Dear Flavio,

If you are on the IGC (internet governance caucus) list, would you mind posting your message below over there as well (replying in the thread on this topic)? Otherwise would you please allow me to forward it there?
Thanks,

Mawaki

Sent from Blue Mail



On Nov 19, 2014, 12:55 AM, at 12:55 AM, "Flávio Rech Wagner" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>Robin
>
>I have been informed that the "transitional council" of the NMI - 
>NETmundial Initiative (which contains representatives from ICANN,
>CGI.br 
>and WEF and is provisory, until the 25 names of the permanent council 
>have been defined) is having an intense dialogue with CSCG (the Civil 
>Society Coordination Group) and, together, they shall come to a
>solution 
>for appointing names to the council by consensus and fully respecting 
>nominations from Civil Society. There is no intention whatsoever from 
>the transitional council to indicate names in a closed, top-down manner
>
>and without full endorsement from CSCG.
>
>The transitional council also expects to achieve similar solutions for 
>appointing names that will represent other stakeholder groups.
>
>Please notice that CGI.br (the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee), 
>which is one of the entities proposing the NMI, would never agree with 
>top-down, closed decisions that would strongly undermine CGI's 
>legitimacy as a true bottom-up, multistakeholder body. CGI.br is 
>completely committed to preserve the NETmundial principles in the 
>implementation of the NMI.
>
>Please remember also that, when NETmundial was proposed by the end of 
>2013, all of us in the global Internet Governance (IG) community, 
>because of lack of information, were puzzled about its organization and
>
>possible success and outcomes. But the global community faced the 
>challenge and transformed a vague idea into a successful event, with a 
>true multistakeholder organization, with very open and transparent 
>processes, and with a final document that was achieved by rough 
>consensus and approved governance principles that were praised by most 
>of the stakeholders (including human rights and other principles that 
>are extremely valued by Civil Society).
>
>So let's try to transform NMI, which is still also a vague idea, into 
>something that is concrete and useful for the advancement of IG and
>that 
>fully respects the principles enshrined in the NETmundial declaration.
>
>Flávio
>(NCUC member and member of the Board of CGI.br)
>
>
>
>> 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.
>>>
>>>
>>