Dan,

I agree to the point of believing that had we (us and ICANN) kept our 
eye on core values and the remit we, and ICANN, would never have gone 
down the NETMundial Initiative (NMI) path the way we did. That is not to 
say that there would be no NMI, or that we would have had nothing to do 
with its shape, or no role in the operations of a NMI. It means that 
ICANN the organization, and ICANN's stakeholder groups, would have 
decided to engage, or not engage, using a very different process, rather 
the "new produce release" strategy that was used, a strategy that has 
produced so much confusion, much expenditure of energy, and occasion 
bits of acrimony. There was a better way and that way is represented in 
how ICANN does what it does well. It would be sad for ICANN, and the 
general fate of the inclusive multistakeholder model, to lose that.

Sam

. . . On 25/12/2014 4:28 PM, Dan Krimm wrote:
> Thanks Sam,
>
> I think the one thing we mostly agree on here at NCSG, regardless of where
> we stand on what to do about "public interest" terminology, is that ICANN
> should have a narrow remit and stick to that as a matter of course.
>
> This is about network names and numbers, not the kitchen sink.
>
> It'd be a good thing if we always remember to start there, whenever we're
> talking about various strategies and tactics.  If we remember what we're
> aiming for, other considerations will tend to fall into place more easily,
> especially if we pay attention to the details of a particular context.
>
> Dan
>
>