<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
<font face="Arial">Here is the final version of the IRP Statement to
the IGF. (below)<br>
<br>
Since there has been almost no response to this Call for Consensus, the
IGC will not be able to endorse the written statement to be submitted
today by the IRP. However, it is still important to review this
document, as we can support it orally in the Open Consultations in
Geneva in February.<br>
<br>
I repeat the suggestions made on the list that the IGC support
appropriate statements by other groups. This one seems particularly
appropriate for support by the IGC. However, without more vocal support
on this list, we cannot endorse it.<br>
<br>
Best, Ginger<br>
<br>
</font><br>
******************
<br>
Open Consultation IGF 2010
<br>
<br>
INTERNET RIGHTS AND PRINCIPLES DYNAMIC COALITION Statement
<br>
<br>
The comments below from the Internet Rights and Principles Dynamic
Coalition are our contribution to the Open Consultations for IGF 2010.
Each of the four themes below take stock of IGF 2009 by offering
practical suggestions for the format and planning of IGF 2010.
<br>
<br>
1) Emerging Key themes: A wide range of stakeholders in the plenary
sessions reaffirmed the importance of upholding human rights in the
internet age. However these sentiments tended to be expressed in
general rather than specific terms.
<br>
a. The challenge for this coming year is to focus on how upholding
human rights can be achieved in practice; what roles different
stakeholders can or should play in this regard, and how these play out
more specifically in different Internet governance issue-areas.
<br>
b. With this in mind we would like to see not only workshops but
also main sessions that look more closely at what a 'human rights
agenda', or 'development agenda for Internet Governance' might actually
look like. Whilst openness and diversity continue to be important
issues, we think this year is the moment to broach more specific
questions or policy dilemmas within these broader themes
<br>
c. The coalition is ready and willing to contribute to organizing
and facilitating main sessions along these Human Rights related themes.
<br>
<br>
2) General Organization: Generally speaking coalition members found
the meeting to be well organised, with signs of continued progress in
all aspects. Coalition members who were participating in or who
organised workshops would like to commend the organisers for their good
work in this regard, particularly given the relatively limited budget
and resources available to the IGF. Aspects that could be paid more
attention this year include:
<br>
a. Discussions, especially in plenary sessions tended to become
diverted into the issue of whether the IGF should continue, and if so,
how. This is a key issue however we think it is important to avoid
having these issues sidetrack the topics on hand in main sessions and
workshops this year.
<br>
b. Continuity and more linking between the main sessions and the
workshops could be strengthened. Clear links in the program by
cross-referencing of session/workshop themes and titles is one way to
create these links before the meeting. During and after the meeting, we
would like to see formal feedback opportunities put in place and
integrated into the stocktaking; from organizers and/or moderators of
both main sessions and workshops.
<br>
c. Main sessions based around 'classic' themes of openness,
diversity, and such like need to be supplemented and reinvigorated by
including new themes onto the program. The need for continuity and
in-depth discussions of ongoing themes need to be balanced by new
themes as well for this is a fast-moving area.
<br>
d. Some panels in main sessions were overloaded with panellists.
This always means less time for a wider plenary discussion. We realise
that larger panels allow for a greater diversity in some cases. However
we would urge moderators of larger sessions to ensure that there is
enough time for discussion and that when discussion takes place it is
dynamic and inclusive of panellists and other participants. It is
important that contributors from the floor as well as from remote
participants get enough time to have their say and be adequately
responded to by panellists and other participants.
<br>
e. In light of the above we would also like to see more innovative
panel formats encouraged; modelled on town-hall meetings,
brainstorming, and other sorts of small-group, or interactive forms of
discussion for instance. Formal panels have their place but good work
is also done in small groups/break-out sessions as well.
<br>
f. Rather than having main sessions largely based around broad
themes, we think this year is the moment to broach more specific
questions or policy dilemmas. These can be proposed in advance with an
eye to opening up the discussion about specific solutions before the
actual session.
<br>
<br>
3) Remote Participation: On the whole the facilities for remote
participation seemed to work well. However, there are some specific
issues that we think need to be attended to this year to ensure fuller
and more diverse participation in the IGF.
<br>
a. Workshop organisers were not given enough support in good time
or enough information on how to use the technology provided properly.
When technical hitches did occur, there were not enough technicians on
hand so many moderators found themselves in the role of do-it-yourself
technical supporters. This causes delays, frustration and a loss of
focus for everyone. More information in advance from the IGF in
liaison with the Vilnius venue organisers would be useful. But also
during the event, and given the importance of enabling remote
participation but also having it run smoothly, the need for more
dedicated staff in this respect is indispensable.
<br>
b. We would also suggest, in line with suggestions from the Remote
Participation Working Group (RPWG), that Workshops include both a
moderator on-the-ground and an online moderator in their planning.
Some-one needs to monitor remote participation, in partnership with the
workshop moderator, in order to streamline, filter and facilitate
remote participation in the proceedings; e.g. by gathering text-based
comments, setting up a queue for spoken interventions, or having remote
participants be given the floor en bloc if this is more practicable. We
would also urge all moderators to understand the many remote
participants are doing this at difficult times of their 24 hour day and
that time-lags require careful attention be paid to timing responses
and requests by moderators on the ground.
<br>
c. The above points underscore our support for proposals to organise
adequate guidelines as well as a brief training session/module/virtual
tour for all moderators before the IGF meeting. During the meeting is
not the time to experiment.
<br>
<br>
4) Participation: Increasing diversity in terms of cultural,
regional, and linguistic representation remains a core issue for a
number of dynamic coalitions. Our comments and suggestions about
continuing to improve remote participation technically and
organizationally relate to these concerns. Practically there is a need
to
<br>
a. Setting up coherent - vertical and lateral - links between
discussions and themes from national, regional and international IGFs
better, during the meetings as well as in the record of these various
meetings. At present the public record is piecemeal and not easily
accessible. We recognise that this is process that needs dedicated time
and resources to do so and urge the IGF to put aside some resources for
this.
<br>
b. Find more ways to open up the meetings to lay-participants. By
this we mean that preparatory consultations, main sessions, and
specialised workshops need to be more accessible to 'everyday internet
users', any interested communities or groups from areas where the
Internet is either less extensive or who have other communication
priorities.
<br>
<br>
<br>
Roxana Goldstein wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:4ca4162f1001140652l5fc81e9cg959fb1d11cc5029e@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div>Hi Ginger and all,</div>
<div> </div>
<div>In my humild opinion, I think that it is ok to support this
statement.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Anyway, I think that points 3 and 4 must be core issues for the
IGC, and I suggest to continue debating here about them, and how to
improve the IGFs -global, regional, national, preparatory meetings,
etc.- in this regard.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Best,</div>
<div>Roxana</div>
<div><br>
<br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_quote">2010/1/14 Ginger Paque <span dir="ltr"><<a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:gpaque@gmail.com">gpaque@gmail.com</a>></span><br>
<blockquote
style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"
class="gmail_quote">Hello all: this is the current draft of the IRP
contribution, which is up for Consensus for IGC support. There will be
a "tightened" draft later, probably this afternoon, but this appears to
be the essence of the statement.<br>
<br>
Please read it carefully, and advise whether the IGC should sign on in
support of this statement. This is independent of any IGC statement.<br>
<br>
We need to do this quickly if we want to ask the IRP to add our
signature to their written contribution. Please post.<br>
<br>
<br>
Open Consultation IGF 2010<br>
<br>
INTERNET RIGHTS AND PRINCIPLES DYNAMIC COALITION Statement<br>
<br>
The IRP Dynamic Coalition would like to contribute to the Open
Consultation for IGF 2010 in two areas: observations for taking stock
of IGF 2009 and suggestions for the format and agenda of the Vilnius
meeting. The comments below are organised under [..] themes, under
which we take stock of IGF 2009 and then offer practical suggestions
for the format and planning of IGF 2010.<br>
<br>
1) General Organization: Generally speaking coalition members
found the meeting to be well organised, with signs of continued
progress in all aspects. Coalition members who were participating in or
who organised workshops would like to commend the organisers for their
good work in this regard, particularly given the relatively limited
budget and resources available to the IGF. Some specific concerns
include:<br>
a. Discussions, especially in plenary sessions tended to become
diverted into the issue of whether the IGF should continue, and if so,
how. We think it is time to move on and to keep these issues from
overwhelming the topics in hand.<br>
b. Continuity and more explicit links between the main sessions
and the workshops could have been stronger. Clear links in the program
by cross-referencing of session/workshop themes and titles is one way
to create these links before the meeting. During and after the meeting,
we would like to see formal feedback opportunities put in place and
integrated into the stocktaking; from organizers and/or moderators of
both main sessions and workshops.<br>
c. Main sessions based around the "traditional" themes of
openness, diversity, and such like started to feel a bit repetitive
particularly in relation to the freshness of new themes introduced onto
the program. The need for continuity and depth needs to be balanced by
new themes as well<br>
d. Some panels in main sessions were overloaded with panellists.
This always means less time for a wider plenary discussion. Moderators
of larger sessions need to find ways to ensure that discussion actually
takes place and when it does it dynamic and inclusive. To this end we
would suggest that there is an upper limit set on the number of
panellists and/or length of formal presentations. Moreover that enough
time is set aside for discussion. It is important that contributions
from the floor, and remote participants get enough time to have their
say and be adequately responded to by panellists and other participants.<br>
e. Rather than having main sessions based around broad themes, we
think this year is the moment to broach more specific questions or
policy dilemmas. These can be proposed in advance with an eye to
opening up the discussion about specific solutions before the actual
session.<br>
<br>
2) Remote Participation: On the whole the facilities for remote
participation seemed to work well. However, there are some specific
issues that we think need to be attended to this year to ensure fuller
and more diverse participation in the IGF.<br>
a. Workshop organisers were not given enough support in good time
or enough information on how to use the technology provided properly.
When technical hitches did occur, there were not enough technicians on
hand so many moderators found themselves doing DIY instead. This is
unprofessional and causes delays and loss of focus for everyone. More
information in advance from IGF HQ would be useful. But also during the
event, and given the importance of enabling remote participation but
also having it run smoothly, the need for more dedicated staff in this
respect is indispensable.<br>
b. We would also suggest, in line with suggestions from the Remote
Participation Working Group (RPWG), that Workshops include both a
moderator on-the-ground and an online moderator in their planning.
Some-one needs to monitor remote participation, in partnership with the
workshop moderator, in order to streamline, filter and facilitate
remote participation in the proceedings; e.g. by gathering text-based
comments, setting up a queue for spoken interventions, or having remote
participants be given the floor en bloc if this is more practicable. We
would also urge all moderators to understand the many remote
participants are doing this at difficult times of their 24 hour day and
that time-lags require careful attention be paid to timing responses
and requests by moderators on the ground.<br>
c. The above points underscore our support for proposals to
organise adequate guidelines as well as a brief training
session/module/virtual tour for all moderators before the IGF meeting.
During the meeting is not the time to experiment.<br>
<br>
3) Emerging Key themes: A wide range of stakeholders in the
plenary sessions reaffirmed the importance of upholding human rights in
the internet age. However these sentiments tended to be expressed in
general rather than specific terms.<br>
a. The challenge for this coming year is to focus on how upholding
human rights can be achieved in practice; what roles different
stakeholders can or should play in this regard, and how these play out
more specifically in different Internet governance issue-areas.<br>
b. With this in mind we would like to see not only workshops but
also main sessions that look more closely at what a "human rights
agenda" or "development agenda: for Internet Governance might actually
look like. Discussions around broad themes such as openness and
diversity have already taken place. It is time to get down to specifics
and we do not see why these specifics always have to be covered in
workshop sessions.<br>
<br>
4) Participation: Increasing diversity in terms of cultural,
regional, and linguistic representation remains a core issue for a
number of dynamic coalitions. Our comments and suggestions about
continuing to improve remote participation technically and
organizationally relate to these concerns. Practically there is a need
to<br>
a. Setting up coherent - vertical and lateral - links between
discussions and themes from national, regional and international IGFs
better, during the meetings as well as in the record of these various
meetings. At present the public record is piecemeal and not easily
accessible. We recognise that this is process that needs dedicated time
and resources to do so and urge the IGF to put aside some resources for
this.<br>
b. Find more ways to open up the meetings to lay-participants. By
this we mean that preparatory consultations, main sessions, and
specialised workshops need to be more accessible not only to 'everyday
internet users' but also for any communities or groups from areas where
the Internet is either less extensive or who have other communication
priorities.<br>
<br>
********************************************************************88<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Dr Marianne Franklin<br>
Reader<br>
Convener of the Transnational Communications & Global Media Program<br>
Media & Communications<br>
Goldsmiths, University of London<br>
New Cross<br>
London SE14 6NW<br>
United Kingdom<br>
Tel (direct): #44 (0)207 919-7072<br>
Fax: #44 (0) 207 919-7616<br>
email: <a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:m.i.franklin@gold.ac.uk"
target="_blank">m.i.franklin@gold.ac.uk</a><br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.goldsmiths.ac.uk/media-communications/staff/franklin.php"
target="_blank">http://www.goldsmiths.ac.uk/media-communications/staff/franklin.php</a><br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.goldsmiths.ac.uk/pg/ma-transnational-communications-global-media.php"
target="_blank">http://www.goldsmiths.ac.uk/pg/ma-transnational-communications-global-media.php</a><br>
<br>
<br>
____________________________________________________________<br>
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org"
target="_blank">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a><br>
To be removed from the list, send any message to:<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org" target="_blank">governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org</a><br>
<br>
For all list information and functions, see:<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance" target="_blank">http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance</a><br>
<br>
Translate this email: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t" target="_blank">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a><br>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>