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