NCSG-DISCUSS Archives

NCSG-Discuss

NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Sender:
NCSG-Discuss <[log in to unmask]>
X-To:
William Drake <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Wed, 2 Mar 2016 15:34:42 +0000
Reply-To:
"Mueller, Milton L" <[log in to unmask]>
Message-ID:
Subject:
From:
"Mueller, Milton L" <[log in to unmask]>
MIME-Version:
1.0
In-Reply-To:
Content-Transfer-Encoding:
base64
Content-Type:
text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (1 lines)
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.


ATOM RSS1 RSS2