[bestbits] Whether to participate in NETmundial Initiative - RFC

[parminder]

On Tuesday 25 November 2014 07:31 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
> 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.

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.

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.

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...

Other than that NMI organisers join CSCG to do the first level selection 
itself, I dont see the difference.

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.

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..

parminder


>
> 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.
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>       bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>       http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20141125/f2cbc34f/attachment.htm>