Anriette,

> On Mar 1, 2016, at 21:15, Anriette Esterhuysen <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 
> Bill, if the dynamic coalition idea was taken up it would not be
> necessary to identify anyone specifically to talk to.

If one is content to launch a self organizing DC and stop there, right.  But that would leave a lot of elements of the initiative hanging.
> 
> What would certainly take more time and what would need direct
> conversation with the Secretariat would be how to establish links
> between the NMI project data base, solutions map, and efforts to capture
> best practice in IG, and the recent effort to coordinate capacity building.

Right, and we can’t know whether that would even make sense to think about much less initiate until we have the post-transition picture.

Probably this is not the right space to continue this discussion as it’s non-ICANN.  I just wanted to say that the IGF question was not really being ignored in Madrid, it’s just a matter of sequencing.

Bill
> 
> But again I think these linkages can be mostly self-organised by people
> involved in the NMI, people in the IGF community and other interested
> persons.
> 
> Anriette
> 
> On 01/03/2016 21:54, William Drake wrote:
>> 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 perh
> aps some 
> bits could later migrate over time.
>> 
>> 
> 
> -- 
> -----------------------------------------
> Anriette Esterhuysen
> Executive Director
> Association for Progressive Communications
> [log in to unmask]
> www.apc.org
> IM: ae_apc


*************************************************************
William J. Drake
International Fellow & Lecturer
  Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ
  University of Zurich, Switzerland
[log in to unmask] (direct), [log in to unmask] (lists),
  www.williamdrake.org <http://www.williamdrake.org/>
The Working Group on Internet Governance - 10th Anniversary Reflections
New book at https://www.apc.org/en/WGIG <https://www.apc.org/en/WGIG> 
*************************************************************