<div>Thanks Ginger.</div>
<div>It´s a pitty that this statement will not be support by IGC.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>I think that the problem is that there are too much lines of debate open at the same time, all around the same or similar topics -the IGF reforma, taking stocks, etc- and it creates some confusion.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>I suggest that the IGC could evaluate the possibility to open another kind of collaborative virtual space, like ning for example.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Thanks again, and best regards,</div>
<div>Roxana</div>
<div><br><br> </div>
<div class="gmail_quote">2010/1/15 Ginger Paque <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:gpaque@gmail.com">gpaque@gmail.com</a>></span><br>
<blockquote style="BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; PADDING-LEFT: 1ex" class="gmail_quote">
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#ffffff"><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>
<div class="im">Open Consultation IGF 2010 <br><br>INTERNET RIGHTS AND PRINCIPLES DYNAMIC COALITION Statement <br><br></div>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>
<div class="im">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>
</div>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>
<div class="im">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></div>
<div class="im">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>
</div>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>
<div>
<div></div>
<div class="h5"><br><br>Roxana Goldstein wrote:
<blockquote 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 href="mailto:gpaque@gmail.com" target="_blank">gpaque@gmail.com</a>></span><br>
<blockquote style="BORDER-LEFT: rgb(204,204,204) 1px solid; 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 href="mailto:m.i.franklin@gold.ac.uk" target="_blank">m.i.franklin@gold.ac.uk</a><br>
<a 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 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 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 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 href="http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance" target="_blank">http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance</a><br><br>Translate this email: <a href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t" target="_blank">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a><br>
</blockquote></div><br></blockquote></div></div></div><br>____________________________________________________________<br>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br> <a href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a><br>
To be removed from the list, send any message to:<br> <a href="mailto:governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org">governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org</a><br><br>For all list information and functions, see:<br> <a href="http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance" target="_blank">http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance</a><br>
<br>Translate this email: <a href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t" target="_blank">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a><br></blockquote></div><br>