[Mmwg] putting working groups on the radar

Avri Doria avri at psg.com
Fri Jun 9 11:37:54 BST 2006


On 9 jun 2006, at 05.24, William Drake wrote:

>  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 in itself seems to be a really good idea. i personally think  
that one of the strongest things people can do, other then come up  
with positions is to actively advocate in every way possible.  so as  
a member of this WG i definitely support the idea of advocating for  
WGs in every way possible.

I think that one of my points, is that the strongest form of advocacy  
is direct action, i.e. if we want WGs then we should just start  
forming them.  While it is good to try and talk the so called 'powers  
that be' within the IGF into accepting WGs, i think it is more  
important for this WG to figure out how other WGs can and should be  
formed.  This can then be suggested to the participants of the IGF  
and perhaps some of us can even get ourselves involved in trying to  
form them.  and governments and maybe even the private sector will  
get invovled if they thik it is important to do so.  Become relevant  
and vocal and you will have all the participation you want.

What I think i question is a strategy that puts all the eggs of this  
advocacy in a single basket - convincing the AG to bless the idea.   
Sure get their blessing if we can, but why make this the the starting  
and ending point of the advocacy?

The other question I ask is whether we are investing the AG with too  
much power by seeing them as the correct locus for the approval of  
WGs.  I think you put too little value in the influence of  
establishing facts as means to approval - if WGs exist and prove  
themselves valuable in moving the work of the forum ahead, they will  
have de facto approval.  why invest the AG with so much power by  
assuming that without their permission we can't do something.

People keep pointing to the IETF as an example.  while there is a lot  
to the IETF that I suggest we don't emulate, e.g. its growing control  
by all pervasive bureaucracy, it has to be remembered that it was  
formed by a handful of individuals who gave themselves a task and  
then proceeded to self organize and get the task done.

So this group has self organized and given itself the task of  
suggesting and advocating for modalities for the IGF and other  
multistakeholder entities.  We should do whatever we can to make that  
a reality.  And we should not imbue the transitional structures that  
may pop up within that still very unformed thing called the IGF with  
the solidity of immutable power structures.

It may seem slightly cheeky to say, but i believe that  the reality  
and modalities of the IGF are still up the stakeholders not to any  
group of powers that be.  As I see it, the role of the AG is merely  
to suggest, to the UNSG and to the stakeholders.

a.



disclaimer: again, speaking just for myself, etc ...




More information about the mmwg mailing list