Exactly. We already have a (flawed but open and somewhat workable) institution that does just what NMI claims it will do: IGF

And if your problem with IGF is that it doesn’t allow for the forging of policy recommendations the way MNI might be able to do, well, ask some of the supporters of NMI why they oppose allowing the IGF to do that.



From: NCSG-Discuss [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Joly MacFie

Sent: Monday, February 29, 2016 3:12 PM

To: [log in to unmask]

Subject: Re: NMI meeting - follow online





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..



j



-

[Image removed by sender.][Image removed by sender.]