Remote participation plans Re: [OCDC] Re: [governance] Do we

[Adam Peake]

>Hi,
>
>I am not sure I what you mean.


I was trying to remind you of something :-)

I should probably have written "So the secretariat and MAG stepped 
up"  rather than "So the secretariat and MAG stepped in."


>There were the email addresses set up by the IGF that several people 
>monitored. I would need to check further to know who monitored which 
>one, when.  Didn't you do some of that as well?


I know the MAG monitored email addresses, English, Spanish, French, 
Portuguese. I kind of arranged that to happen (the monitoring, not 
the setting up of the actual lists, that was Chengetai or coordinated 
by Chengetai with the local hosts.)

And you monitored the chat rooms, and had it read to display if needed, right?

When I wrote "So the secretariat and MAG stepped in" I didn't mean to 
imply anyone stopped any dynamic coalition from doing anything, we 
simply did something that needed to be done.

Adam



>As for chat rooms.  I remember Kieren and Jeremy set up some in 
>Athens, but do not think they did so in Rio .  In Rio the 
>Secretariat worked with a chat setup that was being provided by the 
>Brazilian Ministry of Culture, but it was a new tool and we had 
>trouble fitting it into the meeting.  This is the same tool we have 
>been providing as an experiment for the consultations this year. 
>And while there was only one comment that got displayed at the last 
>meeting, there was a discussion ongoing in this chat room about the 
>technical details and issues with the broadcast.  I.e. the chat 
>functionality does work and has worked the last two consultations. 
>I expect it will be provided again in the future.
>
>a.
>
>On 29 May 2008, at 13:06, Adam Peake wrote:
>
>>At 11:27 AM -0400 5/29/08, Avri Doria wrote:
>>>Hi,
>>>
>>>I just wanted to point out a correction to Adam's original remark 
>>>and hence to Jeremy's comment n it.
>>>
>>>There never was a decision in Secretariat, nor any action, to remove
>>>the OCDC or to silence it in any way.  Many of the members of the 
>>>group did quit at one point, but as you will notice, the OCDC is 
>>>still listed on the IGF's DC page: 
>>>http://www.intgovforum.org/Dynamic%20Coalitions.php . Ie. "the MAG 
>>>and Secretariat never stepped in."
>>
>>
>>Avri,
>>
>>Best I can remember there were chat rooms and email addresses (in 
>>multiple languages), who set those up and monitored them?
>>
>>(igf-ocdc at igf-online.net list not cc'd.)
>>
>>Thanks,
>>
>>Adam
>>
>>>I would note that there have not been any postings in the OCDC 
>>>(http://igf-online.net) other then from Jeremy in a while.
>>>
>>>To my knowledge, neither the OCDC nor the "IGF Remote 
>>>Participation Working Group" mentioned by Ginger, have been barred 
>>>from comment at any meeting. In fact the OCDC made a report in Rio 
>>>which, if I recall, Jeremy read out 
>>>http://www.intgovforum.org/Rio_Meeting/IGF2-ReportingBack-15NOV07.txt, 
>>>and comments from the IGF Remote Participation WG were read out in 
>>>Geneva at the last consultations.
>>>
>>>Ginger's group, btw, has not yet asked to be listed as one of the 
>>>DCs.  It is my assumption that if this group wishes to be listed 
>>>as one of the DCs, it only needs to send information, in the same 
>>>format as the other DCs, to the IGF office with the request.
>>>
>>>a.
>>>
>>>On 27 May 2008, at 22:20, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>>>
>>>>On 27/05/2008, at 11:27 PM, Adam Peake wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>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.
>>>>
>>>>...
>>>
>>>>First, this is the first public acknowledgment I've seen of the 
>>>>concerted back-room move to crush the Online Collaboration 
>>>>Dynamic Coalition, as part of which you and the other MAG members 
>>>>who had been members of its mailing list left en masse.  It is a 
>>>>shame that you couldn't have been open about your intentions at 
>>>>the time.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>____________________________________________________________
>>>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
>>
>
>____________________________________________________________
>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