LISTSERV - NCSG-DISCUSS Archives - LISTSERV.SYR.EDU

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:

[log in to unmask]" type="cite">
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