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//
>> / 
>