[governance] CSTD Q4-Working methods and preparation
Lee W McKnight
lmcknigh at syr.edu
Tue Jan 25 10:31:56 EST 2011
Roland,
I've also been involved in online planning for...ever : (
It all depends on how structured as Marila suggests.
Scalability can be managed with various threshold participant numbers requiring different tools and methods.
And let's not kid ourselves,the 'opportunity' to spend hours and hours engaged in planning an IGF...well I don't think we need worry about rock star kind of numbers trying to 'follow.'
Lee
________________________________________
From: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org [governance-request at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Roland Perry [roland at internetpolicyagency.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2011 4:19 AM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Subject: Re: [governance] CSTD Q4-Working methods and preparation
In message
<AANLkTikwsMoVgJCY=LBJBgzKWdgokk6f-A2V9RWf+_+A at mail.gmail.com>, at
01:03:55 on Tue, 25 Jan 2011, Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at gmail.com>
writes
>I believe we should, as much as possible, replace physical planning
>meetings by online meetings.
While I share your frustrations about the cost of travel, online
planning doesn't scale very well. My estimate (from having been involved
in online debate in one form or another for over 20 years) is that it
takes approximately 10 times as long to participate remotely, as it does
to attend physical meetings. That's just from the attention required to
multiple postings on diverse topics from a wider community (where in
this case "wider" brings with it "much more conversation to be listened
to, and responded to").
Frankly, I spend all day online (or "working from home" as it's called),
but I don't think many other people have that much time, especially when
Internet Governance isn't their job.
>Planning meetings are very important, as they decisively shape the
>agenda on the next IGF. Several documents that evaluate the IGF (like
>the note by the Secretary-general) mention that the agenda of the
>meeting needs to be more social and development oriented. It is easy to
>understand why developmental issues are not so mainstreamed, if you
>take a look at the participants of open consultations. There is a great
>majority of people from developed countries, who put forward their own
>legitimate concerns that may not concide with the issues faced in
>developing countries. The fact that all the meetings take place in
>Geneva and that developing country representatives have to deal with
>scarce resources are also obstacles.
>
>
>One example: last IGF, only 5% of the people who physically attended
>were from South America. But 25% of the remote participants were from
>the same region, showing that lack of resources is more significant
>than lack of interest when it comes to participation.
>
>
>Of course remote participation should continue to be improved, both in
>IGF and in prep meetings. We should improve the dynamics to allow
>remote participants to have more impact on discussions and equal chance
>to intervene and make their voices heard. While this is not the case, I
>believe that meetings that take place online are not only more
>eco-friendly, they are also more efficient and they foster equality
>among participants. The distance between the nodes is meaningless
>online.
>
>
>Other suggestions can be put forward to foster online coordination
>throughout the year. For instance, the website could encompass a
>section, in which the several stakeholders could talk among themselves.
>There is no real space of dialogue among stakeholders. If such a space
>existed, we could, let´s say, be discussing possible framings of NN for
>the IGF with the private sector. Now we have to wait and play our cards
>in the Open Consultation, with few people serving as "gatekeepers" of
>the dialogue.
>
>
>Marília
>
>
>
>On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 11:43 AM, Lee W McKnight <lmcknigh at syr.edu>
>wrote:
> Once any group has gotten acquainted/comfortable with each other,
> online meetings work fine as a substitute.
>
> Having one planning meeting entirely online seems quite feasible
> imho and is of course more eco-friendly.
> ________________________________________
> From: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org [
> governance-request at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Roland Perry [
> roland at internetpolicyagency.com]
> Sent: Monday, January 24, 2011 3:16 AM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
> Subject: Re: [governance] CSTD Q4-Working methods and preparation
>
> In message
> <AANLkTi=UZdKTkYzWBQ5Cv6whM_78S-cwFTvNA41Uqbw7 at mail.gmail.com>, at
> 00:31:33 on Mon, 24 Jan 2011, Marilia Maciel <
> mariliamaciel at gmail.com>
> writes
> >- At least one of the open consultations should take place as
> >an online meeting
>
> I think you can add to the series of Open Consultations [planning
> sessions] with an additional online meeting, or enhance the remote
> participation at the current series of meetings. I don't think you
> could
> replace one of the physical meetings - for all the planning to get
> done
> on time, you need the current number.
> --
> Roland Perry
--
Roland Perry
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
For all other list information and functions, see:
http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
http://www.igcaucus.org/
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, visit:
http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
For all other list information and functions, see:
http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
http://www.igcaucus.org/
Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
More information about the Governance
mailing list