[governance] Remote Participation

Marilia Maciel mariliamaciel at gmail.com
Fri Feb 24 15:00:54 EST 2012 

I support Ginger's e-mail, so I will not repeat her arguments.

There is only one additional point I would like to make in response to
Adam, when he quoted what the Chair's report said about remote
participation. While it is totally understandable that people who happen to
be working for the IGF will come up with positive results and be inclined
to see the bright side of things, I believe that civil society is expected
to present more meaningful, in-depth and constructive analysis of the
process, including of remote participation.

The difficulties remote participants faced went beyond a simple power
shortage on the last day of the IGF, as you implied. Technical and human
resources were not sufficient. This is exemplified by: simple audio
adjustments that technicians did not know how to perform, or by the fact
that the hired staff of remote moderators you mentioned were on strike on
the first day of the IGF because they were not receiving enough money to
cover for basic expenses at the venue, or even by the fact that some
workshop organizers, despite all the requests from the secretariat, did not
bother to reply if they had a moderator or not.

So the fact that remote participation is a priority on IGF papers, as you
pointed out, says little. You asked Deidre "what she could possibly want
more". If you read Ginger's e-mail you will find a list of wishes. And if
the community thinks RP is important (and I think that the increasing
interest for remote participation confirms it is ), then we should make a
collective effort to take the opportunity of the process of discussing the
implementation of IGF improvements to give RP a big push.

Marília


On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 8:47 AM, Ginger Paque <gpaque at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
>>
>>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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/20120224/53fd188f/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