[Mmwg] putting working groups on the radar

[William Drake]

Hi Avri,

We are basically in agreement, just a few quick bits:

On 6/9/06 7:37 PM, "Avri Doria" <avri at psg.com> wrote:

>
> 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.

Great. If your secretariat gig limits you a bit on expressing personal views in
mAG discussions, maybe this can be done in reporting mode, i.e. here's what
people are saying out there...?   Maybe the CS participants and advisors could
help?
>
> 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.

There's the possibility of a Catch 22, e.g. if government or other sector people
think, why join if it's not recognized, has no defined way to make inputs into
the official discussion, and therefore doesn't matter, then they won't join and
it indeed won't matter.  Having the mAG clearly indicate that provisions will
be made to facilitate formal connections/roles when stakeholders want it could
help negate that dynamic.  But you're right, it would be good to push at both
ends and then coadjust, rather than wait in the hope that mAG will initiate and
sort it all out satisfactorily without any external stimulation.

> 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?

Sure, didn't think I was suggesting this.

> 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.

I take your point, but still think that without some expectation of status, it
might be hard to establish facts on the ground that involve more than CS
participants.

> 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.

I'd suggest a two-pronged effort:

1.  To establish the principle and an enabling environment, MMWG expands upon
its previous position, develops a short doc on why and how (options) to have
WGs or whatever involved and associated;

2.  We instanciate the principle and try to create the demand that would justify
the supply.  When I get back to Geneve I can follow up with the G77, which per
previous is interested in some sort of dialogue/collaboration with CS that
would help them to think through some issues, particularly with respect to the
operational meaning of a development agenda.  It's a reasonable bet that if CS
and G77 launched some sort of process, other stakeholder groupings might feel
compelled to be a part of the discussion, whether they prefer it to be
happening or not.

BD