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

[Charity Gamboa]

Dear all,

I agree that there is so much different discussion and debates in the IGC
recently that I myself am a bit overwhelmed in following. But I have been
reading (multitasking), although slowly, and trying to figure out which
discussion I should specifically follow so I can contribute effectively.
But I do support the IRP statement. Thank you.

Regards,
Charity G. E.

On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 9:37 AM, Roxana Goldstein <
goldstein.roxana at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
>>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
>



-- 
Charity Gamboa-Embley
Student Alternatives Program, Inc - South Plains Academy
4008 Avenue R
Lubbock, Texas 79412
Phone: +1 (806) 744 0330
Fax: +1 (806) 741 1089
http://www.stdsapi.com/
cembley at esc17.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100115/fe5697f6/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