[Wg-mwp] Comments on WG-MWP work and proposal on IGF outputs

Jeremy Malcolm jmalcolm at eff.org
Tue Nov 7 01:35:20 EST 2017


On 6/11/17 9:08 am, SUTO Timea wrote:
> In our opinion, it is premature to ask the WG-MWP to work on the
> proposal put forward. We view it as rather a possible solution offered
> in response to some of the recommendations currently being evaluated
> by WG-IMP that call for more “tangible outcomes”.  In our
> understanding, discussions on this proposal are out of place in that
> it would add new work items  and detract from the important work the
> WG-MWP should address as a priority – notably contributing to the
> strategic deployment of existing activities.
>
>  
>
> For this reason we suggest the proposal should rather  be discussed
> sequentially following the assessment of the WG-IMP and considered in
> view of all other proposals and recommendations already made to
> improve the IGF by exploring “tangible outcomes”. 
>

Even so, there are some people who want to get working on it now.  There
is no harm in them doing so.  In fact, it is probably better that work
begin on it now, so that the option paper is ready to be presented once
it is ready for the working group to begin to address it sequentially.

> Discussing this proposal in WG-MWP not only overlaps with the work of
> WG-IMP, but also circumvents the mandate and work of WG-IMP and
> creates a scenario where this particular proposal is leapfrogging
> others already made in the past years through open and collaborative
> channels.

I don't think it's quite accurate to characterise it as a "particular
proposal" that is "leapfrogging others".  Rather than being a single
proposal as this suggests, it's an attempt to consider in very broad
terms a range of possible activities, approaches, or methodologies that
we *aren't* currently using... to add to the consideration of those we
already are.

Other than from ICC BASIS it was my sense of the last two meetings that
we had a rough consensus in favour of at least doing that much.  It had
seemed, after so long, that we were finally advancing in the level of
ambition of what we could even *discuss*.  It would be a shame if this
discussion were to be blocked.

-- 
Jeremy Malcolm
Senior Global Policy Analyst
Electronic Frontier Foundation
https://eff.org
jmalcolm at eff.org

Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161

:: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World ::

Public key: https://www.eff.org/files/2016/11/27/key_jmalcolm.txt
PGP fingerprint: 75D2 4C0D 35EA EA2F 8CA8 8F79 4911 EC4A EDDF 1122

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://intgovforum.org/pipermail/wg-mwp_intgovforum.org/attachments/20171106/8b4950ce/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Wg-mwp mailing list