Milton:
“completely irrelevant”????  Since ICANN, for whatever reason was involved
deeply with NMI, I think discussion of how (or whether) to further build on
that
initiative is well within a “non commercial users constituency” universe. I
brought up NMI in the big thread because of the discussion of increasing
participation. If that can happen in a way that brings more diverse voices,
that is important.   I thought that the Net Mundial event did wonders-- it
was very
effective in facilitating a global dialogue. (I have been part of several
similar such events which basically didn’t work at all.)
t was unable to afford the trip to Brazil, but was very appreciative of
hearing the various constituencies in what seemed like an authentic
exchange.
If we see the ICANN structure as a unique “stakeholder” model, we need to
discuss ways to make our participation more than just being tokens.
We need to actively struggle for accountability and transparency. Can
technology be a tool that enables our constituency to participate?

DeeDee

On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 10:34 AM, Mueller, Milton L <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:

> With respect, I would ask both of you to take this conversation, which is
> completely irrelevant to NCUC, somewhere else.
> Oh here's an idea, how about using the 1net.org mailing list?
> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>
> --MM
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: NCSG-Discuss [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf
> > Of William Drake
> > Sent: Tuesday, March 1, 2016 2:54 PM
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> > Subject: Re: NMI meeting - follow online
> >
> > 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.
>



-- 
http://www.deepdishwavesofchange.org