[governance] Remote Participation
Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro
salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com
Fri Feb 24 18:08:46 EST 2012
May I invite you all to please also comment on the Statement Workspace
which is on the IGC website. it's marked final to distinguish it from the
earlier draft. However, it is not final.
On Sat, Feb 25, 2012 at 11:04 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen <anriette at apc.org>wrote:
> Hi all..at two of the workshops I was involved in in Nairobi RM did not
> work.. either not at all, or partially. IN the last few months I have
> had bad experiences in trying to be a remote participant in Geneva based
> meetings. When my slow connection speed from South Africa interfered
> with my access to the meeting I was blamed for this.. and told that
> other people had no problems (they happened to be in Paris and Rio..
> places with much faster internet than what I have access to).
>
> As for the MAG meetings last week.. I personally spoke to IGF
> secretariat about the difficulties that remote participants were having
> in the morning. There was no improvement because the person responsible
> was having to take notes that were displayed from his PC onto the
> screen. I raised the concerns on the last day directly, during lunch,
> with the Chair from Azerbaidjan and with the Chair and then there was a
> response.
>
> But, if RM was taken seriously enough then more resoures would have been
> made available. I am not blaming the secretariat.. they were stretched
> and doing the best they can. The problem is deeper than just this one
> incident.
>
> I strongly support Ginger's points, and Marilia's additions. RM has to
> be taken MUCH more seriously if it is going to be a serious way for
> people to participate, and influence processes, without being physically
> present.
>
> RM is beginning to feel like MSP (Multi-stakeholder participation). The
> fact that it 'exists' is used to give credibility to processes that
> still have a very long way to go in being really inclusive. If RM is to
> be taken seriously it needs more focus and more budget. As long as RM is
> seen primarily as a way to 'save money and look good' it will not be
> effective as an alternative to having generally excluded actors
> physically present at meetings.
>
> Anriette
>
>
> On 24/02/12 22:00, Marilia Maciel wrote:
> > 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
> > <mailto: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 <mailto:VirginiaP at diplomacy.edu>
> > Diplo Foundation
> >
> > Internet Governance Capacity Building Programme
> > www.diplomacy.edu/ig <http://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
> > <mailto: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
> > <mailto: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
> > <mailto: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
> > <mailto: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 <tel:%2B679%20998%202851>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> “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 <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
> > >
> >
> >
> > ____________________________________________________________
> > 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
> >
> >
> >
> > ____________________________________________________________
> > 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
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade
> > FGV Direito Rio
> >
> > Center for Technology and Society
> > Getulio Vargas Foundation
> > Rio de Janeiro - Brazil
>
> --
> ------------------------------------------------------
> 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
>
>
--
Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala
Tweeter: @SalanietaT
Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro
Cell: +679 998 2851
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20120225/a062aee3/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