One concrete idea is to start a publication series with case studies on good partices for enhanced multistakeholder cooperation at the national level. NMI has introduced enhanced procedures for multistakeholder collaboration on equal footing. IGF has now a Mandate to enhanced ist procedures. So this is a perfect match where IGF and NMI can work hand in hand. And many members from the NCUC could help to identify the right nastional cases and than contribute (from their perspective) with a critical analysis of the national situation. 

Wolfgang




-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: NCSG-Discuss im Auftrag von Anriette Esterhuysen
Gesendet: Di 01.03.2016 21:15
An: [log in to unmask]
Betreff: Re: [NCSG-Discuss] NMI meeting - follow online
 
Bill, if the dynamic coalition idea was taken up it would not be
necessary to identify anyone specifically to talk to.

What would certainly take more time and what would need direct
conversation with the Secretariat would be how to establish links
between the NMI project data base, solutions map, and efforts to capture
best practice in IG, and the recent effort to coordinate capacity building.

But again I think these linkages can be mostly self-organised by people
involved in the NMI, people in the IGF community and other interested
persons.

Anriette

On 01/03/2016 21:54, William Drake wrote:
> 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 perh
 aps some 
bits could later migrate over time.
> 
> 

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