-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
 
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

On 18-Nov-14 19:15, Robin Gross wrote:
> FOR INVOLVEMENT
>
> With ITU a governments only forum and no real will to change, and IGF as a forum with no power to make recommendations or take decisions and again no will to change, there is no credible venue to initiate action on non technical issues or issues not within the remit of Istar organisations These would include surveillance issues, human rights issues, net neutrality issues, to name a few.
>
> The solid commitment to NetMundial principles promised, if carried out in practice, would create a credible and open initiative
>
> There is a need for a representative forum capable of moving us forward on a range of issues not covered by existing institutions
>
> Participation is strongly supported by some sections of civil society
>
>
>
> AGAINST INVOLVEMENT
>
> The last thing we need is a corporate takeover of internet governance and this could become that
>
> ISOC has withdrawn
>
> Participation is strongly opposed by some sections of civil society
>
> This initiative has a track record of poor communication
>
> Not bottom-up or transparent so far
>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (MingW32)
 
iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUbLx3AAoJEOo+L8tCe36HCx4H/26AkO1Xn7FlTgGiWqpmZGcT
lTW0g9CpW0YFjUylW7dgVRcdaRXKfAVgQQG2SgIZxdG4X/D3Ed7MnJJlaaxUySHt
TSwBJTkVC+Si8WHU/NzINUUcAxrHgSWaezKODRM9VFaMXyUo9z8vkMXWeAHEe5t7
APFlvdxMm2jLG+tLQ6aJyY+rFOkgM95tVzT5SobbIIQcrEKHiteMgH6bRdsUEv74
Q7QZthivBz6j7RSCZhN+VzA61ynUCuKhKYDYtGXiJqQcPabonojhQnobU0RIwvya
zx1YnPKJY80iRaPGXtCwEAWSgqyXtRpyw+CkdaiYA9eKOcFT3LrK9dYqKxqapOM=
=aKkl
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----