[Mmwg] putting working groups on the radar

[Avri Doria]

Hi,

My point was not that it was a silly question.  Rather i was asking a  
question about assumptions within the question.

My question was about the locus of authority in the IGF and  who gets  
to decide that something is acceptable or not.  by what criteria, and  
by whom, are things determined to be acceptable?

Do you grant that authority of deciding what is acceptable in the IGF  
to the AG or to the secretariat?  Or does it belong to the  
participants?  Are WGs something that one needs permission to  
establish, or are they first established and then 'accepted' as fait  
accompli because they are things the multishkolders do together to  
get work done.

Again, i am not trying to express an opinion or a judgement, but  
rather am questioning what it means for some activity to be an  
acceptable part of the IGF.  certainly the UNSG initiates it, and the  
tunis Agenda has defined some general guidelines, and the AG is  
deciding on the agenda for chapter 1 but do any of these have the  
authority to decide that something is acceptable or not acceptable as  
part of the IGF?  Or does that authority belong to the stakeholders  
according to the guidelines you have quoted?

if i understand Vittorio's response it is that without permission  
people might not accept WGs that are formed in a bottom up manner.   
and you sort of say the same thing.  this may be the case, but i  
question it.  it may just as well be that until there are functioning  
WGs, no one will rally know what they are or what effect they can  
have so they won't pronounce on them.  i often find that the common  
answer to a hard question is the lack of an answer, neither no nor yes.

so does one need to wait for permission to form WGs?  and if so, how  
does one go about getting permission?  and from whom?  and when?

but yes, the answers to these question might mean that this is a good  
task for the mmwg  (a self formed multstakeholder wg).

a.




On 8 jun 2006, at 17.06, William Drake wrote:

> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> mmwg mailing list
> mmwg at wsis-cs.org
> http://mailman-new.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mmwg
>