[Mmwg] putting working groups on the radar

[William Drake]

Hi Avri,

[snip]

> 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

My expectation is based on my interactions with and observations of governments
in this process and others over the years, but who cares. I'd be happy to be
proven wrong and discover that contrary to all prior signals, they would devote
meaningful time and energy to online multistakeholder dialogues that have no
defined status or ability to interject recommendations etc. into the official
'event' in a manner that could yield tangible 'results' that count in their
operational environments.  In the meanwhile, rather than dwelling on the
differences between our respective expectations and guesses, I think it would
be more useful if we were to focus on the two proposed action points on which
we appear to agree, discussed below.  It would be helpful to hear from others
whether they would support/contribute to these efforts, or think we should be
doing something else instead, etc.

Best,

BD


>> 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.
>