not be a
> policy-setting body.
>
> The NETmundial Initiative will:
>
> Serve as a neutral clearinghouse for issues, solutions, expertise and
> resources in Internet governance, and provide a platform on which diverse
> actors can solicit project partners and establish collaborative
> relationships.
>
> Enable open, inclusive, balanced and collaborative communities to share
> knowledge  and expertise, leading to best practices, suggestions, innovation
> and solutions to address challenges identified by the community.
>
> Facilitate participation in the Internet governance ecosystem, particularly
> in the developing world, and advance multistakeholder processes at the
> national and regional levels.
>
> Promote the application, evaluation, and implementation of the Principles
> and encourage community reporting efforts.
>
> Assist developing-country communities, governments and underserved
> stakeholders by enabling capacity development efforts and in networking with
> relevant organizations and processes in order to address gaps in policy
> development.
>
> These elements distill both public feedback received on a questionnaire and
> discussions that have taken place in various spaces, e.g. at the Istanbul
> IGF, in the Ilves commission process, at ICANN Singapore, and within NMI
> (reports of the ToR drafting group meetings are at
> https://www.netmundial.org/2015-meetings).  I would very much encourage
> people to comment on each of these elements on the website.  If you think
> they can be useful or that there is no need for them, say why.
>
> Either way, there's no dastardly plot here to take over the world.  No
> centralizing decision making about anything behind closed doors in smoke
> filled rooms filled by the cigars of WEF fat cats (they are barely
> involved).  No taking away anything from the IGF, but rather complementary
> work (we’ll probably hold an Open Forum in Brazil).   No big new
> organization, it’s three ICANN and CGI.br staffers who have multiple other
> responsibilities working very part time alongside a multistakeholder
> Coordination Council that has five NCUC members and works by consensus.
> Fadi is one member and has been not so involved either, so Fadi Fever
> explanations of how things must really work don’t cut it.
>
> NMI is a space for people to say what projects they’re working on (e.g.
> https://www.netmundial.org/contributions-list) and seek partners, make
> connections, share information, etc.  A core concern is and always was
> contributing to capacity building for developing country governments and
> stakeholders trying to deal with non-ICANN issues.  Either people will
> decide this can be useful and it will sustain a place as a small
> facilitating connector in complex institutional ecosystem, or they won’t,
> and we’ll say ok we tried and it’ll drift off, not the end of the world.
> Either can happen, especially given all the willful misrepresentations of
> this that have become part of the zeitgeist.  But it’s worth remembering
> that when some of us started talking in 2004 about the need for a new
> multistakeholder process for open dialogue and analysis on the broad range
> of IG issues and institutions, the push back was immediate from the some of
> same folks that have criticized this—e.g. ISOC and the ICC—and yet
> eventually they came to see that the IGF was a useful addition to the mix.
> That could happen here too if people get beyond the original sins of a key
> protagonist in the initial roll out of the idea.  TBD.
>
> Best
>
> Bill
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *********************************************************
> William J. Drake
> International Fellow & Lecturer
>   Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ
>   University of Zurich, Switzerland
> Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency,
>   ICANN, www.ncuc.org
> [log in to unmask] (direct), [log in to unmask] (lists),
>   www.williamdrake.org
> Internet Governance: The NETmundial Roadmap http://goo.gl/sRR01q
> *********************************************************
>
>
>



-- 
Regards.
--------------------------
Fouad Bajwa
Public Policy Analyst
Follow my Tweets: http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa
My Blog: Internet's Governance: http://internetsgovernance.blogspot.com/