On Apr 5, 2015, at 2:06 AM, William Drake <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 
> Yes, as I’ve said, Fadi confused the situation for a long time by making loose comments about it providing policy solutions, which sounded to some like he meant it it be a negotiation space that agrees stuff.  I spent a half a year telling him he needed to stop this, and inter alia successfully insisted that the staff take off the website loose talk drawn from the Ilves process about solutions meaning policy proposals, draft laws and regs, etc.  Drove me nuts.  But of course he doesn’t readily take his cues from troublesome CS types and didn’t really take recalibration to heart until it became clear business and tech comm were not going to let that fly and key governments were mightily unenthused as well.  So at the meeting last week he was totally focused on making sure the language adopted was clear NMI doesn’t do policy, doesn’t negotiation, and doesn’t do dialogues, which is for IGF.  Better late than never.

So, where do we go to develop solutions - policy proposals, draft laws and regulations, etc?  Still not the IGF, evidently.

Also, FWIW, I'm sure you'll agree that the narrowing of the mission that you're setting out here remains subject to comment during the current public consultation on the terms of reference.

-- 
Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com
Internet lawyer, ICT policy advocate, geek
echo "9EEAi^^;6C6]>J^=^>6"|tr '\!-~' 'P-~\!-O'|wget -q -i - -O -