[governance] Remote participation at Vilnius IGF 2010

Lee W McKnight lmcknigh at syr.edu
Mon Sep 27 12:46:32 EDT 2010 

My suggestion is to just ignore the distinction and not artificially force it in one direction or another - ie all remote or all local.

In our Wireless Grid Innovation Testbed We just have 'meetings' which are sometimes clarified to be 'meetings/webconferences.' 

That is you can come to Syracuse if you want though we don't especially care if you do or don't.  

It takes a little while for participants behavior to evolve to enable clusters of people and individuals to participate on a more or less equal footing to folks physically attending, but if that is the new normal then folks adjust. And admittedly the supporting tech has its own glitches and shortcomings, whether proprietary, or not.

Doing this at global scale is also a challenge for IGF. 

1 easy step I suggest is the 'remote' participation group consider rebranding themselves the 'distributed participation' working group or whatever, and see how far individual workshops can succeed in this manner of interaction at IGF 2011. If some want all speakers remote fine, though on average some here and some there might be more typical and productive for the folks who bothered to fly halfway around world.  

 Inevitably some folks somewhere will be up in middle of night, or choose to listen and comment asynchronously on the recording of the webconference/meeting, but Izumi is right much more can be done to make IGF a new model for collaborative interaction, in which the 'meeting' or in our case Forum is where you are, wherever that is.

Lee
________________________________________
From: Ginger Paque [gpaque at gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, September 27, 2010 3:16 AM
To: Izumi AIZU
Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Subject: Re: [governance] Remote participation at Vilnius IGF 2010

I am glad to see appreciation for the remote volunteer team: they worked very hard. Tx.

Izumi... that is not a strange proposal at all. Indeed, the Remote Participation Workshop No. 126 discussion included a proposal that an IGF be designed that could take place entirely through remote participation: both presenters and attendees! This may not yet be a practical application, but it does indicate that remote participation -- or, perhaps 'local participation'  (considering that it is the physical meeting which is in a  'remote' venue), is evolving to enhance the impact of 'remote' attendees.

Semantics and definitions underlie verbal discussions, and RP is not exempt from word play :) This year we emphasized 'engage remotely, connect locally', and see that this is indeed a mobile and global concept. Who is really local, who is 'remote'? Is there a better way to describe 'remote' participation?

The RP workshop discussion was excellent and moved from applications and techniques to a more mature level of policy and issues to concretely address access and inclusion. We will post a transcript online for continued exchange in comments around the transcript itself. I will post a link to the discussion once it is uploaded.

Again, congratulations to everyone, local and 'remote'... IG is behind many important concepts and innovations, not only multistakeholder (ism) meetings, but remote participation and well.



Ginger (Virginia) Paque
IGCBP Online Coordinator
DiploFoundation
www.diplomacy.edu/ig<http://www.diplomacy.edu/ig>

The latest from Diplo...
http://DISCUSS.diplomacy.edu is a space for discussing ideas and concepts from Diplo’s teaching and research activities. Our activities focus on three main areas: Internet governance, diplomacy, and global governance. In September, we DISCUSS: a) network neutrality: hype and reality, b) the IGF experience: what can policy makers learn from the IGF, and c) the history of the Internet. Let us know if you have suggestions about ideas and concepts that should be discussed.

On 9/26/2010 11:05 AM, Izumi AIZU wrote:

I also like to echo the congratulations and thanks, and also one
(strange) proposal for the next round.

How about, making things "upside-down"?
I mean at physical meeting of the IGF, how about making the
main speakers and participants all remote? So far, the remote
participation and participants are regarded as supplementary,
but not given a front-seat status. But think of online chat or
conference call where no one is physically present and taking
floors as main participants. Everyone is remote. At IGF, we can
have the physical participants there, but making most speakers
and interactions online, webcast, chat etc.

I think it's worth a try so that those who cannot come to the venue
still feel they have the main player, with deeper sense of
participation and ownership.

izumi


2010/9/27 Rebecca MacKinnon <rebecca.mackinnon at gmail.com><mailto:rebecca.mackinnon at gmail.com>:


As a happy remote participant, I too would like to add my congratulations to
all who made remote participation work so well this year.
Best,
Rebecca

Rebecca MacKinnon
Schwartz Senior Fellow, New America Foundation
Co-founder, GlobalVoicesOnline.org
Cell: +1-617-939-3493
E-mail: rebecca.mackinnon at gmail.com<mailto:rebecca.mackinnon at gmail.com>
Blog: http://RConversation.blogs.com
Twitter: http://twitter.com/rmack
On Sep 25, 2010, at 8:07 AM, Janna Anderson wrote:

Great work by Ginger and MANY people who led and assisted in so many ways.
It really is beginning to feel to those who must participate remotely as if
you are really there, on the scene while still so far away. There’s more
work to be done on this, but thanks to the people who facilitated it in so
many ways this year. I was in North Carolina the entire time, but I feel
that between conversations on this list and on Twitter, the IGF
Secretariat’s provision of timely information, the contributions of
organizations like Cisco, the persistence of many individuals including
those who were the catalysts for hubs and remote moderators that it really
was a GLOBAL IGF.

Congratulations to all!

Janna

On 9/25/10 7:56 AM, "Ginger Paque" <gpaque at gmail.com><mailto:gpaque at gmail.com> wrote:

  Remote participation at the IGF Vilnius 2010 raised the bar for remote
participation in international public policy meetings. Not in sheer volume,
although 600+ individuals is a good number, but in actual inclusion and
participation, with 33 registered remote hubs and dozens of remote
panelists, this IGF was indeed a global success. While there was successful
remote observation with excellent webcast, audiocast and captioning, there
was also the possibility of real remote participation for those who wanted
to comment, ask questions and respond, with the same privileges and
priorities as those who attended in person.

 The next step will be to ensure that remote participants take advantage of
this possibility, and that remote moderators learn to transmit the interest
and personal power of the comments so that their impact is tangibly felt in
the meeting room.

 An interesting (unforeseen) development was chat exchanges between remote
hubs on the WebEx platform, as remote hubs gave feedback to presentations or
comments by other remote hubs.

 Pre-IGF preparations were better than ever, with strategy, planning,
training and information from the first 2010 OC in Geneva.

 I would like to thank the volunteer remote moderators from the panels,
 DiploFoundation fellows and the ISOC ambassadors program for their
engagement and precious time and energy; the Lithuania host for their
support and their tech teams; the IGF Secretariat for their support and
follow-up, DiploFoundation for constant backup, and my fellow RPWG members
for their year-round worry, work and dynamic involvement.

 Thanks to all of the hub organizers for their work to include people from
all over the world in this meeting too.

 The RPWG will publish a report later this year. We look forward to your
comments and suggestions.

 Warm regards,
 Ginger

--
Janna Quitney Anderson
Director of Imagining the Internet
www.imaginingtheinternet.org<http://www.imaginingtheinternet.org>

Associate Professor of Communications
Director of Internet Projects
School of Communications
Elon University
andersj at elon.edu<mailto:andersj at elon.edu>
(336) 278-5733 (o)



____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
    governance at lists.cpsr.org<mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org>
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
    governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org<mailto: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<mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org>
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
    governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org<mailto: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

More information about the Governance mailing list