[Mmwg] putting working groups on the radar

[Vittorio Bertola]

Avri Doria ha scritto:
> 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?

Since, as you point out, there is no precedent and no one knows, we 
might also experiment the other approach - that is, self-call the 
creation of an "IGF working group on issue X" (note the "IGF" at the 
beginning of the name, which is really the key point), notify it to the 
MAG (again, note "notify" so that the word spreads and everyone can 
join, but not "ask for permission"), and see how it reacts.

But I would expect at least the governmental members of the MAG - and 
possibly also the private sector ones, if X is an issue that they don't 
want to be discussed - to stand up and shout "who the hell did authorize 
you to do this?". Am I wrong?

What do MAG members think about the best strategy to get our (shared and 
long restated, as Bill points out) objective of transforming the IGF 
from a meeting into an ongoing year-round process?
-- 
vb.             [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<-----
http://bertola.eu.org/  <- Prima o poi...