Having just read our own MM analysis here:

http://www.internetgovernance.org/2014/08/29/the-not-mundial-initiative-governance-and-ungovernance-in-istanbul/

I can't say I disagree with much there, and while one may have issue 
with some of the analysis (I don't) unless the facts are wrong, I fail 
to see any reason to engage at this time, and while not engaging is 
actually opposing, I will even be grateful for people to *more actively* 
oppose.

Nicolas

On 21/11/2014 3:57 PM, Nicolas Adam wrote:
> I think that points against far outweighs points for. It is a NO from 
> me, "even if we'd pick our own reps" [geez ...].
>
> I am all *for* a "constitutional convention for the Internet", and I 
> looked at NetMundial as an enthusiastic forum that may advance some of 
> that. I do not feel like shooting it down. However, I would only call 
> this convention on my own terms and would be very wary of the present 
> NM follow through. If it already smells funny, it will taste funny.
>
> Perhaps I don't know enough of what happened at Istanbul/NM to be 
> enthused about the prospect of NM's follow through. If anyone here is 
> very enthused (yep, just learned that word ;) ), I am all ears!
>
> What would NMI be fixing ? be enabling? The Internet's actual 
> socio-political running codes are enabling more freedom in the present 
> semi-anarchic form that in most other stabler form I can envision ...
>
> As to Avri's points, I do no think that staying at home will see the 
> parade pass us by while we lost our chance to cheer in it. No true 
> process that would have a chance to accomplish something cool would be 
> snubbed by us, individually and collectively. But at this point, the 
> infection wouldn't cure and/or spread anything, it would only serve as 
> a co-opting body. When we want to participate in a global effort that 
> we like or that we can't ignore, we'll know (see IANA's transition).
>
> Nicolas
>
>
>
> On 19/11/2014 11:41 AM, Sam Lanfranco wrote:
>> Just a short clarification on the arguments for and against 
>> involvement here. They are not about pragmatic vs. purist, nor about 
>> engagement or non-engagement. They are about strategy and when and 
>> where to engage this questionable WEF NETmunidal Initiative.
>>
>>   * On the one side Avri is arguing for engagement at the start, with
>>     hope to "infect" the design of the Initiative without getting
>>     trapped and co-opted.
>>   * On the other side are those who would rather see the Initiative
>>     "walk its talk" and simply start with an open and inclusive
>>     strategy that supports engagement by all stakeholders.
>>
>> In either case there is engagement, be that by "stakeholder 
>> representatives" within the Initiative, and/or be that by the wider 
>> stakeholder constituency within the Internet Ecosystem.
>>
>> Sam L., Chair
>> NPOC Policy Committee
>>
>> /On 19/11/2014 10:51 AM, Avri Doria wrote://
>> /
>>> ///
>>> //Hi,//
>>> / /
>>> //I find the arguments for Involvement more convincing than the ones 
>>> against.//
>>> / /
>>> //And I add one more, what NMI, WEF, ITU and all the others need is 
>>> to be persistently 'infected' with multistakeholder principles and 
>>> actuality s well as the diversity on civil society.  Our 
>>> participation, no matter how hard it is condemned or ridiculed by 
>>> some of the purists, is just that infection.  We cannot spread the 
>>> ideas of inclusion and transparency by staying home as holier than 
>>> all the rest until conditions are perfect.//
>>> / /
>>> //I do think we should demand as much as we can to remediate the 
>>> negatives, and whatever we don't get now, keep demanding until we 
>>> wear them down.//
>>> / /
>>> //I repsect the Interent Society and value my membership and 
>>> participation in the Internet Society, but they have a different 
>>> relationship to the power structures than we do, and they have 
>>> different Fadi problems that we have and play in a different game.  
>>> And I predict that in the end, they will participate.  Besides, just 
>>> try to imagine ISOC not participating because NCSG was against it.//
>>> / /
>>> / /
>>> //avri//
>>> / 
>>
>