<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
Having just read our own MM analysis here:<br>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.internetgovernance.org/2014/08/29/the-not-mundial-initiative-governance-and-ungovernance-in-istanbul/">http://www.internetgovernance.org/2014/08/29/the-not-mundial-initiative-governance-and-ungovernance-in-istanbul/</a><br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
Nicolas<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 21/11/2014 3:57 PM, Nicolas Adam
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:546FA730.40204@gmail.com" type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
I think that points against far outweighs points for. It is a NO
from me, "even if we'd pick our own reps" [geez ...]. <br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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!
<br>
<br>
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 ...<br>
<br>
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).<br>
<br>
Nicolas<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 19/11/2014 11:41 AM, Sam Lanfranco
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:546CC84B.3090904@yorku.ca" type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">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. <br>
<ul>
<li>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. <br>
</li>
<li>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.</li>
</ul>
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.
<br>
<br>
Sam L., Chair<br>
NPOC Policy Committee<br>
<br>
<i>On 19/11/2014 10:51 AM, Avri Doria wrote:</i><i><br>
</i></div>
<blockquote cite="mid:546CBC77.5050502@acm.org" type="cite"><i>
</i><i><br>
</i><i> Hi,</i><i><br>
</i> <i><br>
</i><i> I find the arguments for Involvement more convincing
than the ones against.</i><i><br>
</i> <i><br>
</i><i> 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><i><br>
</i> <i><br>
</i><i> 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><i><br>
</i> <i><br>
</i><i> 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.</i><i><br>
</i> <i><br>
</i> <i><br>
</i><i> avri</i><i><br>
</i> </blockquote>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>