[governance] RE: Remote Participation

[Ginger Paque]

Dear George and all,

There are several initiatives currently in progress for remote participation
at the IGF 2008. Jeremy has reactivated the Remote Participation DC,
although he would have to tell us what the latest developments are. I
understand Avri has been working on some concrete possibilities. There is
also an "IGF Remote Participation Working Group" researching possibilities
for video, audio and chat participation, as well as remote hub
participation, which I am involved with. There are several remote hub
conference points already being planned, for instance in Brazil, UK and
Egypt, and we hope to include at least one hub on each continent.

Other projects are going on but I do not know much about them. I think it is
true that resources are not being used to greatest possible effectiveness,
and we are most certainly duplicating efforts. Although the Secretariat
fully supports our effort and others, we have been unable to coordinate
effectively with them or the host country.

The difference we see between our working group and the DC is that we are a
hands-on WG with a specific practical purpose of constructing remote
participation for IGF 2008, whereas the DC includes much wider goals,
including theoretical and policy issues.


If anyone is interested in more information on our WG, please contact focal
point Marilia Maciel, or myself. I assume the same holds true for Jeremy and
Avri.

Ginger Paque

-----Mensaje original-----
De: George Sadowsky [mailto:george.sadowsky at attglobal.net] 
Enviado el: Martes, 27 de Mayo de 2008 11:43 a.m.
Para: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Adam Peake
Asunto: Re: [governance] Do we need a MAG?

I'm glad Adam raised this point.  There was a set of people, working 
in collaboration with Kieren and Avri and others (sorry, i don't 
remember the exact names), on tools for remote participation.  we had 
identified tools, and had an implementation and testing plan, and 
then because of conflicts in a larger group, the entire effort was 
dropped.

The group continued under jeremy's leadership.  Jeremy, what has 
happened to that dynamic coalition?  Have you made any progress?  The 
goal is an important one.

George

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

At 12:27 AM +0900 5/28/08, Adam Peake wrote:
>>  > -----Original Message-----
>>  > From: Jeremy Malcolm [mailto:Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au]
>>>  No, that will centralise (even) more power in the unrepresentative
>>>  Secretariat.  In my work on remote participation, I've seen how the
>>  > Secretariat very shrewdly picks and chooses what volunteer help to
>>>  embrace and what to silently shun and thereby sideline.
>>
>>A major issue, of course.
>
>
>Jeremy, you and Kieren couldn't agree, had made no progress, your 
>dynamic coalition (I was a member) was a mess.  So the secretariat 
>and MAG stepped in.
>

..........etc.................
____________________________________________________________
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

____________________________________________________________
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