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

[George Sadowsky]

Jeremy refers to a vitriolic and false conspiracy theory of mine.  I 
don't want to clutter the list with this stuff, but if anyone would 
like to see this mail thread, write to me.

George


>On 30/05/2008, at 12:28 AM, Ken Lohento wrote:
>
>>My two cents : I have to agree with Avri. To my knowledge the MAG 
>>didn't not take any decision to stop the OCDC (I can't remember 
>>neither any formal discussion about stopping a working group or 
>>DC). It's however true that some MAG members, who were members of 
>>this group, announced that they were leaving it (I understood they 
>>said it was not working properly).But there was no MAG decision 
>>about it.
>
>That's all I meant, not that there was any "order from the top". 
>But this "announcement that they would be leaving" was internal to 
>the MAG; it was not explained to the OCDC, and was accompanied by a 
>vitriolic and false conspiracy theory from George, and the silent 
>removal of a link to http://igf-online.net/ from the official IGF 
>Web site (which had only been added about a day earlier).  So you 
>can see how two and two adds up.
>
>As for the Secretariat/MAG stepping in (or up) as Adam claims, this 
>is in the context of the OCDC having asked Markus (and I quote) "Is 
>any assistance needed from members of the OCDC in monitoring the 
>channels of communication that have been set up to facilitate remote 
>participation?  Have specific protocols yet been settled upon for 
>how the remote participants' input is to be delivered to session 
>moderators? ... these matters fall squarely within the coalition's 
>volunteer mandate and we would like to be involved where possible" - 
>and no reply being received as usual.  (Though actually, the chat 
>system for which you take credit was developed by an OCDC member.)
>
>Anyway, that's water under the bridge now but it's a symptom of the 
>larger problem that suggestions to the Secretariat/MAG about remote 
>participation are uniformly ignored, on the basis that "the Web site 
>and webcasting are our business; you can do whatever else you like, 
>but don't expect us to help you out by providing any information or 
>linking to the end product" (that's not a quote, obviously).
>
>Back before the OCDC was even formed, a letter was circulated which 
>suggested (in my original draft) rather than the three disconnected 
>Web sites we had in Athens, "a new platform ... which allows 
>administration and editing functions to be distributed between the 
>Secretariat and volunteers from the stakeholder groups, who may be 
>delegated responsibility for maintaining particular functions or 
>resources ... [so that] the attention of IGF stakeholders will not 
>be fragmented across numerous sites, that the site will be able to 
>be updated in a timely and efficient manner, and not least of all, 
>that such a division of labour will be more consistent with the 
>collaborative, multi-stakeholder principles of the IGF."  It came 
>back from on high that this was unacceptable to the Secretariat, and 
>the OCDC's formation was the resulting compromise.
>
>Lately I've been discussing off-list what might be regarded as the 
>"next generation" of the original 2006 proposal; that new 
>technologies of the social Web such as the OpenSocial API launched 
>last year by Google (with Yahoo, MySpace and others tagging along) 
>could be used to draw upon a social graph of all IGF participants 
>provided by the Secretariat to facilitate the formation of dynamic 
>coalitions, communities of interest, mailing lists, groups for straw 
>polls, and so on on a distributed basis, thus extending the IGF from 
>an annual meeting into a year-round virtual community.  But since 
>the Secretariat's lack of cooperation in such an initiative is 
>inevitable, it would require a considerable push from CS in order to 
>fly.
>
>With Ginger's remote participation working group handling the remote 
>participation side of things (good luck with that), this social Web 
>idea could be a remaining initiative for the OCDC (in parallel with 
>igf-online.net and the proposed UNESCO WSIS follow-up site), so if 
>anyone is interested in advocating for such a platform, feel free to 
>join the dormant OCDC list at 
>http://igf-online.net/wws/info/igf-ocdc and we can draw up a 
>proposal for presentation at the next open consultation meeting.
>
>--
>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

____________________________________________________________
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