A further response from NMI Secretariat. In it they state that we can evaluate all Coordination Council applicants and make recommendations to the Transitional Council, and it seems our recommendations will be accepted unless someone else purports to be representative of civil society and they accept that – in which case, we get to discuss with them alternative assessments to ours.  So they do retain some decisional authority but it might not be exercised or be enough to matter to some people.

There is also the issue of ICANN expanding its purely technical mandate into non-technical policy matters, and grasping for more solid footing as a global governance regime.  Unless ICANN expands its mission beyond domain names, what power will it have in the world in 30 years when domain names are irrelevant?  And how will the pairing of ICANN and WEF drive those policy issues within the initiative?

I don't personally have a strong opinion on whether NCSG and CSCG should participate, but will take back to CSCG whatever position this group settles on.  And a variety of further opinions is welcome!

Thanks,
Robin



On Nov 19, 2014, at 9:04 AM, Stephanie Perrin wrote:

> I think this is a difficult question.  I agree with much of what Nothias posted in his response to Jeremy (removing the rancor of that exchange and the politics of the various groups, much of what he says about the sorry situation of civil society appears to me to ring true.)  On the one hand, we will be in a pickle if the thing matures and develops and other, more docile groups jump in to play a role in Internet governance.  On the other hand, it would be foolish to ignore the promise of potential allies like ISOC boycotting.  
> So my vote at the moment is to reach out to Harmut and company, and find out what they are planning.  Why not use the Brazilian hosting of IGF to try to bring the IGF to the next level of maturity, where it is better funded, where there are more concrete long range projects, etc.  There is no rush to decide.  Declare a fence-sitting position for the moment, don't be pushed into someone else's deadlines.  Keep asking questions to stall the clock....it is not like we are getting great answers so far.  Lets find out where the money is and who controls it, something that I think is important.  AS I have indicated, from a privacy perspective, what the WEF has been doing on "Big Data" has me deeply concerned.  It is dangerous to get close to that project, since it is fundamentally opposed to a human rights approach to personal data. And I have seen nothing to persuade me that in fact this move to take over "netmundial" is not simply the next phase of that project. 
> My two cents for what it is worth.
> cheers Stephanie
> On 2014-11-18, 13:15, Robin Gross wrote:
>> Folks,
>> 
>> Should NCSG participate in the NetMundial Initiative?   We are still waiting for confirmation from its secretariat as to whether or not civil society will be allowed to select all of its own representatives to the "coordination council" or if the secretariat will reserve the right to select some of civil society's representatives for us.  (The NMI secretariat have civil society orgs in mind who will be bring publicity and good PR to their project, but don't actually engage on these issues).
>> 
>> In my mind this is a critical question, and since the secretariat has been unwilling to confirm this yet, I remain skeptical of the initiative and our "legitimization" of it; however if the response from the secretariat is that they will play a "hands off" role in terms of civil society representatives, I'll be happy to change my mind.  
>> 
>> It is important that this initiative, in practice, live up the Netmundial principles (including stakeholders select their own representatives).  If the NMI organizers cannot confirm that much, then it is just an appropriation of the NetMundial label without the principles that we worked very hard in Sao Paulo to achieve.
>> 
>> At this point, while we wait for clarification from NMI's secretariat, each of the groups in the CSCG are asked to consider if they believe they should participate in the initiative.  So I ask this of NCSG.  JustNet Coalition has already decided against it.  Importantly, ISOC has said it will not participate in the initiative or its coordination council because it lacks openness, bottom-up orientation, accountability, and transparency in its structure and operations.  
>> 
>> We've heard that Fadi is touting CSCG's letter to the secretariat asking to select the civil society representatives as evidence of civil society's support for his initiative and as "legitimizing" the NMI.  What Fadi doesn't understand yet, however, is that our sending the letter requesting to be involved is not what "legitimizes" NMI.  It is whether NMI actually "walks the talk" and permits civil society to, in fact, make our own determinations for who should represent us - and in practice - not just words - live up the NetMundial principles of bottom-up governance, openness, transparency, accountability, etc.
>> 
>> A few Pro & Con arguments below.  Please send your thoughts.  I'll update as soon as we have some news one way or the other from the NMI secretariat.
>>  
>> Thanks,
>> Robin
>> 
>> 
>> FOR INVOLVEMENT
>> 
>> With ITU a governments only forum and no real will to change, and IGF as a forum with no power to make recommendations or take decisions and again no will to change, there is no credible venue to initiate action on non technical issues or issues not within the remit of Istar organisations These would include surveillance issues, human rights issues, net neutrality issues, to name a few.
>> 
>> The solid commitment to NetMundial principles promised, if carried out in practice, would create a credible and open initiative
>> 
>> There is a need for a representative forum capable of moving us forward on a range of issues not covered by existing institutions
>> 
>> Participation is strongly supported by some sections of civil society
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> AGAINST INVOLVEMENT
>> 
>> The last thing we need is a corporate takeover of internet governance and this could become that
>> 
>> ISOC has withdrawn
>> 
>> Participation is strongly opposed by some sections of civil society
>> 
>> This initiative has a track record of poor communication
>> 
>> Not bottom-up or transparent so far
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Nov 17, 2014, at 3:22 PM, Robin Gross wrote:
>> 
>>> Statement from the Civil Society Coordination Group (CSCG) from today.   CSCG is comprised of the Internet Governance civil society networks of NCSG, APC, Best Bits, JustNet, Diplo Foundation, Internet Governance Caucus, and Civicus.  - Robin
>>> 
>>> UPDATE ON CIVIL SOCIETY PARTICIPATION IN NET MUNDIAL INITIATIVE.
>>>  
>>> Please note that Internet Governance Civil Society Coordination Group (CSCG) participation in the new Net Mundial initiative is still under consideration. CSCG has written to the NMI Secretariat and Transitional Council suggesting that it play a co-ordinating role in the selection of civil society representatives in a coordinated bottom up manner, rather than these decisions being made by the Transitional Council (which has no civil society representation). This is still under discussion; however, we do not yet have a proposal with sufficient clarity for member coalitions to be able to decide on participation or not. While Just Net Coalition (JNC) has already determined it will not participate, other members are waiting for clarity on our proposal for a bottom up and inclusive procedure for determining civil society representatives before making any final decisions on participation.
>>>  
>>> Our letter to  the NMI Secretariat and Transitional Council in no way signifies that any or all CS organisations have made a final decision on whether to engage with the NMI in a formal selection process or to participate in the NMI process.
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>