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.