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] 
>> <mailto:[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 <http://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] 
>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Milton
>>>
>>>> On Apr 1, 2015, at 8:31 PM, Milton L Mueller <[log in to unmask] 
>>>> <mailto:[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 
>>> <http://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 <http://www.ncuc.org/>
>>> [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]> (direct), 
>>> [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]> (lists),
>>> www.williamdrake.org <http://www.williamdrake.org/>
>>> /Internet Governance: The NETmundial Roadmap /http://goo.gl/sRR01q
>>> *********************************************************
>>>
>