[Mmwg] Re: putting working groups on the radar

[David Allen]

Only in this last exchange is there discussion of what seems like a pivotal factor.  The whole point of working groups is that they be multi-stakeholder.  That takes acceptance by governments, probably even commitment, to work well.

Bill's suggestion of a wedge is one possibility.  If some governments give it a try, others might be forced to reconsider.

But there are alternate possible outcomes.  Governments with serious objections that go unanswered might feel the best response is a snub, to get the point across.  Then such a tactic backfires and leaves CS where it started, pre-IGF - on the outside and the only one trying seriously to move ahead with WG's.

And forcing a government to reconsider could even bring a response that aims to 'join but undermine.'  A recipe for failed WGs.

Without knowledge of which governments object, and particularly what are the objections, trying to handicap the various options and prospective outcomes is not likely to be so accurate.

Seems like there are some questions.  Which governments, what objections, what are possible responses, who to talk to, who has that relation/connection, to have the conversation, what next iteration in the thinking ... the usual.

Bottom line:  when cooperation is the order of the day, forcing usually produces undesirable results - attention to folks' concerns has to be the focus instead.

As someone who feels a process over time, and so WG, are quite important, being usefully responsive seems of no small consequence.  This is said with full appreciation for, and learns from, the creative thinking on the subject so far.

On a separate, but not unrelated note:  though the mAG may be 'advisory' in name, there is also some implied hierarchical relation.  As usual, folks may or may not respect that.  But it seems unlikely to go away.  And if respected, it can usefully be enlisted in efforts at innovation such as WG.

David

At 9:20 AM +0200 6/10/06, Avri Doria wrote:
>Hi,
>
>a few comments.
>
>On 10 jun 2006, at 03.53, William Drake wrote:
>
>>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?
>
>currently, i have _no_ secretariat gig and don't know when or if i will have one again.
>so i have _no_ voice within the process at this time
>(even when i had a gig, i was a helper not a speaker).
>i can certainly talk to folks, we all can, but they probably know anyway since i expect the relevant lists are monitored and expect that the previous recommendation to the IGF was read.  and the AG and SpecialChairsAG (SCAG ?)  members who are also on this list can chose to bring up the topic with their peers within the process.  for all i know, they may have done so already.
>
>i still feel you are giving undue priority to the AG, SCAG and secretariat view of this all.
>
>>>
>>>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.
>
>i guess i see it differently.  why do you think the AG making provisions for something means it is more likely to be accepted by governments?    to go back to wgig  as an example; when the recommendations first came out they were pretty much set aside by most governments.  it was only when they got back into the same old argumentative morass that they then went and gave the wgig suggestions some respect.  and i beleive the only reason they got their due at that point is because they were well thought out, and not because the experts of wgig had made them. i believe the same goes for the IGF and its AG and SCAG.  they are just a big bunch of people chosen to give advise.  if the advise is good it will be relevant.  and if the advise is not good it may end up being ignored.  the same goes for any MMWG recommendation on modalities and WGs.  if we have thought it out well and it is relevant it will be listened to.
>
>further, from the things Adam has said on list (or was it IGC), it seems that invitations for workshop proposals may eventually be formalized.  so if workshop proposals include among them one on modalities for the the IGF going forward that dicusses WGs, among other modalities, then it may be discussed and governments may allow themselves the openness to be convinced (it could happen).  Likewise if other themes are recommended and one of the outcomes that is offered is the continuing work in WGs then that may also be an opening.  and if there are already multistakeholder WGs in existence that suggest workshops, well, then they will have been implicitly accepted as one way of working if/when the workshops are accepted.
>
>>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.
>
>my mistake.  we seemed to be focusing on the important of the AG/SCAG in terms of acceptance.
>
>>
>>>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.
>
>in the MMWG at least, i believe we have CS, PS, academia and the technical community (there may even be a touch of almost government as well as members of the AG, SCAG and the secretariat).  We are a multistakeholder group though of course i would like to see us become more fully so.
>
>>
>>>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;
>
>good idea
>
>do we also suggest a workshop on IGF modalities?
>and if it is not scheduled for some reason among the others, do we organize an outside session on IGF modalities?  do we try to organizes a table in this 'Plaza' thing that Adam mention in an email to the IGC.
>
>>
>>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.
>>
>
>
>i think this has 2 good ideas in it:
>
>- moving ahead with the dialogue between CS and G77 - especially since they have many of the same goals (e.g. inclusion of topic of IG in the narrow sense).  though that is more a IGC/G77 activity in general.
>
>- get them involved in the MMWG so that they can participate in helping to suggest  modalities for the IGF.  they are obviously interested in that and perhaps some of the, would be interested in working with this group, maybe even joining, to help make some suggestions.
>
>a.
>
>_______________________________________________
>mmwg mailing list
>mmwg at wsis-cs.org
>http://mailman-new.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mmwg