My approach this initiative has always been one
of good Civil
Society strategy. I have expressed concern about where the
NETmundial
Initiative might go, and expressed reservations about the
selection processes for
representatives of Civil Society, as well as the risks of those
representatives
being "held hostage" within the Initiative should it veer in
unfortunate
directions. But, I have also supported a strategy of active
engagement in the
Initiative itself as Civil Society stakeholders in a
multistakeholder process.
It is clear that there is significant division
of opinion
over participation in the development phase of the NMI. There are
clearly
merits in the arguments of those for, and those opposed to,
participation in
the development phase. In light of those arguments I no longer
oppose
participation in the development phase. I do have a suggestion.
Whatever position NCSG takes, one way or
another NMI will
have a contingent of representatives of Civil Society in its
development phase.
Should the NMI veer in
directions that
challenge the core values of Civil Society stakeholders, I hope
that there would
be a separate side dialogue (caucus) between the Civil Society
community and those
representatives of Civil Society that are within the
organizational structures
of the NMI, to agree on how to respond. There may even be ways to
make the NMI representatives
of Civil Society more accountable to the wider community on an
ongoing basis.
Another simmering issue is whether the NMI has
finite goals
and a sunset date, or is expected to remain around forever.
Sam Lanfranco, Chair
NPOC Policy Committee