Dear all

As a member of council I participated in the Madrid meeting but remotely
which was not always easy.

My view is that neither the CGI.br proposals around the IGF nor
Wolfgang's proposal to use the format of a dynamic coalition were fully
discussed.

I made my position clear that I believe the NMI should work much more
closely with the IGF and argued for a much more deliberate effort to
achieve this. Another remote participant also supported this. I also
pursued a similar proposal at the NMI council meeting in June 2015.

While the outcome of the meeting is not hostile to this, I don't feel it
took it seriously enough either.

I agree completely with Carlos Afonso when he says:

"So a corresponding dynamic coalition would not invalidate the central
purposes of NMI nor would it mean NMI being "absorbed" by IGF. But there
are clear opportunities for collaboration and convergence."

What concerns me is that this is still not being pursued actively and no
mechanism has been agreed to achieve a closer relationship with IGF
processes (which extend far beyond just UN DESA and the IGF secretariat).

I thought that Wolfgang's proposal of a dynamic coalition made a lot of
sense. I will certainly propose this inside the NMI council in the
coming weeks, but I do feel that an opportunity was lost during the
Madrid meeting to talk about how to operationalise this.

Anriette


On 01/03/2016 19:26, avri doria wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I think this is a interesting idea.  Let me know if I can help. 
> I spend a lot of time on DCs as part of the MAG task.
> 
> avri
> 
> 
> On 01-Mar-16 10:29, Carlos Afonso wrote:
>> Thanks for these clarifications, Bill.
>>
>> The idea of somehow strengthening the relationship between NM (*)
>> follow-up processes and IGF through a NMI-related (*) dynamic coalition
>> was proposed by Wolfgang and you (with distinct specifics), and the
>> CGI.br people present at the Madrid meeting agreed with the idea (yet to
>> be refined).
>>
>> NMI is an attempt to create a structure (not institutionalized), a
>> working space in your words, to address these follow-up processes
>> through facilitation and tools providing some support to specific
>> initiatives related to NM principles and roadmap (the platform).
>>
>> So a corresponding dynamic coalition would not invalidate the central
>> purposes of NMI nor would it mean NMI being "absorbed" by IGF. But there
>> are clear opportunities for collaboration and convergence.
>>
>> I take advantage of this message to remind all that CGI.br's involvement
>> beyond July as described in the NMI Communiqué still needs to be
>> endorsed by CGI.br's Board.
>>
>> fraternal regards
>>
>> --c.a.
>>
>> (*) NM = NETmundial; NMI = NETmundial Initiative. The corresponding
>> sites are:
>>
>> NETmundial: http://netmundial.br
>> NETmundial Initiative: https://www.netmundial.org
>>
>> On 3/1/16 09:52, William Drake wrote:
>>> Hi Joly
>>>
>>>> On Feb 29, 2016, at 21:12, Joly MacFie <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 2:07 PM, Ayden Férdeline
>>>> <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote: I can't
>>>> argue with the fact that ICANN's scope at the moment is narrower
>>>> and is supposed to limit it to the technical matter of naming and
>>>> numbering, but
>>>>
>>>> ​This was Fadi's whole rationale for NMI - and ICANN's support of
>>>> it - that there should be a multistakeholder forum for non​-ICANN
>>>> issues, to prevent mission creep. Or at least that's my
>>>> understanding. Why NMI and not IGF, well..
>>> Actually no, NMI was never intended to serve as a multistakeholder
>>> forum for dialogue, but rather as a working space for sharing info
>>> and facilitating relationships, with particular attention to
>>> supporting developing countries.  Dogmatic counterfactuals aside,
>>> none of the NMI’s main activities in the inaugural phase that ends 30
>>> June or expected activities for phase 1 from July are currently
>>> happening in the IGF. Anyone can look at the two websites and see
>>> what’s being done.
>>>
>>> Having been involved in drafting both the IGF’s mandate and the NMI’s
>>> terms of reference, I’d have been delighted if the IGF had developed
>>> the institutional capacity to really fulfill its mandate and do more
>>> than hold meetings.  If this had happened, the sort of activities
>>> imagined for the NMI could have been done there. Alas, the IGF has
>>> not been allowed to do develop in this way.  There’s now some useful
>>> intercessional work by some dynamic coalitions as well as the recent
>>> production of a best practices handbook, and it’d be good to see if
>>> these can be built upon.  But in the meanwhile, it also was worth
>>> seeing what could be done to scale up new and complementary work the
>>> wasn’t under DESA’s thumb.
>>>
>>> If the some of the concepts are proven and the circumstances allow
>>> I’d be delighted if they could be incorporated into the IGF.
>>> Indeed, I proposed making NMI a Dynamic Coalition where stuff could
>>> be incubated and maybe later taken on board by whomever is actually
>>> supposed to be in charge of such decisions at IGF (the MAG?
>>> Chengetai? DESA?).  But it seems there’s a majority desire in NMI to
>>> keep it a free-standing thing that collaborates with IGF rather than
>>> being incorporated into the IGF.  We’ll see if CGI.br
>>> <http://cgi.br/> + new partners can make it work from July when ICANN
>>> and WEF step back.
>>>
>>> Cheers
>>>
>>> Bill
>>>
>>>
>>>
> 
> 
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
> 
> 

-- 
-----------------------------------------
Anriette Esterhuysen
Executive Director
Association for Progressive Communications
[log in to unmask]
www.apc.org
IM: ae_apc