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.