<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On Tuesday 25 November 2014 07:31 AM,
Jeremy Malcolm wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:5473E2E5.3080502@eff.org" type="cite">
<pre wrap="">I would like to thank everyone for their very useful feedback about the
NETmundial Initiative (NMI). It cannot have escaped anyone's attention
that there are very divergent views on civil society's participation in
the Initiative.
Since there is a self-nomination process in place on the NMI website,
some members of civil society who are interested will use it (and some
already have). But in my view it would be wrong for them to do so if
the criticisms that others have made were not passed along, and I think
the nominees will have a responsibility to help ensure that these are
addressed. It was good to read from our CGI.br friends that this is
also a priority condition of their participation.
As as concerns Best Bits and more particularly the Civil Society
Coordination Group that we are part of, there is not strong enough
support for us to run our own nomination process, and it would be
redundant to do so. However, what the CSCG can do is to advise the
organisers which candidates, from amongst those who self-nominated
through its process, should be selected - rather than allowing the
organisers to cherry-pick. In doing that, a very strong message about
our concerns can also be passed back to them for action.</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
On just technical grounds; I could not see any essential difference
between the option that is being dropped and one which is said to
still being considered.<br>
<br>
As i read it, the option that is being dropped is - the CSCG would
have called for nominations, would have selected some and passed the
names to the NMI organisers for the final selection/ designation.<br>
<br>
And the option still being considered is - People nominate
themselves directly to NMI organisers (presumably a lot of them
being the same who would have sent their nominations to the CSCG),
and now the selection is done jointly by CSCG and NMI organisers
(mentioned as CSCG advising NMI organisers) and then the final
product comes out...<br>
<br>
Other than that NMI organisers join CSCG to do the first level
selection itself, I dont see the difference. <br>
<br>
And if this is the only real difference, what does CS gain by going
ahead with the second option. We still give the initiative our
legitimacy - which 'to do or not' has been the real issue here - but
have less leverage in deciding the final slate.<br>
<br>
I am entirely missing the point here.. And why this convoluted
scheme of things. Why not just tell them, well we could not agree to
be part of the nomination process. Good luck to you..<br>
<br>
parminder <br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:5473E2E5.3080502@eff.org" type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
The CSCG is deliberating upon this now, but based on the discussions on
this list and the messages given both in favour and against
participation, the most broadly acceptable option seems for us to
support that compromise. But let's see whether the other members of the
Civil Society Coordination Group (besides JNC) agree on that - if not,
we will not participate even to the extent of recommending candidates
who have self-nominated. Either way, we should know by tomorrow and I
will write back to this list then with more news then.
</pre>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:bestbits@lists.bestbits.net">bestbits@lists.bestbits.net</a>.
To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits">http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits</a></pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>