[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