Hi,

I think this is a interesting idea.  Let me know if I can help. 
I spend a lot of time on DCs as part of the MAG task.

avri


On 01-Mar-16 10:29, Carlos Afonso wrote:
> 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
>>
>>
>>


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus