[Mmwg] putting working groups on the radar

[William Drake]

Hi,

On 6/8/06 8:04 PM, "Avri Doria" <avri at psg.com> wrote:

>
> On 8 jun 2006, at 11.48, Vittorio Bertola wrote:
>
>> Would it be acceptable to see this workshop as the start of an
>> online working group (another point that needs to be addressed by
>> the MAG)?
>
> Acceptable?  to whom?

Well, this is exactly what I proposed and got push back on from relevant
governments and international mechanisms, so it's not at all a silly question. 
At present, the answer is, at best, we'd rather not talk about that.  Hopefully
this will ultimately prove to have been more a matter of timing and step by
step consensus building than absolute positions.
>
> Do WGs need to be under the auspices of the IGF?  Does someone need
> to approve them?  Or can they be self formed, as this group was?
>
> I don't have the faintest idea what the answer to this is.  I don't
> know if the idea of WGs is even on the IGF-AGs agenda - and don't
> even have a guess as to whether it should be.

Sorry, but why not?  Some of us here have been raising the issue repeatedly at
the consultations etc, and the MMWG collectively said this in our February
document:

---

6. The Programme Committee should facilitate the bottom up formation of
“Discussion Groups on Internet Governance” (DGIGs) on various aspects of
Internet governance, in particular with regard to the issues listed in Section
V of the WGIG Report. The Programme Committee should establish transparent
procedures and criteria for the formation and recognition of any of such groups
or initiatives stakeholders may wish to organize on relevant topics.   All
stakeholders should be able to propose groups on a bottom-up basis.  Any such
groups should be open to all stakeholders that may wish to participate,
transparent, and based primarily on virtual collaboration.  They could engage
in a range of activities, e.g. inclusive dialogue, monitoring and analysis of
trends, conducting studies, and developing recommendations for action. 
Furthermore the Program Committee should also define transparent procedures and
criteria according to which such groups could propose any results of their
activities as possible inputs for consideration in the annual meetings.

---

Of course, if people want to form independent processes bottom up they are free
to do so.  But if they actually hope to have government, IO, and business
people participate in or even notice the WGs, and if they want any products of
such groups to have a recognized right to be aired at a meeting like Rio, then
it would make sense for them to be formally linked to the IGF.  Which means
that modalities of recognition etc. need to be defined, which is why we all
agreed that the mAG should do this.  If our position and the issue really
haven't been raised, perhaps the MMWG members who are on the mAG could do so
going forward?  Absent this, the whole "IGF as an ongoing process" vision sort
of falls apart, no?

Best,

Bill