Having just read our own MM analysis here: http://www.internetgovernance.org/2014/08/29/the-not-mundial-initiative-governance-and-ungovernance-in-istanbul/ I can't say I disagree with much there, and while one may have issue with some of the analysis (I don't) unless the facts are wrong, I fail to see any reason to engage at this time, and while not engaging is actually opposing, I will even be grateful for people to *more actively* oppose. Nicolas On 21/11/2014 3:57 PM, Nicolas Adam wrote: > 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// >>> / >> >