[bestbits] IMPORTANT: World Economic Forum and The-Initiative-Formerly-Known-As-NETmundial

[genekimmelman at gmail.com]

I agree with Matthew as well

<div>-------- Original message --------</div><div>From: Andrew Puddephatt <andrew at gp-digital.org> </div><div>Date:09/04/2014  4:06 AM  (GMT-05:00) </div><div>To: Matthew Shears <mshears at cdt.org> </div><div>Cc: Jeremy Malcolm <jmalcolm at eff.org>, "Carlos A. Afonso" <ca at cafonso.ca>, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com>, "<bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>" <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> </div><div>Subject: Re: [bestbits] IMPORTANT: World Economic Forum and The-Initiative-Formerly-Known-As-NETmundial </div><div>
</div>+1. I have doubts this initiative will lead anywhere and I don't see it as a home for post NetMundial discussions but I see no harm in CS reps participating for 6 months to see where it goes

On Thursday, 4 September 2014, Matthew Shears <mshears at cdt.org> wrote:

Hi Jeremy,

I always understood the CSCG as a facilitating function, enabling a more streamllined and representative way of ensuring appropriate representation of CS on various iniatives, committes, etc.  If a particular party to the CSCG does not wish to participate in a particular process that should not prevent other CSCG organizations from participating through the CSCG function if they wish.   Alternatively, it should be agreed that once one entity opts not to participate then the CSCG can no longer serve its function for that particular selection process, etc.  I am agnostic either way.  

There are divergent opinions on the NMI or whatever it may be called - but I also believe that we have already had an impact on the process and not to participate through the 6 month "trial period"     would, I think, be a mistake.

Thanks!

Matthew

On 9/4/2014 9:38 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
On Sep 2, 2014, at 3:53 PM, Carlos A. Afonso <ca at cafonso.ca> wrote:

"The WEF representatives seem to be listening and adapting at IGF – so I think this is still quite fluid." You mean, like the Borg? :)

I don't feel that we have yet received a good sense from this group yet about whether we should patronise the WEF initiative or not.  You have, by now, seen that the Just Net Coalition people are refusing to support the initiative.  If the Coordination Group goes forward with nominating candidates at all, it would therefore have to be on the basis that any public statement of our nominees would include that "although JNC is a         member of CSCG, JNC has opted out from participation in this particular selection process".

Are we happy with that?  Or do we agree with JNC and want to wash our hands of this process?  I have heard view both ways, and I don't have a good sense of where the balance of opinion         lies.  Would be grateful for some more people to express their views here.

-- 
Jeremy Malcolm
Senior Global Policy Analyst
Electronic Frontier Foundation
https://eff.org
jmalcolm at eff.org

Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161

:: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World ::



____________________________________________________________
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

-- 
Matthew Shears
Director - Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
mshears at cdt.org
+ 44 771 247 2987


-- 
Andrew Puddephatt
Executive Director | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL
Development House, 56–64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT
T: +44 (0)20 7549 0336 | M: +44 (0)7713399597 | Skype: andrewpuddephatt
gp-digital.org


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140904/1cf439b3/attachment.htm>