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// >> / >