[governance] Update on upcoming IGF consultations

[Adam Peake]

On 11/23/06, Jeremy Malcolm <Jeremy at malcolm.id.au> wrote:
> Adam Peake wrote:
> > What language would the chat sessions being in? One reason the dates
> > are likely to be when they are is availability of UN translators, Feb
> > 13 is apparently one of the few dates early next year when UN services
> > can accommodate the meeting.
>
> As well as the phones for SMS messages, there were three email
> addresses, English, French and Spanish,

Do you know how many messages were sent to each address (substantive, not spam.)


> and the English chat forum.  The
> emails were not monitored by the official UN translators, but by CS
> volunteers.  One question or comment was received in Japanese, which was
> also duly translated by a volunteer, but it turned out to be spam. :-)
>


Do you have stats on use of the community site? I know it went down
under the amount of use: what caused that? (How many concurrent users,
what files were they pulling down to make it hit the limits etc. Not
clear from looking at the logs of number of messages what might have
caused it.)

Chat rooms: would be helpful to know how many people registered, how
many read (if that stat's available) how many posted.  Looks like most
messages came from a few people (but that's usual.)

We were checking SMS messages during one of the sessions (openness I
think) and passed 2 to the moderator.  Couple more came in repeating
what had already been covered, some in Greek that looked like spam.


> It may not be ideal, but it's better than nothing: I suggest tell the
> MAG we want to run with it in English at least and see if we can pick up
> volunteers to handle other languages along the way.


Need more than that if we want to make online participation a
meaningful part of IGF for all stakeholders.

Adam


> The question will
> be, who is going to be present in Geneva, with an Internet connection,
> and clueful enough to feed the comments and questions in.
>
> > And how can we help this online interaction/participation be
> > multi-stakeholder? Remote participation is extremely important -- but
> > it needs to accommodate multiple languages and all stakeholders.
>
> A bit of promotion of the facilities by the Secretariat to all
> stakeholders wouldn't go astray there IMHO.  There was next to none for
> Athens.  It came down to Kieren handing out fliers and me standing up in
> the opening session.  We didn't even have, except for three days, a link
> to the IGF 2006 Community site from the official site.  Not good enough.
>
> > All comes down to money.  If the IGF process has money it will be able
> > to do much more.
>
> I actually think it comes down to will more than money.  The reason the
> IGF's Internet presence has been fragmented and closed to public
> participation has had little to do with money.  Sure, it would be nice
> if someone would say sponsor travel costs for a clueful person to handle
> remote participation issues (like that would happen), but what other
> costs are there?  Everything else has been volunteered.
>
> --
> Jeremy Malcolm LLB (Hons) B Com
> Internet and Open Source lawyer, IT consultant, actor
> host -t NAPTR 1.0.8.0.3.1.2.9.8.1.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}'
>
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance