[governance] Text of IRP Statement to Open Consultation for IGF

[Roxana Goldstein]

Hi Ginger and all,

In my humild opinion, I think that it is ok to support this statement.

Anyway, I think that points 3 and 4 must be core issues for the IGC, and I
suggest to continue debating here about them, and how to improve the IGFs
-global, regional, national, preparatory meetings, etc.- in this regard.

Best,
Roxana



2010/1/14 Ginger Paque <gpaque at gmail.com>

> Hello all: this is the current draft of the IRP contribution, which is up
> for Consensus for IGC support. There will be a "tightened" draft later,
> probably this afternoon, but this appears to be the essence of the
> statement.
>
> Please read it carefully, and advise whether the IGC should sign on in
> support of this statement. This is independent of any IGC statement.
>
> We need to do this quickly if we want to ask the IRP to add our signature
> to their written contribution. Please post.
>
>
> Open Consultation IGF 2010
>
> INTERNET RIGHTS AND PRINCIPLES DYNAMIC COALITION Statement
>
> The IRP Dynamic Coalition would like to contribute to the Open Consultation
> for IGF 2010 in two areas: observations for taking stock of IGF 2009 and
> suggestions for the format and agenda of the Vilnius meeting. The comments
> below are organised under [..] themes, under which we take stock of IGF 2009
> and then offer practical suggestions for the format and planning of IGF
> 2010.
>
> 1)      General Organization: Generally speaking coalition members found
> the meeting to be well organised, with signs of continued progress in all
> aspects. Coalition members who were participating in or who organised
> workshops would like to commend the organisers for their good work in this
> regard, particularly given the relatively limited budget and resources
> available to the IGF. Some specific concerns include:
> a.      Discussions, especially in plenary sessions tended to become
> diverted into the issue of whether the IGF should continue, and if so, how.
> We think it is time to move on and to keep these issues from overwhelming
> the topics in hand.
> b.      Continuity and more explicit links between the main sessions and
> the workshops could have been stronger. Clear links in the program by
> cross-referencing of session/workshop themes and titles is one way to create
> these links before the meeting. During and after the meeting, we would like
> to see formal feedback opportunities put in place and integrated into the
> stocktaking; from organizers and/or moderators of both main sessions and
> workshops.
> c.      Main sessions based around the "traditional" themes of openness,
> diversity, and such like started to feel a bit repetitive particularly in
> relation to the freshness of new themes introduced onto the program. The
> need for continuity and depth needs to be balanced by new themes as well
> d.      Some panels in main sessions were overloaded with panellists. This
> always means less time for a wider plenary discussion. Moderators of larger
> sessions need to find ways to ensure that discussion actually takes place
> and when it does it dynamic and inclusive. To this end we would suggest that
> there is an upper limit set on the number of panellists and/or length of
> formal presentations. Moreover that enough time is set aside for discussion.
> It is important that contributions from the floor, and remote participants
> get enough time to have their say and be adequately responded to by
> panellists and other participants.
> e.      Rather than having main sessions based around broad themes, we
> think this year is the moment to broach more specific questions or policy
> dilemmas. These can be proposed in advance with an eye to opening up the
> discussion about specific solutions before the actual session.
>
> 2)      Remote Participation: On the whole the facilities for remote
> participation seemed to work well. However, there are some specific issues
> that we think need to be attended to this year to ensure fuller and more
> diverse participation in the IGF.
> a.       Workshop organisers were not given enough support in good time or
> enough information on how to use the technology provided properly. When
> technical hitches did occur, there were not enough technicians on hand so
> many moderators found themselves doing DIY instead. This is unprofessional
> and causes delays and loss of focus for everyone.  More information in
> advance from IGF HQ would be useful. But also during the event, and given
> the importance of enabling remote participation but also having it run
> smoothly, the need for more dedicated staff in this respect is
> indispensable.
> b.      We would also suggest, in line with suggestions from the Remote
> Participation Working Group (RPWG), that Workshops include both a moderator
> on-the-ground and an online moderator in their planning. Some-one needs to
> monitor remote participation, in partnership with the workshop moderator, in
> order to streamline, filter and facilitate remote participation in the
> proceedings; e.g. by gathering text-based comments, setting up a queue for
> spoken interventions, or having remote participants be given the floor en
> bloc if this is more practicable. We would also urge all moderators to
> understand the many remote participants are doing this at difficult times of
> their 24 hour day and that time-lags require careful attention be paid to
> timing responses and requests by moderators on the ground.
> c.      The above points underscore our support for proposals to organise
> adequate guidelines as well as a brief training session/module/virtual tour
> for all moderators before the IGF meeting. During the meeting is not the
> time to experiment.
>
> 3)      Emerging Key themes: A wide range of stakeholders in the plenary
> sessions reaffirmed the importance of upholding human rights in the internet
> age. However these sentiments tended to be expressed in general rather than
> specific terms.
> a.      The challenge for this coming year is to focus on how upholding
> human rights can be achieved in practice; what roles different stakeholders
> can or should play in this regard, and how these play out more specifically
> in different Internet governance issue-areas.
> b.      With this in mind we would like to see not only workshops but also
> main sessions that look more closely at what a "human rights agenda" or
> "development agenda: for Internet Governance might actually look like.
> Discussions around broad themes such as openness and diversity have already
> taken place. It is time to get down to specifics and we do not see why these
> specifics always have to be covered in workshop sessions.
>
> 4)      Participation: Increasing diversity in terms of cultural, regional,
> and linguistic representation remains a core issue for a number of dynamic
> coalitions. Our comments and suggestions about continuing to improve remote
> participation technically and organizationally relate to these concerns.
> Practically there is a need to
> a.      Setting up coherent - vertical and lateral - links between
> discussions and themes from national, regional and international IGFs
> better, during the meetings as well as in the record of these various
> meetings. At present the public record is piecemeal and not easily
> accessible. We recognise that this is process that needs dedicated time and
> resources to do so and urge the IGF to put aside some resources for this.
> b.      Find more ways to open up the meetings to lay-participants. By this
> we mean that preparatory consultations, main sessions, and specialised
> workshops need to be more accessible not only to 'everyday internet users'
> but also for any communities or groups from areas where the Internet is
> either less extensive or who have other communication priorities.
>
> ********************************************************************88
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Dr Marianne Franklin
> Reader
> Convener of the Transnational Communications & Global Media Program
> Media & Communications
> Goldsmiths, University of London
> New Cross
> London SE14 6NW
> United Kingdom
> Tel (direct): #44 (0)207 919-7072
> Fax: #44 (0) 207 919-7616
> email: m.i.franklin at gold.ac.uk
> http://www.goldsmiths.ac.uk/media-communications/staff/franklin.php
>
> http://www.goldsmiths.ac.uk/pg/ma-transnational-communications-global-media.php
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100114/0eb3fcdf/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