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

[Roxana Goldstein]

Thanks Ginger.
It´s a pitty that this statement will not be support by IGC.

I think that the problem is that there are too much lines of debate open at
the same time, all around the same or similar topics -the IGF reforma,
taking stocks, etc- and it creates some confusion.

I suggest that the IGC could evaluate the possibility to open another kind
of collaborative virtual space, like ning for example.

Thanks again, and best regards,
Roxana



2010/1/15 Ginger Paque <gpaque at gmail.com>

> Here is the final version of the IRP Statement to the IGF. (below)
>
> Since there has been almost no response to this Call for Consensus, the IGC
> will not be able to endorse the written statement to be submitted today by
> the IRP. However, it is still important to review this document, as we can
> support it orally in the Open Consultations in Geneva in February.
>
> I repeat the suggestions made on the list that the IGC support appropriate
> statements by other groups. This one seems particularly appropriate for
> support by the IGC. However, without more vocal support on this list, we
> cannot endorse it.
>
> Best, Ginger
>
>
> ******************
> Open Consultation IGF 2010
>
> INTERNET RIGHTS AND PRINCIPLES DYNAMIC COALITION Statement
>
> The comments below from the Internet Rights and Principles Dynamic
> Coalition are our contribution to the Open Consultations for IGF 2010. Each
> of the four themes below take stock of IGF 2009 by offering practical
> suggestions for the format and planning of IGF 2010.
>
> 1)    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.
> Whilst openness and diversity continue to be important issues, we think this
> year is the moment to broach more specific questions or policy dilemmas
> within these broader themes
> c.    The coalition is ready and willing to contribute to organizing and
> facilitating main sessions along these Human Rights related themes.
>
> 2)    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. Aspects that could be paid more attention this year
> include:
> a.    Discussions, especially in plenary sessions tended to become diverted
> into the issue of whether the IGF should continue, and if so, how. This is a
> key issue however we think it is important to avoid having these issues
> sidetrack the topics on hand in main sessions and workshops this year.
> b.    Continuity and more linking between the main sessions and the
> workshops could be strengthened. 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 'classic' themes of openness, diversity,
> and such like need to be supplemented and reinvigorated by including new
> themes onto the program. The need for continuity and in-depth discussions of
> ongoing themes need to be balanced by new themes as well for this is a
> fast-moving area.
> d.    Some panels in main sessions were overloaded with panellists. This
> always means less time for a wider plenary discussion. We realise that
> larger panels allow for a greater diversity in some cases. However we would
> urge moderators of larger sessions to ensure that there is enough time for
> discussion and that when discussion takes place it is dynamic and inclusive
> of panellists and other participants. It is important that contributors from
> the floor as well as from remote participants get enough time to have their
> say and be adequately responded to by panellists and other participants.
> e.    In light of the above we would also like to see more innovative panel
> formats encouraged; modelled on town-hall meetings, brainstorming, and other
> sorts of small-group, or interactive forms of discussion for instance.
> Formal panels have their place but good work is also done in small
> groups/break-out sessions as well.
> f.    Rather than having main sessions largely 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.
>
> 3)    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 in the role of do-it-yourself technical
> supporters. This causes delays, frustration and a loss of focus for
> everyone.  More information in advance from the IGF in liaison with the
> Vilnius venue organisers 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.
>
> 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 to 'everyday internet users', any
> interested communities or groups from areas where the Internet is either
> less extensive or who have other communication priorities.
>
>
> Roxana Goldstein wrote:
>
> 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
>>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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/20100115/fa9011d1/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