[governance] Remote Participation
Ginger Paque
gpaque at gmail.com
Sat Feb 18 06:05:00 EST 2012
Thanks Mike, De, Sala, Izumi, Imran and others who are engaged in this
discussion.
Members of civil society and other stakeholders have worked for years
towards effective remote and e-participation. Mike seems to reiterate
something the IGF Remote Participation Working Group (IGF RPWG) and
others have been saying all along: Remote Participation must be
institutionalised as part of inclusive policy meetings and processes,
specifically designed as a part of the meeting strategy. The tech
capability has been proven. There must be a will to implement it in
the IGF process. And that will cannot just be words, and volunteer
initiatives, it must have a formal institutional foundation.
IMHO, two major breakthroughs have taken place in remote participation
in the IGF process: Live transcription, (in large part thanks to the
work of the Dynamic Coalition for People with Disabilities) and remote
hubs (an informal coalition between a significant group of volunteers
around the world, the RPWG and the IGF Secretariat, with the support
of DiploFoundation and others).
But what about real-time engagement in all meetings and the process
itself, for off-site stakeholders, as show during the OC/MAG meetings
the week of 13 February? Individuals, working groups, volunteers and
collaborators have pushed for remote participation. We have tried
collaboration, volunteerism, patience, advocacy, workshops at the IGF.
The IGF RPWG has published guidelines and recommendations for remote
participation and IGF 2011 WS-67 participants prepared a draft of
e-participation principles for discussion (see the discussion at
http://discuss.diplomacy.edu/e-participation/?p=1 and the draft,
pasted at the bottom of this email).
Why have we, as civil society and the IGC, been so ineffective at
developing and achieving implementation of inclusion and effective
remote participation? After several years, why is RP not now an
integral part of all IG and IGF policy processes?
Why has the IGF (in particular) as a policy process not moved forward
with this obvious and basic element of a multistakeholder
process--particularly one whose in situ meetings are held in
remote-from-the-majority and expensive venues?
What can we do about it? I am not willing to accept that it may not be
possible at this time. It is impossible to sustain an inclusive global
policy process without effective remote participation. If the IGF is
to move forward, and not backwards, this must be effectively
addressed.
Best,
Ginger
E-participation principles: First draft for consultation
This is the first draft of a set of e-participation principles,
collaboratively authored during Workshop 67 at the Nairobi, Kenya
Internet Governance Forum (IGF) and created using the iEtherPad
(ietherpad.com) collaborative drafting site. This draft combines text
from many authors who participated in the workshop room, and remotely.
The collaborative draft process can be seen at
http://diplo.ietherpad.com/ep/pad/view/ro.6Uq9$cCZ/rev.4000
We invite your comments and discussion which we will then incorporate
into a second draft.
Summarised principles : First draft
Inclusiveness
E-participation is a set of resources that allows for increased
openness and inclusiveness, particularly in global policy processes.
E-participation platforms should support customisation for local
language and context.
E-participation should be multilingual, moving beyond the current
focus on English (e.g. transcripts of main sessions).
High and low bandwidth options should be available to improve access
to e-participation.
E-participation should include formal and informal channels of participation.
.
Equality of participation
E-participation is not about technology; it’s about people.
Relational participation that provides a social context is important.
E-participation is an important part of meetings.
E-participants should be able to register for the IGF or other
global meetings like anyone else, and should not be made to feel like
second-class participants.
E-participation should facilitate different social media tools and platforms.
Special efforts should be made to facilitate e-participation of
countries, communities, and individuals who have limited access to the
Internet.
E-participation should include networking and interconnecting hub-to-hub
as well as hub-to-meeting.
E-participation should actively offer alternatives for e-presenters
and e-panellists, to foster the inclusion of voices that do not have
the resources to attend in situ.
Scale and stability
E-Participation should be prepared for scale-up in order to
facilitate increased e-participation.
The e-participation process should remain open to new ideas and
improvements from participants: e-Participation is collaboratively
created.
There should be a clear commitment to problem-solving and
trouble-shooting, as well as the possibility of e-participation in the
development of the e-participation process itself.
The e-participation process should remain flexible and adaptable.
Capacity building
Training is essential for e-participants, onsite panel moderators,
and onsite remote moderators.
E-participation must recognise and address the need for basic digital skills.
Capacity building is not just technology-oriented – it must also
address moderation and facilitation skills and tech support training
for hubs, remote participants, and support.
Providing platforms
E-participation should foster the creation of inclusive platforms
among organisations.
E-participation should be built using open source software to
support innovation, creativity, and inclusiveness.
A case study: E-participation at the heart of the IGF
E-participation should be as important as in situ meeting participation.
E-participation channels and online communities should be promoted
through IGF publicity.
On 17 February 2012 21:36, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:
> Deirdre,
>
> I think that there is an implicit assumption in what you have written
> that if only the technical glitches could be corrected then RP would
> be "equivalent" to In person participation... I think there are two
> problems with this. The first is that in practice and from my
> experience except in extremely limited situations where you are
> working with highly experienced people at both ends of the
> communication, have access to very significant technical resources,
> and a meeting structure specifically designed to accommodate effective
> RP can this even be approximated. In the real world of IG the
> likelihood of these conditions being in place (ever) is highly remote.
>
> The second issue is that even when all of the above conditions are in
> place unless the decision making process in the meeting has been
> redesigned specifically to accommodate remote participation
> recognizing all of its practical limitations those participating
> remotely will always be at a disadvantage...
>
> This isn't to say that RP is not worth pursuing it most certainly is,
> but it is to say that those pursuing it should have no illusions about
> what they are asking for. (BTW, I like the suggestion of shifting in
> part or at key points to full RP as it puts everyone at a similar
> disadvantage or equalizes the participation opportunities for all but
> I realize that may not be realistic in this instance for a variety of
> reasons.)
>
> If the intention is to ensure an opportunity for effective
> participation by those without the means for f2f communication then
> that will have to be specifically designed for and that means I think
> not focusing specifically on the RP element (only) but rather focusing
> on the decision making process as for example working through how to
> have an effective "designated speaker" or representative participation
> process where those not able to directly participate are able to act
> through representatives or surrogates as though they were directly
> participating and with a weight similar to those who are directly
> participating.
>
> Best,
>
> Mike
>
> On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 8:38 AM, Deirdre Williams
> <williams.deirdre at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Following the discussions of the last few days I have taken the liberty of
>> putting together the contributions into a single document. I have not
>> included Imran's option B (to make some consultations/MAG meetings remote
>> only and which I like very much myself) because no one else has said
>> anything about it yet
>>
>> I have also not included in the text, although it is still there below the
>> text, a large part of Sala's contribution which seems to me to deal with
>> direct suggestions for improving remote participation at the IGF itself, and
>> therefore (again my opinion only) would perhaps have a greater effect in a
>> second document of practical suggestions.
>>
>> Internet Governance Civil Society Caucus (IGC)
>>
>> Statement on remote participation
>>
>>
>>
>> We would like to reiterate that remote participation is a crucial part of
>> organizing the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) and we appreciate the effort
>> to provide remote participation for the Open Consultation, the
>> Multi-stakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) meetings, and the MAG meeting this
>> month - February 2012 - which was opened to observers.
>>
>>
>>
>> We would like to commend the excellent work of the technical team
>> from Politecnico di Torino, (The Polytechnic University of Turin) which was
>> originally brought by our colleague Vittorio Bertola.
>>
>>
>>
>> However, we would like to point out some difficulties that occurred with the
>> system during the open MAG meeting. On the third day, morning session, (the
>> second day of the open MAG meeting), remote observers were effectively
>> excluded because they had no access to live transcript. Also MAG members
>> trying to participate online had difficulty in contacting moderators, partly
>> because the moderators were serving more than one function.
>>
>>
>>
>> We strongly urge MAG and IGF secretariats and ourselves to consider the
>> following for the future IGF organizing work and the IGF itself, and work
>> together to bring them about:
>>
>> l Ensure equal participation between online and offline participants
>>
>> l Prepare a clear guideline for remote participation and its moderation
>>
>> l Always assign exclusive remote participation coordinator/moderators
>> (who do not have other jobs at the same time, and are responsible to
>> interact between the meeting’s physical participants/current speaker, the
>> Chair and the remote participants).
>>
>> l Establish a clear procedure that would encourage remote participants
>> to intervene. Such a system is desirable both for those physically present
>> in Geneva and those observing the meeting remotely.
>>
>> l Provide as much interactivity as possible.
>>
>> l Provide plural means – video, voice and text channel, as well as
>> real-time transcription and video streaming - of coverage of the meeting
>>
>> l Enable the meeting and remote participation through interactive
>> presentations access through RP. (This needs clarification)
>>
>> l Create a select task force or Working Group created that has
>> representatives from the Government, Private Sector and Civil Society that
>> is dedicated to seeing improvements of Remote Participation
>>
>> Because only limited funds are available for direct participation, this
>> issue is crucially important to all stakeholders from all constituencies who
>> are entitled to participate in the meetings, and who wish to do so from a
>> remote location.
>>
>>
>> [This text was originally proposed by Izumi and is close to the wording of
>> his intervention at the end of the MAG meeting. Subsequent contributions
>> from other people have also been included.]
>>
>>
>>
>> This is the rest of Sala’s suggestion. Two points are included above.
>>
>> We have to move beyond advocacy to listing and creating tangible outcomes to
>> make improved remote participation a reality.
>>
>> There are regions around the world where transportation is extremely
>> expensive and one such region is the Pacific which has 22 countries and
>> territories. Remote participation was the only way that any of these
>> countries could access the IGF. However there is room to improve processes
>> and create an IGF culture where remote participation is prioritised through
>> setting up parallel screens that enable people to chat and stream in to the
>> sessions where those who are at the meeting can read these chats or feeds in
>> text form and also see the various hubs who are participating.
>>
>> These improvements transcend having the appropriate technical solutions and
>> should also include the following:-
>>
>> · Outreach;
>>
>> · Mapping local and regional stakeholders;
>>
>> · Coordinating with people on the ground 10 months before the IGF in a
>> series of strategic roll out;
>>
>> · Identifying how the private sector, civil society and governments can
>> be better involved in the remote hubs etc
>>
>>
>>
>> Deirdre
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William
>> Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/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.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
> http://lists.igcaucus.org/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
>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
For all other list information and functions, see:
http://lists.igcaucus.org/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