[governance] Re: Remote Participation Instructions for the MAG

Tue Feb 9 08:01:23 EST 2010

Dear Oliver, Sivasubramanian and all,

I am gald to read this thread and criticism/suggestions here in the list.
For some time now the Remote Participation Working Group has been urging for
more involvement from this community and for other stakeholder groups to
help putting in place remote participation.

So far, everybody seemed to be very comfortable that a bunch of crazy people
volunteered and gave up their time to push remote participation forward. Not
we are starting to recognize the obvious. This is a huge structure that
cannot put in place properly without consistent community involvement and
professional dedication.

We should always bear in mind, nevertheless, that we can look to remote
participation from two different perspectives:

1-     Of what has been accomplished. If you look back, you will remember
that we departed from a single pre-moderated chat for RP, and now we have a
multitude of channels (main platform during IGF meetings, Cover It Live,
Twitter, Facebook, Youtube channels), with the comments and questions being
displayed in the large screen in the meetings, for everybody to see. This is
a considerable enhancement in terms of transparency, specially if you
consider that we are in a UN environment.

In 2008 people reported problems with webcast transmission during the IGF,
which hampered proper participation. In 2009, the quality of the webcast has
improved (according to all remote participants that provided us feedback).
In 2010 we are talking about improving quality of interaction. This shows
that we are not stuck, we are moving forward. There has been constant
improvement from year to year and that should be acknowledged.

2-     On what still needs to be accomplished (considering the scarce
resources of the IGF, but considering also the potential of the IG
community)

- More multistakeholder involvement, especially from the technical community
and the MAG

- Earlier planning, with the involvement of professionals, host, Secretariat
and a group of interested people
- Trained remote moderators, assigned at least one month before the event.

- Remote participation has to be taken into account by workshop organizers
in the planning of the dynamics of their workshop. Wks organizers and
moderators are responsible for bringing in the questions from remote
participants, helping to improve the quality of interaction.

If anybody has suggestions on how to improve remote participation, please
get in touch with the Remote Participation Working Group and the IGF
Secretariat. Speaking for the group, we are more then happy to exchange
ideas and receive suggestions from the experienced members of this
community.

I am looking forward to continuing this discussion. This is the first step
to make e-participation a policy theme in the IGF, as we suggested in our
statement to the open consultations.

Best wishes,

Marília

marilia.maciel at gmail.com

www.igfremote.info

On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 9:43 AM, Sivasubramanian Muthusamy <
isolatedn at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hello Ginger
>
> Oliver and I had a chat on this topic and I have had some exchanges on
> twitter with Marilla.
>
> Our concern is not to find a temporary solution to participate in the
> meeting today, it is a general concern, it is about the technical resources
> required for remote participation, by IGF standards
>
> IGF is *THE* Internet forum, a place where the who is who of Internet and
> all the technical expertise converges and the infrastructure available must
> be uncompromising. The present standards are a generation behind, there is
> no room for contention.
>
> It is all run by volunteers, yes, but this is not a comment about people,
> it is a comment about the resources to be committed, about the attention
> that needs to be paid. IGF needs to consult professionals months in advance
> to determine the bandwidth and infrastructure requirements, arrange to send
> experts to the locations days in advance to flawlessly set up the remote
> participation infrastructure.
>
> My suggestion here is that administratively the IGF Secretariat could call
> for advise from the technical community
>
>
> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy
> http://www.isocmadras.com
>
>
>   On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 4:59 PM, Bernard Sadaka <sdkaaa at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Dear Olivier,
>> Please find bellow all the ways you could participate in the current IGF
>> OC:
>>
>>    - Remote participation including coveritlive, twitter and video/audio:
>>    http://www.igfremote.info/RP/
>>    - Remote participation including coveritlive, twitter and audio only:
>>    http://www.igfremote.info/RP/audioonly.php
>>    - Remote participation from your mobile including coveritlive, twitter
>>    and no audio or video: http://www.igfremote.info/mRP/
>>    - Remote participation via Webex: http://bit.ly/bvJQSY
>>
>> Let me know if i can help you in any other way...
>> All the best,
>>
>> Bernard
>> --
>> Bernard SADAKA
>> Mobile: +961 3 172377
>> Email : sdkaaa at gmail.com
>> ------------------------------------------------------
>> BsE in Computer and Communication Engineer
>> Lebanon
>>
>>
>>
>>   On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 1:20 PM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl at gih.com>wrote:
>>
>>>   Hello Bernard,
>>>
>>> thank you, and thanks to all of the others (Patrik Fältström, for
>>> example), who have tried to have some kind of remote participation set-up.
>>> This is not meant as a criticism of anyone, just a provocative remark to get
>>> some people to open their eyes, rather than bathing each other in
>>> congratulatory, back-patting, empty speech.
>>>
>>> The trouble is that I've never managed to get the video/audio feed to
>>> work.
>>> For one, they don't work with Firefox.
>>> And then it appears that there's not enough bandwidth somewhere along the
>>> line...
>>> I can get Webex, Skype, Marratech, Adobe Meeting, and Jabber to work
>>> perfectly, even with 2-way video, and yet, remote participation at this
>>> meeting = nil.
>>>
>>> Whatever, remote participation, for me, currently rates at 0/10. ie. non
>>> existent.
>>>
>>> Any remote participation system should be designed for 100s of remote
>>> participants, and should not fail when more than 10 people connect
>>> simultaneously...
>>>
>>> My question: with the whole point of the IGF being multi-stakeholder
>>> public participation, why is this subject not being dealt with in a
>>> professional way?
>>> The current arrangement is very poor. Sorry, I mean: dreadful. It makes
>>> the whole IGF process a complete joke.
>>> Perhaps Dr. Touré was right when he used the term "waste of time".
>>>
>>> Olivier
>>>
>>> Le 08/02/2010 22:00, Bernard Sadaka a écrit :
>>>
>>> Thx Sivasubramanian,
>>> You could also use http://www.igfremote.info/RP/
>>> or http://www.igfremote.info/mRP/ from a mobile phone (you won't have
>>> webcast though here :) )
>>> All the Best.
>>> Bernard.
>>> --
>>> Bernard SADAKA
>>> Mobile: +961 3 172377
>>> Email : sdkaaa at gmail.com
>>> ------------------------------------------------------
>>> BsE in Computer and Communication Engineer
>>> Lebanon
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 10:57 PM, Sivasubramanian Muthusamy <
>>> isolatedn at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hello
>>>>
>>>> Bernard sdkaaa of Lebanon has gathered this info that would make it easy
>>>> to participate remotely in the meeting tomorrow:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Live Blog: IGF February 2010 Open Consultations
>>>> Date: Tuesday February 9, 2010
>>>> Time: 09:30 CET
>>>>
>>>> In order to view the event, simply click here. Or alternatively,
>>>> copy-paste this link in your browser:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.igfremote.info/RP/?altcast_code=e02867f44e
>>>>
>>>> No passwords necessary.
>>>>
>>>> Questions to sharmstocktaking at intgovforum.org
>>>>
>>>> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy
>>>> http://www.isocmadras.com
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhDhttp://www.gih.com/ocl.html
>>>
>>>
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> 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
>>>
>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> 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
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>

-- 
Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade
FGV Direito Rio

Center of Technology and Society
Getulio Vargas Foundation
Rio de Janeiro - Brazil
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100209/7e7e493f/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
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

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t