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
> 
> 
> 

-- 

Carlos A. Afonso
Instituto Nupef - https://nupef.org.br
CGI.br - http://cgi.br

GPG 0x9EE8F8E3