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

[Ginger Paque]

Jeremy has made some excellent points here, which I would like to emphasize:

--As an example, online courses that are just emailed information or videos
and then an exam are not very successful, because the interaction and
feedback are limited. Courses and conferences that "include" participants
with frequent exchanges engage them more completely. There should be some
mechanism to replace the eye contact or even audience background murmur and
comment, some acknowledgement of their presence. Chat between participants
replaces some of this interchange.

--The majority of in-person attendees don't ask a question or give
"meaningful contributions". They are present to listen and learn, not to
make presentations. But sometimes the most valuable interactions take place
in the aisles. Again, chat between participants, comments, questions that
you would make to your companion, but not necessarily to the panel, help
replace this element.

--The IGF RP IG is including the option of Remote Hub conferences, as used
by the AIDS conference, to try to generate more of a feel of inclusion in
the proceedings. (See http://www.aids2008.org/mainpage.aspx?pageId=364).

--The IGF RP WG welcomes any suggestions to work more efficiently or better.
Please email me if you have any ideas.

--The IGF RP WG does not want to be a DC. There is already a DC for that
purpose. Once again, any suggestions on how to generate more and better RP
for the 2008 IGF are very welcome. Please email me!

Thanks. Ginger





-----Mensaje original-----
De: Jeremy Malcolm [mailto:Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au] 
Enviado el: Viernes, 30 de Mayo de 2008 07:27 a.m.
Para: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Asunto: Re: Remote participation plans Re: [OCDC] Re: [governance] Do we

On 30/05/2008, at 5:31 PM, Ken Lohento wrote:

> Anyway, it's sure that remote participation should be improved and  
> also provided with a multilingual environment. But, another issue is  
> that remote participants hardy contribute (at least through  
> facilities provided by the Secretariat). For example very few  
> contributions are received through the email addresses that MAG  
> members monitor during IGF summits, though some of us promoted as  
> needed the existence of that easy-to-use facility. Most of the time  
> you have about 2/3 short comments/questions in French and a bit more  
> in English (and I'm not sure in other languages more messages/ 
> questions are received - I think this does not help requesting more/ 
> alternative UN supported remote participation facilities.


And yet, as I pointed out in Rio, there were 325 messages on Slashdot  
about the IGF in the space of a day.  So it's not that people aren't  
interested in contributing, it's that:

(a) the forms in which their input is taken are too limited (eg. new  
main topics cannot be created in the IGF's Discussion Space, and  
emails usually disappear into a black hole);

(b) they do not feel that their input is valued (eg. I was told, "We  
did not put your submission up initially because we thought the speed  
dialogue issue was already extensively covered in the paper you  
submitted for the second IGF. Moreover, it has been addressed during  
the open consultation in May"); and most importantly of all

(c) there has been no attempt to cultivate a virtual community of IGF  
stakeholders, rather than treating them as isolated hangers-on to the  
meetings in person where the "real action" is.  In my book, I wrote:

> it is a quixotic endeavour to seek to constitute the IGF's annual
> plenary meetings as the principal mode of engagement amongst its  
> stake-
> holders for every purpose, when there are some purposes for which that
> meeting and the e-democratic processes set up to support it are not,  
> and can
> never be adequately suited on their own. Rather, independent processes
> of Internet democracy are required to supplement (not merely to  
> support)
> the IGF's face-to-face deliberations in order that the IGF's mandate  
> may be
> fully and adequately addressed.


(I go on to propose three measures to do just that, but rather than  
spam the list with it, see http://books.google.com/books?id=G8ETBPD6jHIC.)

-- 
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