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

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

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