Hey all,<div><br></div><div>A few thoughts:</div><div><br></div><div><b>On the equity of remote participation:</b></div><div>Remote Participation will always be different, but it need not be inferior, to face-to-face participation, providing we advocate for the right sorts of processes. For example, being able to follow on a transcript, or having the birds-eye view of multiple sessions that RP can bring, can give a participant a different set of perspectives, and the ability to formulate a strong written intervention into a session. </div>
<div><br></div><div>Where RP can fall down is when, as others have said, the meeting process doesn't adequately recognise it. We do need to build more resilient RP tools that can cope with glitches, but also to have more resilient workshop processes, so that, for example, before any decisions are made, or any elements of a session closed, there is a quick recap of discussions, and an explicit turn to read out RP contributions. Just as we've had 'rules or order' for committee meetings, and there have been proposals in the past for 'rules of order' for online dialogues and meetings, we need to articulate the rules for a blended face-to-face and RP meeting. We should also be encouraging in-person participants to use the same online discussion spaces as RPs, so that even if words are not spoken in the room, they can still influence many of those present in the face-to-face meeting. </div>
<div><br></div><div>Roland's mention of assistants highlights another useful potential of RP, where remote communities can support their in-person representative. I'm reminded of some of the youth delegations at IGF11 who were using MSN to informally network with colleagues watching on the webcast and who were helping out with providing background information, or sourcing ideas for how to input into sessions. </div>
<div><br></div><div>Perhaps it would be useful for us to articulate and describe some detailed narratives of how an ideal meeting involving RP as an equal element would look? </div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><b>Practically moving forward: some suggestions:</b></div>
<div><br></div><div>- Ginger: would it be useful to remind people of how to get involved in the Remote Participation Working Group (RPWG). I'd be happy to put more time to this - but right now, finding the latest information on how to get involved is tricky (RPWG seems to have a mix of older websites and Facebook pages, so it's not clear where to get involved...) </div>
<div><br></div><div>- Can we gather the evidence on where RP has worked; and where it hasn't - to present a clear evidence-based account to IGF of the shortcomings. E.g. a list of all the meetings that have taken place over the last three years, whether RP has been on offer, who has provided it and with what resources, and whether it has worked well or not. A simple etherpad or Google Spreadsheet should allow us to collect this information...</div>
<div><br></div><div>- Can we identify clearly the different levels of resource that RP might need to be put on a solid foundation? From the resources needed for a volunteer-led and make-do RP model, to gold-standard RP where there are the resources to provide fully supported technical platforms with failsafes to avoid glitches getting in the way, to provide proper training to moderators and chairs of sessions, to engage with remote hubs, and to manage the process? It seems to me that being clear about the resources needed would help in advocating for support. <br>
</div><div><br></div><div>- Michael: you've mentioned various CI writings on RP. Is there a good resource list on experiences of RP anywhere? Would putting together a small collection of resources and papers also be useful for advocacy for better RP platforms and processes?</div>
<div><br></div><div>All the best</div><div><br></div><div>Tim</div><div><div><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 3:13 PM, Roland Perry <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:roland@internetpolicyagency.com">roland@internetpolicyagency.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">In message <CALCecM9a5M0kAtC1LF9Ak=<a href="mailto:BuMhBPdA7nJTFyVqAt345ZtNZEpw@mail.gmail.com" target="_blank">BuMhBP<u></u>dA7nJTFyVqAt345ZtNZEpw@mail.<u></u>gmail.com</a>>, at 06:35:00 on Sat, 18 Feb 2012, Ginger Paque <<a href="mailto:gpaque@gmail.com" target="_blank">gpaque@gmail.com</a>> writes<div class="im">
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Why have we, as civil society and the IGC, been so ineffective at<br>
developing and achieving implementation of inclusion and effective<br>
remote participation? After several years, why is RP not now an<br>
integral part of all IG and IGF policy processes?<br>
</blockquote>
<br></div>
For the inter-sessional planning meetings, because they are still primarily institutionalised into the Geneva landscape (which for Europeans is at least better than having to go through the same exercise in New York).<br>
<br>
The only way this can be broken is for such meetings (and indeed similar non-UN meetings, this is not a criticism aimed particularly at DESA) to grind to a halt whenever there's a glitch in the remote participation, and not continue until the remote participation has been fixed.<br>
<br>
Of course, that results in an extreme waste of the resources of the people who *have* managed to get the funds to travel to the venue, so it's not an easy decision.<br>
<br>
But until such a rule is applied, then remote participants will always have an inherent second class status, and not just because of the greater difficulty of following and contributing to a meeting from 5,000 miles and 12hrs timezone away.<br>
<br>
The problem is that the world is largely organised around the idea of representative democracy, and this assume your representatives are able to get to the meetings.<br>
<br>
I've also got something to say about substitutes, for example in the MAG. I'm not sure it's very common for elected representatives to send substitutes to national Parliaments etc, or in the private sector to appoint a proxy who isn't already invited to the meeting.<br>
<br>
But in both cases it's entirely possible to arrange for an assistant to follow all the proceedings on mailing lists, and to brief the representative so that the latter's work is restricted to not much more than actually attending the physical meetings.<span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br>
-- <br>
Roland Perry<br>
<br>
</font></span><br>____________________________________________________________<br>
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br>
<a href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a><br>
To be removed from the list, visit:<br>
<a href="http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing" target="_blank">http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing</a><br>
<br>
For all other list information and functions, see:<br>
<a href="http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance" target="_blank">http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance</a><br>
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:<br>
<a href="http://www.igcaucus.org/" target="_blank">http://www.igcaucus.org/</a><br>
<br>
Translate this email: <a href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t" target="_blank">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br><br><br><a href="http://www.timdavies.org.uk" target="_blank">http://www.timdavies.org.uk</a><br>07834 856 303.<br>@timdavies<br><br>Co-director of Practical Participation: <a href="http://www.practicalparticipation.co.uk" target="_blank">http://www.practicalparticipation.co.uk</a><br>
--------------------------<br>Practical Participation Ltd is a registered company in England and Wales - #5381958. <br>
</div></div>