[Mmwg] putting working groups on the radar

[William Drake]

Hi Avri,

On 6/9/06 4:29 AM, "Avri Doria" <avri at psg.com> wrote:

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

Sure.  Sorry that I used the negative phrasing 'not a silly question' rather
than the positive, 'yes, it's a good question,'  as this seems to have drawn
your attention away from my main point, which was whether we will bother to
advocate externally the positions we painstakingly arrive at internally.  This
has been an issue with the IG Caucus, and based on your previous statement that
you don't know if WGs are on the mAG agenda, perhaps it is in the current
context as well.  The MMWG agreed a text saying that the IGF should be an
ongoing process and that the mAG should define the modalities of recognizing
WGs, and this orientation is also consistent with various IGC and 'members of
the IGC' statements.  So unless that's no longer our position, we should be
pushing it.  If we can't advocate our own collective views it makes no sense to
spend scarce time developing them.

> 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?

The powers that be are the powers that be, no point in fooling ourselves or
imaging rules they don't subscribe to.  They don't like the direction things go
in, they don't fund, support, endorse, participate at the levels needed to make
it meaningful, with all the obvious consequences.  Structural power. One has to
assume they stacked the mAG for a reason.  The only way to at least attenuate
this somewhat is advocacy, persuasion, soft power, which takes a concerted
effort.

> 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?

One need not wait to launch efforts, per the academic network.  But if one wants
them to be officially recognized in a manner that would make governments et al
pay attention, then right, the modalities need to be defined, per our Feb.
statement.  The mAG would be the most nominally transparent and inclusive
option, no?

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

It would indeed make sense for the MMWG to put meat on the bones it threw out
previously, since the mAG is unlikely to initiate consideration without
prompting and could use a congenial baseline to work from, but such an effort
would only useful if we're really prepared to promote its results in and out of
the mAG.

Best,

BD