[governance] Remote Participation

Ginger Paque gpaque at gmail.com
Thu Feb 23 05:47:20 EST 2012 

Adam said:

I think it's petty to complain about technical problems with the
transcripts etc from the MAG meeting, bad connections happen all the
time (and if MAG members can't work out how to tell a group of people
they are having problems with a connection it perhaps says more about
them than it does about the secretariat/moderators.)

I think that this full discussion and support for RP is very important and
exciting.

I think that using the occasion of the recent meetings as an example and
illustration is a mistake. I agree with Adam that the tech glitches during
last week's meetings should not even be addressed--these are obvious.
Placing emphasis on tech details draws attention from the more valid, and
more important principles. I know I am repeating myself, but I think they
boil down to just one:

RP must be institutionalized in meeting processes.

The only serious problem I see with last week's meetings was the lack of a
remote moderator and clear processes. If RP -- and I mean remote
participation and remote engagement, not remote observation -- were an
automatic, standard part of meeting strategies and processes, the inclusion
of an onsite remote moderator would have been a given, as much as the
presence of the traditional chair and moderator. I dare to say that if one
of the members of the RPWG had been at the meetings, they might have
'requested' to be 'allowed' to act as remote moderator. Remote moderation
and remote participation should not depend on collaboration of volunteers
and serendipity. Implementation of RP may always need the collaboration of
volunteers, and the RPWG exists as a volunteer organization, seeking the
privilege of collaborating, but the planning process should originate in
the IGF structure itself, not in the action of volunteers.

If RP were institutionalized in the IGF process, the Secretariat might ask
the RPWG for collaboration, and issue a call for volunteers.

If RP were institutionalized in the IGF process, the Secretariat might
include a RPWG (or other mechanism) liaison for strategy, planning and
process and instead of an endless series of ad hoc situations.

If RP were institutionalized, Remote Hubs -- an innovation of the RPWG
catalysed by Marilia's energy and organization -- would become part of the
IGF process, not the RPWG process, would include remote hubs whenever
appropriate and would include support for regional IGFs.

I would prefer to see a strong, clear, short statement asking that RP be
institutionalised (maybe that is not the appropriate word) as an integral
part of the IGF meeting process.

Establishing principles and guidelines is separate process which has been
started, and should be coordinated to take advantage of, and include the
different input. It should not be done in a hurry, in response to one
frustrating meeting. Nor should one frustrating meeting opaque the progress
the IGF has made toward inclusive RP. We should use this meeting to
energize forward progress in an orderly manner. Can we form a better
strategy and focus for productive results? I think so. I have not made
comments on the existing statement, because I would re-write it completely,
with a different approach, with points I have made above.

Is it proper/possible for me to propose an alternate text? I do not have
the sense that there is consensus for the posts I have made previously, so
I have not done so.

Anyway, again, my 2 cents. Cheers for the energy around remote
participation!

Ginger



Ginger (Virginia) Paque

VirginiaP at diplomacy.edu
Diplo Foundation
Internet Governance Capacity Building Programme
www.diplomacy.edu/ig
*The latest from Diplo....*From the fundamentals of diplomacy to the most
exciting new trends: check our three online courses starting in May
2012: *Bilateral
Diplomacy*, *Diplomacy of Small States*, and *E-diplomacy*.  Apply now to
reserve your place: http://www.diplomacy.edu/courses**



On 23 February 2012 05:13, Adam Peake <ajp at glocom.ac.jp> wrote:

> Comment below:
>
> On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 6:33 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro
> <salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Dear All,
> >
> > Firstly thank you Deirdre for copying it onto word and making it much
> easier
> > to incorporate the new feedback that we received from Schombe, Jovan,
> > Anriette, Jeremy, Roland, Mariela etc.
> >
> > Whilst I am copying the text onto this email, I will also place it on the
> > Statement Workspace as well:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > STATEMENT BY THE CIVIL SOCIETY INTERNET GOVERNANCE CAUCUS ON REMOTE
> > PARTICIPATION
> >
> > We would like to acknowledge the excellent work that the Internet
> Governance
> > Forum Remote Participation Working Group have been doing over the last
> five
> > years. We appreciate the numerous hours of sacrifice and work behind the
> > scenes to build remote participation to what it is today.  We have seen
> how
> > whilst Technology is important, that it goes hand in hand with
> extraordinary
> > levels of sacrifice and commitment.  It is this commitment that enables
> the
> > spirit of the IGF which is in sharing, dialogue, collaboration and
> > ultimately access.
> >
> > We are fortunate that the Internet Governance Forum Secretariat and UN
> DESA
> > are open .and committed to continued improvements to Remote
> Participation.
> > Each year the IGF RPWG commences its operations with training of remote
> > moderators many weeks ahead of the meeting, where they discuss with
> remote
> > hubs and encourage participation and liaise with the Secretariat to make
> > remote participation a reality.
> >
> > We would like to reiterate and underscore 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 (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.
> > We would like to explore how we can assist in working together to address
> > the issues raised in 2008 by various stakeholders that have yet to be
> > addressed[1].
> >
> > 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.
> >
>
> from the Nairobi chair's summary document:
>
> "The entire meeting was Webcast, with video streaming provided from
> the main session room and audio streaming provided from all workshop
> meeting rooms. All the main sessions and workshops had real time
> transcription. The text transcripts and video of all meetings were
> made available through the IGF Website."
>
> I think it's petty to complain about technical problems with the
> transcripts etc from the MAG meeting, bad connections happen all the
> time (and if MAG members can't work out how to tell a group of people
> they are having problems with a connection it perhaps says more about
> them than it does about the secretariat/moderators.)
>
> Thanks,
>
> Adam
>
>
> > 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.
> >
> >  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. Meeting Chairs also play a central role
> in
> > creating a dynamic and inclusive environment that welcomes remote
> > participation.
> >
> > 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 backup 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.
> >
> > ·         Creation of Guidelines for Meeting Chairs and Moderators whilst
> > noting the limitations.
> >
> > ·         Identifying how the private sector, civil society and
> governments
> > can be better involved in the remote hubs etc.
> >
> > ·         Encourage greater collaboration between the IGF RPWG and
> national,
> > sub regional and regional IGFs.
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > Ends
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> >
> > [1] http://wiki.igf-online.net/wiki/IGF_Virtual_Community
> >
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 1:02 PM, Deirdre Williams
> > <williams.deirdre at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Dear Sala,
> >> I have been unavoidably out of contact all day, and am just catching up
> >> with reading the messages.
> >> I am not clear which document you want me to send.
> >> I have attached a word copy of my response yesterday, although from
> >> reading the discussion that has perhaps been superseded during the
> >> discussions today?
> >> Please let me know as I would be delighted to help.
> >> De
> >>
> >>
> >> On 22 February 2012 14:15, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro
> >> <salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Dear Deirdre,
> >>>
> >>> As you know our initial statement was used by the civil society
> component
> >>> of the CSTDWG as advised by Marilia.
> >>>
> >>> If you could please send it in a word document that would be super
> >>> helpful and easy to put up on the Statement Workspace. We will also be
> >>> sending our Statement to the IGF Secretariat.
> >>>
> >>> Kind Regards,
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala
> >>>
> >>> Tweeter: @SalanietaT
> >>> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro
> >>> Cell: +679 998 2851
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir
> William
> >> Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala
> >
> > Tweeter: @SalanietaT
> > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro
> > Cell: +679 998 2851
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ____________________________________________________________
> > 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 --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20120223/8e319372/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