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//
> /