Hello HifaMo. I followed Charmaz's approach in my thesis. I don't know if it helps but this was my interpretation:

1. Initial coding - a wide-ranging set of codes emerge from a detailed analysis.
2. Focused coding - initial codes are synthesised into main conceptual categories. At this point I re-read the material with my list of codes to identify where they could be grouped as well as and cross-cutting ideas.
3. Theoretical coding - refining the focused codes into thematic categories that form a coherent story. At this point I wove in some themes from the literature because I saw some connections, but importantly this shouldn't be done the other way around (i.e. theoretical coding starting from themes from the literature) and might not necessarily happen at all if your theoretical codes don't echo the literature.

I accompanied this with a table detailing the progression of the codes from initial to focused to theoretical.

I wanted to avoid axial coding - too prescriptive for my needs. Charmaz's approach allows more flexibility/creativity. I think it's really important to adopt an approach that feels natural rather than forcing your methods into a framework that doesn't fit the material you're working with or the goals of your study.

I'd be careful about saying you're using grounded theory unless you're accompanying this with a discussion to show you understand the differences between the approaches and a justification for following Charmaz's method. Saying you're taking a "grounded approach" to your netnographic analysis might be more appropriate/forgiving.

I was in the same situation with my qualitative research: I had an idea of the broad themes I was looking for in the data but was also open to the emergence of new themes. I think it's a common approach although there is less written about it. Have a look at abductive analysis, it might be what you're doing.