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//
>> /
>
|