Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | |
Date: | Sat, 22 Nov 2014 10:09:35 -0500 |
Content-Type: | multipart/alternative |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
My approach this initiative has always been one of good Civil Society
strategy. I have expressed concern about where the NETmundial Initiative
might go, and expressed reservations about the selection processes for
representatives of Civil Society, as well as the risks of those
representatives being "held hostage" within the Initiative should it
veer in unfortunate directions. But, I have also supported a strategy of
active engagement in the Initiative itself as Civil Society stakeholders
in a multistakeholder process.
It is clear that there is significant division of opinion over
participation in the development phase of the NMI. There are clearly
merits in the arguments of those for, and those opposed to,
participation in the development phase. In light of those arguments I no
longer oppose participation in the development phase. I do have a
suggestion.
Whatever position NCSG takes, one way or another NMI will have a
contingent of representatives of Civil Society in its development phase.
Should the NMI veer in directions that challenge the core values of
Civil Society stakeholders, I hope that there would be a separate side
dialogue (caucus) between the Civil Society community and those
representatives of Civil Society that are within the organizational
structures of the NMI, to agree on how to respond. There may even be
ways to make the NMI representatives of Civil Society more accountable
to the wider community on an ongoing basis.
Another simmering issue is whether the NMI has finite goals and a sunset
date, or is expected to remain around forever.
Sam Lanfranco, Chair
NPOC Policy Committee
|
|
|