With respect, I would ask both of you to take this conversation, which is completely irrelevant to NCUC, somewhere else.
Oh here's an idea, how about using the 1net.org mailing list?
http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
--MM
> -----Original Message-----
> From: NCSG-Discuss [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf
> Of William Drake
> Sent: Tuesday, March 1, 2016 2:54 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: NMI meeting - follow online
>
> Hi Anriette
>
> > On Mar 1, 2016, at 19:13, Anriette Esterhuysen <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> >
> > While the outcome of the meeting is not hostile to this, I don't feel
> > it took it seriously enough either.
>
> Because a) there were other issues that really needed be sorted out that are
> antecedent to how NMI might interface with the IGF, b) NMI is not in a
> position to unilaterally define that relationship, and c) it’s not even clear who
> we’d enter into conversation with, as noted previously. Once we know about
> the post-inaugural situation we’d be in a better position to get into this, i.e. in
> Brussels.
>
> Best
>
> Bill
>
> > On Jan 21, 2016, at 10:29, William Drake <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> >
> > For example, NMI could have become a IGF Dynamic Coalition with
> particular attention to tracking and reporting on progress in implementing
> the NM principles, and then subsequently we see if the MAG / secretariat /
> DESA / whoever’s actually in a position at IGF to make decisions might
> progressively pull some “Roadmap” bits into IGF's “intersessional” work
> streams and website, such as Stephan’s “Solutions Map,” the CGI bit on
> national/regional MS, and any effort to provide a sort of clearing house portal
> that aggregates the various mapping initiatives and tools, e.g. GIPO. I don’t
> know if items like the funding platform would be viable in this context, but
> perhaps. Either way, I thought that if one tries to formally import any of
> these operational activities from the outside into the IGF structure from a full
> stop with no discussion it would be difficult, but if there was a DC that
> percolated the work and built broader buy in within the IGF community
> perhaps some bits could later migrate over time.
|
