<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class="">On Nov 7, 2014, at 1:17 AM, William Drake <<a href="mailto:wjdrake@gmail.com" class="">wjdrake@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br class=""><div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=""><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=utf-8" class=""><div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><div class="">One thing I’d be reluctant to see it get into is elaborating on the NM Statement's principles. I believe you raised this possibility at the August meeting at WEF as well, and am not clear what you have in mind. A priori, I’d think that if the NMI wandered onto this turf, it would raise the stakes and become politicized and potentially divisive. Better to stick to being an open platform for project facilitation and leave the discussion/negotiation of governance frameworks to other more inclusive forums/processes, no?</div></div></div></blockquote><br class=""></div><div>I definitely don't want (what is shaping into) such a corporate-dominated initiative elaborating on the NETmundial principles either. But the reason I keep raising this is twofold - first, to raise the stakes for other more inclusive forums/processes that have become complacent and failed to realise their potential, for which NETmundial could (and at the meeting in São Paulo, did) provide some healthy competition and the impetus for further reforms that would prevent them slipping into irrelevance.</div><div><br class=""></div><div>Second, due to the choice of name. It seems a bit odd when the most distinctive thing about NETmundial was that it produced a tangible outcome, that the continuation of NETmundial using its name is precluded from doing that. I would still rather they didn't freeride on the goodwill of the NETmundial name, for which may people feel a sense of community ownership, for something that is quite different. (But I realise that it's a tough argument to make when two of the main players behind NETmundial are driving the initiative.)</div><br class=""><div apple-content-edited="true" class="">
<div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); letter-spacing: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); letter-spacing: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><div class="">-- </div><div class="">Jeremy Malcolm</div><div class="">Senior Global Policy Analyst</div><div class="">Electronic Frontier Foundation</div><a href="https://eff.org" class="">https://eff.org</a><br class="">jmalcolm@eff.org<div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">:: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World ::</div></div></div>
</div>
<br class=""></body></html>