[governance] Remote Participation
Marilia Maciel
mariliamaciel at gmail.com
Wed Feb 22 10:49:55 EST 2012
Ginger,
We included as much as possible about RP, but time is very tight. The
meeting needs to be finished in 2 hours, so it was impossible to go into
details. If you take a look at the text Anriette posted, you will see it
covers many important points. Is drew inspiration from the summary of last
year's workshop you posted, from IGC's statement and from previous
discussions in the group. I think it is comprehensive and it is up to the
community to push for the recommendations to gain substance and further
details.
The only part I missed was a clear statement that related funding and RP.
Effective remote participation requires stable and predictable funding to
cover remote participation management and technical expenses. It should not
rely solely on voluntary work and technical and human resources need to be
secured by the secretariat and the host. But some people in the room
understood that stable funding for the IGF already covers stable funding
for RP and this suggestion was deleted altogether. I frankly disagree,
because we know that funding for IGF has always been secured in one way or
another, but it was never sufficient for RP. But anyway, CS in the WG is
doing what is possible to cover the main points regarding RP.
Marília
On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 1:26 PM, Ginger Paque <gpaque at gmail.com> wrote:
> Anriette, Izumi, points for consideration/inclusion:
>
> Are there existing guidelines or requirements for IGF meetings and
> planning meetings? If so, is it possible to include RP as part of the
> required infrastructure?
>
> Is it appropriate to include the need for chair/moderator/participant/hub
> organizer awareness building and training activities?
>
> Shouldn't remote hubs be specifically stipulated as part of the RP
> activities?
>
> Can we stipulate that remote participants should be allowed to register
> and appear on the list of attendees to meetings?
>
> Thanks!
> Cheers,
> Ginger
>
>
>
>
> Ginger (Virginia) Paque
>
>
>
>
> On 22 February 2012 10:21, Anriette Esterhuysen <anriette at apc.org> wrote:
>
>> We will have a chance to look at the final text and decide whether it is
>> clear enough. Here it is in its current form:
>>
>>
>> Remote participation is an integral part of the IGF. While remote
>> participation has improved, in particular through remote moderators and
>> hubs, there is still room for improvement in the following areas:
>>
>> - The Secretariat should continue to ensure the availability of
>> adequate technical and human resources, including remote moderators.
>>
>> - Chairs and moderators should give remote and onsite participants
>> equal recognition and the opportunity to participate.
>>
>> - Low bandwidth connections to remote participation tools should be
>> accommodated;
>>
>> - Linguistic diversity in remote participation should be fostered by
>> ensuring online-meeting platforms interface with onsite interpretation;
>>
>> - Mechanisms that facilitate remote participation, such as live
>> transcripts, should be kept as an integral part of the IGF. Such
>> mechanisms are invaluable not only to remote participants, but also to
>> non-native English speakers, and people with hearing and visual
>> impairments, whether they are onsite or not.
>> On 22/02/12 16:35, Izumi AIZU wrote:
>>
>>
>> > Thank you Ginger for your very timely online intervention!
>> > We were almost finishing the part on Remote Participation, and then
>> > I saw your following post and made some additional comment followed
>> > by Anriette, and Markus sort of agreed to offer additional language
>> > to recognize the value of the works of moderators such as Ginger and
>> > Marilia, among others.
>> >
>> > izumi
>> >
>> >
>> > 2012/2/22 Ginger Paque <gpaque at gmail.com>:
>> >> Dear Jovan, De, Anriette, all,
>> >>
>> >> I write this as a member of the IGF remote participation working
>> group, but
>> >> not FOR the IGF RPWG. These are my views.
>> >>
>> >> I think that this discussion on RP strategy and policy is extremely
>> >> important, and should be a priority for the IGC and CS, as well as the
>> other
>> >> IGF stakeholders and the IGF secretariat. In particular, a policy for
>> RP,
>> >> including chairing and moderation, as noted by Anriette and Jovan, is
>> >> indispensable, as is, I reiterate, the need to institutionalize RP as
>> an
>> >> integral part of the IGF meeting process, perhaps using Anriettes
>> >> suggestions as a foundation. As Anriette notes, a key element is the
>> >> presence of an on site remote moderator, a role usually played by a
>> >> volunteer (Avri, myself, Seiiti, maybe Bill Drake? I cannot
>> remember... and
>> >> others) in preparatory meetings, and until now, coordinated by the
>> RPWG in
>> >> formal IGF meetings.
>> >>
>> >> I have to admit, I was stunned by the lack of attention given to
>> >> implementation of RP during the OC last week, particularly given the
>> concern
>> >> about similarly important details such as the venue/meeting room
>> >> difficulties. I wonder if this is because RP is assumed to be an
>> >> institutional part of the process, when in fact, it is not yet
>> recognized as
>> >> such? Do we take it for granted? Is that why we were amazed and
>> appalled by
>> >> the problems during the MAG meeting? I think those problems occurred
>> >> precisely because RP is not an institutional part of the meeting
>> process. RP
>> >> is as indispensable as the live transcript has now become, and a remote
>> >> moderator is as important as other organizational positions to make it
>> work.
>> >>
>> >> Without an on site remote moderator, there is no interface between the
>> on
>> >> site proceedings and the remote participation. No matter how hard the
>> chair
>> >> tries, he/she cannot be omniscient, nor omnipotent, controlling
>> factors in
>> >> the meeting room and on a global network. Remote panel moderators as a
>> >> required element of each IGF workshop has shown that this role is
>> >> indispensable.
>> >>
>> >> The RPWG has never had a 'budget'. Fortunately many of us find funding
>> for
>> >> attendance at meetings for other activities, and are able to
>> collaborate on
>> >> site. I was particularly fortunate to be able to play double roles
>> during my
>> >> term as IGC co-coordinator and/or Diplo staff. For the most part, we
>> are
>> >> self-funded, sharing expenses among us. The IGF RPWG have had some
>> funding
>> >> from DiploFoundation, which was much appreciated. The host country and
>> IGF
>> >> secretariat coordinate funding for tech (webcast, equipment) at the
>> >> meetings, but as you know, that is not an easy matter nowadays.
>> >>
>> >> The IGF RPWG works to implement inclusive RP. We are purposely not a
>> dynamic
>> >> coalition or formal group, because we prefer to prioritize work on
>> practical
>> >> implementation, rather than policy and process. We are willing and
>> happy to
>> >> collaborate in any way we can, particularly in training materials,
>> >> elaboration of guidelines and support of remote hubs.
>> >>
>> >> We plan to submit input to the IGF Secretariat, and will post a copy
>> to the
>> >> IGC list as well for your feedback.
>> >>
>> >> Thanks to everyone who has paved the way for progress on Remote
>> >> Participation in the IGF--Jeremy, my present and past colleagues on
>> the IGF
>> >> RPWG, and others who have long pointed out this need, have given
>> important
>> >> impetus, and we must keep the forward momentum going!
>> >>
>> >> Saludos, Ginger
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On 22 February 2012 08:17, Jovan Kurbalija <jovank at diplomacy.edu>
>> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> Thanks Anriette for these key observations! The role of the chair is
>> >>> essential. Good news is that you pointed to a make-or-break point for
>> RP.
>> >>> Bad news is that possibilities to improve it are limited. We should
>> prepare
>> >>> guidelines for chairs (a good starting point could be RP Working Group
>> >>> guidelines for moderators). But we have to be aware of the
>> limitations.
>> >>>
>> >>> The role of the chair is already demanding in face-to-face meetings,
>> where
>> >>> he has to feel the room, give tempo to the flow (a musical talent
>> helps), be
>> >>> aware of the "power of the unsaid" (quietness, absence, tacit
>> >>> communication). A good chair has ToR for "diplomatic superman":
>> assertive
>> >>> but not dictatorial, open but not indiscrimante, , smart but not
>> >>> intellectually dominant, aware of details but not too pedantic,
>> ...and the
>> >>> list can continue. He needs a emotional intelligence. Experience
>> helps.
>> >>> Ultimately, he has to be credible.
>> >>>
>> >>> All of this makes training for chairing very difficult. I can confirm
>> >>> this, based on Diplo's 20 years of experience in diplomatic training.
>> It is
>> >>> slightly easier in the formal diplomatic context where you can train
>> chairs
>> >>> how to use procedural tools (although that could be a dangerous tool).
>> >>>
>> >>> What can we do for IGF chairs?
>> >>> - prepare guidelines as repository of collective wisdom with realistic
>> >>> expectations about their effectiveness
>> >>> - start nudging chairs towards a new practice: highlight good
>> examples,
>> >>> where possible, select the most RP-friendly chair at the next IGF
>> meeting,
>> >>> collect feedback and experience. Aldo, our resident contrarian,
>> introduced
>> >>> the concept of nudging in our didactics. It works wonders!
>> >>> - increase awareness in remote hubs and the general IGF public about
>> the
>> >>> role of the chair (pressure on this position, limited time
>> management).
>> >>>
>> >>> Now a slight zoom out. I am a strong believer in incremental changes
>> in
>> >>> social dynamics. The IGF RPWG has done an amazing job over the last 5
>> years.
>> >>> Marilia, Bernard, Ginger, Raquel, Cha, Rafik and others have made this
>> >>> possible. One of my images of the IGF meetings is seeing these people
>> >>> running between workshop rooms (logging kilometers of distance at
>> every
>> >>> IGF). Ultimately, this is what makes RP at the IGF unique and
>> successful.
>> >>> Technology is important, as we realised last week when it did not
>> work well,
>> >>> but the human input is decisive. We were fortunate that the IGF
>> secretariat
>> >>> and UN DESA were open to RP innovations. Every year the IGF RPWG
>> started
>> >>> with training of remote moderators many weeks ahead of the meeting,
>> they
>> >>> discuss with remote hubs, they nudge (again) people to participate,
>> they
>> >>> liaison with the secretariat, they and the secretariat work behind the
>> >>> scenes....
>> >>>
>> >>> I do not know why the IGF RPWG is quiet in this discussion. I know
>> that
>> >>> they are modest (big achievements, low rhetoric), but they should
>> speak out
>> >>> more for the sake of improvement. Ultimately, we should build on their
>> >>> experience. We, as the IGF community, have neglected to recognize
>> enough the
>> >>> great success of RP and need to give it another push without making
>> it too
>> >>> formal (a risk to kill innovation). RP at IGF 2.0 needs mix of
>> recognition,
>> >>> funding (RPWG people are/were volunteers for work which is highly
>> >>> professional) and the ownership of the IGF community.
>> >>>
>> >>> I hope to hear from the working group people! More will follow on
>> >>> Anriette's idea for guidelines.....
>> >>>
>> >>> Regards, Jovan
>> >>>
>> >>> Email: jovank at diplomacy.edu | Twitter: @jovankurbalija
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> The latest from Diplo: Learn about Internet governance and ICT
>> policy:
>> >>> enrol for the 2012 Internet Governance Capacity Building Programme
>> (more
>> >>> info).
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> On 2/22/12 8:47 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> Hi all
>> >>>
>> >>> Based on my observation at the meetings here in Geneva in the last
>> week
>> >>> I think one of the main problems is that meeting chairs need to play a
>> >>> central role.
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> This is partly covered by this text that is in the document below:
>> >>>
>> >>> Preparing a clear comprehensive guideline for remote participation
>> >>> and its moderation and post session or meeting reporting for meeting
>> >>> hosts, facilitators and chairs.
>> >>>
>> >>> We do need the guidelines.. but we also need more formality to elevate
>> >>> the status of RM. Meeting chairs should formally welcoming remote
>> >>> participants, naming them so that everyone who is physically present
>> is
>> >>> aware that they are part of the meeting, and actively encouraging them
>> >>> to participate.
>> >>>
>> >>> Budgeting is also key. Does the RM working group have a draft budget
>> >>> that can be given to meeting organisers? They need to plan in advance
>> >>> for the additional expense involved.
>> >>>
>> >>> Anriette
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> On 21/02/12 23:10, Deirdre Williams wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> Dear Sala and everyone,
>> >>>
>> >>> I would suggest one change to smooth the argument - move the fifth
>> >>> paragraph to follow the second - see below.
>> >>>
>> >>> Otherwise I still believe that we need to make the "we must have
>> remote
>> >>> participation" argument as forcefully as possible, and with that in
>> mind
>> >>> I would put the suggestions - the paragraphs that say 'how' in a
>> >>> separate statement. In this case the statement would close at
>> paragraph
>> >>> 8, with paragraph 15 moved up as the conclusion. I haven't done that
>> to
>> >>> the document because no one seems to agree with me :-)
>> >>>
>> >>> Best wishes to all and good luck to those on the front line in Geneva
>> >>> De
>> >>>
>> >>> 1. 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.
>> >>>
>> >>> 2. The IGC believes that Remote Participation (RP) should be an
>> integral
>> >>> part of Internet Governance and IGF Policy Processes. It is impossible
>> >>> to sustain an inclusive global policy process without effective remote
>> >>> participation.
>> >>>
>> >>> 3 was 5. The MAG and IGF Secretariats should start working with the
>> >>> host to ensure that real time transcriptions are available for all
>> >>> sessions and not just the Main Sessions.
>> >>>
>> >>> 4 was 3. 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 and former IGC Civil
>> >>> Society Coordinator Vittorio Bertola.
>> >>>
>> >>> 5 was 4. 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.
>> >>>
>> >>> 6. Also MAG members trying to participate online had difficulty in
>> >>> contacting moderators, partly because the moderators were serving more
>> >>> than one function.
>> >>>
>> >>> 7. 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:
>> >>>
>> >>> · Ensuring equal participation between online and offline
>> participants
>> >>> through planning meetings to give online and offline participants an
>> >>> equal opportunity to participate and contribute to meetings.
>> >>>
>> >>> · Ensuring that there is sufficient capacity and appropriate
>> bandwidth
>> >>> to sustain remote participation by liaising with hosts well in advance
>> >>> to enable greater interactions from offline participants.
>> >>>
>> >>> · Preparing a clear comprehensive guideline for remote participation
>> >>> and its moderation and post session or meeting reporting for meeting
>> >>> hosts, facilitators and chairs.
>> >>>
>> >>> · Clearly advertising opportunities for RP in advance of all
>> meetings,
>> >>> with clear guidance for participants on the opportunities to engage
>> >>> through RP that will be available.
>> >>>
>> >>> · Always assigning exclusive remote participation
>> >>> coordinator/moderators (who do not have other jobs at the same time,
>> and
>> >>> are responsible for interactions between the meeting’s physical
>> >>> participants/current speaker, the Chair and the remote participants).
>> >>>
>> >>> · Establishing 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.
>> >>>
>> >>> · Providing as much interactivity as possible by giving remote
>> >>> participants to interact and engage in meetings.
>> >>>
>> >>> · Providing multiple methods – video, voice and text channel, as
>> well
>> >>> as real-time transcription and video streaming – of coverage of the
>> >>> meeting
>> >>>
>> >>> · Enabling the meeting and remote participation through interactive
>> >>> presentations access through RP.
>> >>>
>> >>> · Creating 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 and
>> to
>> >>> ensure the incorporation of critical elements that have been
>> highlighted
>> >>> to ensure improved remote participation processes.
>> >>>
>> >>> 8. Because only limited funds are available for face- to -face
>> >>> 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.
>> >>>
>> >>> 9. We also encourage greater partnership between the governments and
>> >>> private sector in enhancing remote participation.
>> >>>
>> >>> 10. We have to move beyond advocacy to listing and creating tangible
>> >>> outcomes to make improved, stable and sustainable remote
>> participation a
>> >>> reality.
>> >>>
>> >>> 11. 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.
>> >>>
>> >>> 12. However there is room to improve processes and create an IGF
>> culture
>> >>> where remote participation is prioritised through exploring tested
>> >>> methodology.
>> >>>
>> >>> 13. The appropriate technical solutions need also to be explored as
>> well
>> >>> bandwidth and ensuring that there is uninterrupted power supply and
>> >>> redundancy options where back up generators are critical to maintain a
>> >>> consistent and seamless flow. The MAG and IGF Secretariats should also
>> >>> ensure that there is sufficient and dedicated bandwidth capacity to
>> >>> sustain the volume of traffic from remote participation.
>> >>>
>> >>> 14. Aside from having the appropriate technical solutions and should
>> >>> also include the following:-
>> >>>
>> >>> · Outreach;
>> >>>
>> >>> · Mapping local and regional stakeholders;
>> >>>
>> >>> · Coordinating with people on the ground significantly 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
>> >>>
>> >>> 15. We also express our support of the IGF RPWG which published
>> >>> guidelines and recommendations for remote participation and IGF 2011
>> >>> WS-67 participants prepared a draft of e-participation principles
>> >>> <http://discuss.diplomacy.edu/e-participation/?p=1>.
>> >>> <http://discuss.diplomacy.edu/e-participation/?p=1>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> On 21 February 2012 15:46, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro
>> >>> <salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com
>> >>> <mailto:salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com>> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> Dear All,
>> >>>
>> >>> Thank you for your contributions and comments. As you can imagine,
>> >>> more than 48 hours has passed since putting the Statement to the
>> >>> list for feedback and rough consensus. We have tried as best as
>> >>> possible to include your comments into the Statement on the
>> >>> Workspace. Thank you Izumi for initiating the process and De for
>> >>> consolidating the text and numerous others who have contributed.
>> >>>
>> >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/digressit/archives/32
>> >>>
>> >>> The Civil Society members of the CSTD can alert others to the IGC
>> >>> statement. Whilst we are wrapping up the Statement to enable Izumi
>> >>> and Marilia to take our perspectives, we should encourage dialogue
>> >>> on how we can actively contribute in this area.
>> >>>
>> >>> If there are volunteers who want to be more involved perhaps you
>> >>> could engage in further dialogue on how to help out. I have copied
>> >>> the text below.
>> >>>
>> >>> Warm Regards,
>> >>> Sala
>> >>>
>> >>> URL: http://www.igcaucus.org/digressit/archives/32
>> >>>
>> >>> 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.
>> >>>
>> >>> The IGC believes that Remote Participation should be an integral
>> >>> part of Internet Governance and IGF Policy Processes. It is
>> >>> impossible to sustain an inclusive global policy process without
>> >>> effective remote participation.
>> >>>
>> >>> 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 and former IGC Civil
>> >>> Society Coordinator 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.
>> >>>
>> >>> The MAG and IGF Secretariats should start working with the host
>> to
>> >>> ensure that real time transcriptions are available for all
>> sessions
>> >>> and not just the Main Sessions.
>> >>>
>> >>> 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:
>> >>>
>> >>> * Ensuring equal participation between online and offline
>> >>> participants through planning meetings to give online and
>> >>> offline participants an equal opportunity to participate and
>> >>> contribute to meetings.
>> >>>
>> >>> * Ensuring that there is sufficient capacity and appropriate
>> >>> bandwidth to sustain remote participation by liaising with
>> >>> hosts well in advance to enable greater interactions from
>> >>> offline participants.
>> >>>
>> >>> * Preparing a clear comprehensive guideline for remote
>> >>> participation and its moderation and post session or meeting
>> >>> reporting for meeting hosts, facilitators and chairs.
>> >>>
>> >>> * Clearly advertising opportunities for RP in advance of all
>> >>> meetings, with clear guidance for participants on the
>> >>> opportunities to engage through RP that will be available.
>> >>>
>> >>> * Always assigning exclusive remote participation
>> >>> coordinator/moderators (who do not have other jobs at the
>> same
>> >>> time, and are responsible for interactions between the
>> >>> meeting’s physical participants/current speaker, the Chair
>> and
>> >>> the remote participants).
>> >>>
>> >>> * Establishing 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.
>> >>>
>> >>> * Providing as much interactivity as possible by giving
>> remote
>> >>> participants to interact and engage in meetings.
>> >>>
>> >>> * Providing multiple methods – video, voice and text channel,
>> as
>> >>> well as real-time transcription and video streaming – of
>> >>> coverage of the meeting
>> >>>
>> >>> * Enabling the meeting and remote participation through
>> >>> interactive presentations access through RP.
>> >>>
>> >>> * Creating 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 and to ensure the incorporation of critical
>> >>> elements that have been highlighted to ensure improved
>> remote
>> >>> participation processes.
>> >>>
>> >>> Because only limited funds are available for face- to -face
>> >>> 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.
>> >>>
>> >>> We also encourage greater partnership between the governments and
>> >>> private sector in enhancing remote participation.
>> >>>
>> >>> We have to move beyond advocacy to listing and creating tangible
>> >>> outcomes to make improved, stable and sustainable 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 exploring tested
>> >>> methodology.
>> >>>
>> >>> The appropriate technical solutions need also to be explored as
>> well
>> >>> bandwidth and ensuring that there is uninterrupted power supply
>> and
>> >>> redundancy options where back up generators are critical to
>> maintain
>> >>> a consistent and seamless flow. The MAG and IGF Secretariats
>> should
>> >>> also ensure that there is sufficient and dedicated bandwidth
>> >>> capacity to sustain the volume of traffic from remote
>> participation.
>> >>>
>> >>> Aside from having the appropriate technical solutions and should
>> >>> also include the following:-
>> >>>
>> >>> · Outreach;
>> >>>
>> >>> · Mapping local and regional stakeholders;
>> >>>
>> >>> · Coordinating with people on the ground significantly 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
>> >>>
>> >>> We also express our support of the IGF RPWG which published
>> >>> guidelines and recommendations for remote participation and IGF
>> 2011
>> >>> WS-67 participants prepared a draft of e-participation principles
>> >>> <http://discuss.diplomacy.edu/e-participation/?p=1>.
>> >>> <http://discuss.diplomacy.edu/e-participation/?p=1>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 1:08 AM, Roland Perry
>> >>> <roland at internetpolicyagency.com
>> >>> <mailto:roland at internetpolicyagency.com>> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> In message <46B69E1D-CF91-4E31-A9CC-
>> 4DD306D57CB0 at privaterra.org
>> >>> <mailto:46B69E1D-CF91-4E31-A9CC-4DD306D57CB0 at privaterra.org
>> >>,
>> >>> at 11:21:13 on Sun, 19 Feb 2012, Robert Guerra
>> >>> <rguerra at privaterra.org <mailto:rguerra at privaterra.org>>
>> writes
>> >>>
>> >>> What type of assistance and/or support will be provided -
>> >>> well, hopefully we'll find out soon from the Secretariat
>> >>> and/or Google
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> Do they have a product which competes with the current market
>> >>> leaders from Cisco and Adobe? What the IGF needs is something
>> >>> which works, of course - historically their tools have been
>> >>> allegedly very fussy about exactly what version of 'flash' or
>> >>> whatever you have installed, and that sort of thing is half
>> the
>> >>> battle.
>> >>> --
>> >>> Roland Perry
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> ____________________________________________________________
>> >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>> >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> >>> <mailto: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
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> --
>> >>> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala
>> >>>
>> >>> Tweeter: @SalanietaT
>> >>> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro
>> >>> Cell: +679 998 2851 <tel:%2B679%20998%202851>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> ____________________________________________________________
>> >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>> >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> >>> <mailto: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
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> --
>> >>> “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
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>> --
>> ------------------------------------------------------
>> anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org
>> executive director, association for progressive communications
>> www.apc.org
>> po box 29755, melville 2109
>> south africa
>> tel/fax +27 11 726 1692
>>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
>
>
--
Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade
FGV Direito Rio
Center for Technology and Society
Getulio Vargas Foundation
Rio de Janeiro - Brazil
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20120222/7032dcee/attachment.htm>
-------------- 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