[Mmwg] Re: putting working groups on the radar

[David Allen]

Bill has made clear, his conversations have surfaced more than 'objections,' these governments simply don't want to do it.  (In the archive of posts - I'll dig it out if useful.)

Force:  Fortunately ... there is other than military force.  In this case, the opposition is between committed cooperation and some sort of leverage to compel engagement.  A 'wedge,' such as some governments who come along when others say no, is an example.  Other sorts of leverage might be felt pressure, because something was started when some parties had made clear their unwillingness.  This is the sort of opposite of cooperative behavior that can forestall serious possibilities for cooperation.

Between 'permission' and 'initiative,' fortunately there is a third option - by whatever name, enlisting those who have previously said 'no' in a way that makes possible for them a cooperative 'yes.'  Hopefully, that could be a workable [non-]hybrid.

Then WGs might have some prospect for getting somewhere.

Adam did suggest WGs could be forthcoming, presumably via the mAG - problem solved.  Noted here earlier, and I responded to Adam at the time.

David

At 10:21 PM +0200 6/10/06, Avri Doria wrote:
>On 10 jun 2006, at 21.33, David Allen wrote:
>
>>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.
>
>I don't know that anyone does object.   i was arguing that a-priori permission was not necessary, and not that we should ignore arguments against.
>
>>
>>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.
>
>i also don't know that there is a notion of force.  nothing can be forced - i know of very few entities (mostly superpowers) who think of other countries in terms of force.
>
>the goal is certainly cooperation, but the question is basically how does one initiate something.  i tend to recommend action without asking permission first.  others seem to tend toward recommending getting permission first.  and some folks seem to be looking for a hybrid solution which may be the way to go.
>
>>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.
>
>
>this brings up other question.  when we talk about multistakeholder cooperations, do we need all of the stakeholders all of the time for an activity to be multistakeholder.  as this is a multistakeholder group this question may be relevant.
>
>a.