[Mmwg] putting working groups on the radar

[Jeanette Hofmann]

Hi, I guess my position is somewhere between Bill and Avri. If we as CS 
managed to establish an online working group together with some of the G 
77 countries, I am sure such a working group would have not problem to 
be acknowledged by the IG forum or its advisory group or the SG or whoever.
jeanette

William Drake wrote:
> 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.
>>
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> mmwg mailing list
> mmwg at wsis-cs.org
> http://mailman-new.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mmwg