[governance] Remote Participation
Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro
salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com
Fri Feb 24 23:47:43 EST 2012
Dear Imran,
Thank you for this. I am grateful for the work that you have put into this.
Sala
On Sat, Feb 25, 2012 at 4:12 PM, Imran Ahmed Shah <ias_pk at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Dear All, with reference to the comments of "Deirdre Williams" and call
> from Sala to draft different point of views together. Please find hereunder
> the required draft.
>
> 25 Feb 2012
> Draft
> An Article on Remote Participation******
> Many of the individuals, working groups (like RPWG) and public and
> private organizations has worked a lot in advocating the requirements and
> functionalities development of the right means and utilities to eliminate
> the face to face meeting by facilitating them through different
> applications, whereas the focal point of the meeting participants may
> obtain the presence of the remote participants and/or the individuals or
> groups may get connected with the face to face meeting participants without
> missing the meeting while they are not physically present in the meeting.
> ****
> Although it is beneficial for both ends but we can’t eliminate the
> fundamental requirements of the needs and arrangements of “Face-to-Face” as
> well as “Remote” Meetings. There are different scenarios in day to day life
> where everyone has a lot of responsibilities, problem, engagements like
> minimum required arrangements for local or foreign visit includes
> Passport/Visa, Leaving Station, Office/Home/ Family, Funds, Travelling and
> Hotel accommodation to attend the Face-to-Face meetings. However,
> Participation to a Remote-Meeting also have justifiable problem to get
> connected remotely, to be attentive and to obtaining (getting) the
> attention of all the participants all the time. He/She have to face the
> problems of his side which includes client-side deice/computer,
> electricity, lights, Internet Connectivity, two-way Audio/Video/Text
> Streaming, interruptions of people and environment voices around him/her.
> And even if he is always remain connected to the meeting remotely, both-end
> live interactivity is also required for your voices to be heard to all
> other participants. In our cases, yes we need the Interaction of Remote
> Moderator, Chair and other staff and participants to deliver the concern,
> point of view or ideas and comments to be heard at focal meeting point.
> Moderator has to pass on the concerns of the Remote Participants like a
> translator, remote participants either may be away from his desk when his
> point of view was communicated by the moderator and when the Chair or F2F
> participants needs reply or provide a chance to speak live/online. The
> remote participant may skip a repeated call for him because he was not
> attentive at that moment, now he has missed the chance and the main purpose
> of his remote participation.****
> It is real world because we have to care for both North and South poles,
> and we can’t expect ideal situation everywhere and for everyone. We have
> slogan of One World, One Internet and Everyone Connected, but in fact we
> can’t assume to expect or provide guaranteed same quality of service for
> everyone and everywhere round the globe.****
> Most economical is remote participation and maximum beneficial is
> Face-to-Face Meeting. Neither the requirements of Face-to-Face meetings can
> be eliminated nor the remote participations. We need a balance between the
> both types of participations. What we can try to ensure that the Focal
> Meeting Point should facilitate the multiple nodes, utilities and broadband
> Internet connections to facility Remote Participation. It is also proposed
> that the remote participants would be provided interaction in the meetings
> or workshops with a two way interaction. For example face-to-face meeting
> participants are given chance to speak from the Chair one by one according
> to the sitting arrangements and face-plate, in order to complete the
> discussion round the remote participants should also be asked to give their
> comments as the F2F participants were asked. And like a F2F meeting
> participants give the arguments or reply to one another, the remote
> participants would also be able to communicate with all other participants
> beyond the text chat only. Remote Participation should be live, interactive
> and two way, not only for the participants who join the meeting remotely,
> but also for the participants who are present in the meeting and
> interacting live with each / any of the remote participant. (for instance
> the functionality and basic theme of the tele-presence of Video
> Conferencing service may be explored).****
> Face-to-Face meeting are very difficult for the participants from
> Developing Economies, LDC or LLC so, they could get maximum benefit out of
> this RP but their Face-to-Face meeting participation opportunities (like
> travel funding support) should not be reduced only by the reason of the
> availability to participate remotely. ****
> Local & National Hubs for remote participation may also be expanded like
> last year we arranged three different hubs in two major cities of our
> country (PK).****
> ---------------------------------------****
> Different Contributions, comments and reviews of members may be copied in
> this portion and above text may also be modified according to the comments
> and references of the contributors.****
> ---------------------------------------****
> Thanking you and Best Regards****
> Imran Ahmad Shah
> [for IGFPAK]****
>
> >________________________________
> > From: Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro <
> salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com>
> >To: Deirdre Williams <williams.deirdre at gmail.com>
> >Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> >Sent: Saturday, 25 February 2012, 6:10
>
> >Subject: Re: [governance] Remote Participation
> >
> >On Sat, Feb 25, 2012 at 12:19 PM, Deirdre Williams <
> williams.deirdre at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >Perhaps we need a statement that communicates 2 diffrent points of view?
> Compromise is not always possible.
> >
> >Would you like to Suggest some drafting languahe to that effect?
> >
> >Deirdre
> >>
> >>
> >>On 24 February 2012 19:51, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro <
> salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>Thanks everyone how do you all propose to reach a compromise between
> what Adam raised and others are raising. Please make suggestions to
> drafting language in the Statement Workspace, see:
> http://www.igcaucus.org/digressit/archives/47
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>On Sat, Feb 25, 2012 at 11:36 AM, Avri Doria <avri at ella.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>Hi,
> >>>>
> >>>>I agree with what has been said in this thread by the past few writers.
> >>>>
> >>>>I used to not beleive in having a Remote only meeting, but now I think
> I do.
> >>>>I tried to participate in meetings remotely and found it to be a near
> total failure. I am live in a bandwidth rich zone.
> >>>>
> >>>>Plus even when it works technically it does not work in a practical
> sense unless the chair, the secretariat, the remote moderator and the other
> participants actually make a concerted allowance for it. And I do not
> think I have ever seen in a case where everyone was making allowance.
> >>>>
> >>>>The best it ever was, was when the RCWG was doing all the work, and
> they really had to work hard to make it even resemble particpation.
> >>>>
> >>>>avri
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>On 24 Feb 2012, at 18:20, Deirdre Williams wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> I also support what Ginger and Marilia and Anriette are saying.
> >>>>> What I could possibly want more is a system that works rather than
> an intention on paper. I hope this is not too blunt but sometimes I feel
> that 'people' are saying "remote participation is a good thing", and then
> just stopping there. An excellent ploy might be to have just one meeting
> remote access only - so that everyone knows how the other side lives.
> >>>>> And I think that we all need to fight for it to make it 'really
> real'. Yes there will be breakdowns - electrical and otherwise - and yes
> we're only just scratching the surface of the language difficulties, but if
> we believe in it we can really make it happen.
> >>>>> Only we have to believe in it and support it - all of us.
> >>>>> Deirdre
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On 24 February 2012 19:04, 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
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> --
> >>>>> “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
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>--
> >>>
> >>>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
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>--
> >>“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
> >
> >
> >
>
>
--
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/20120225/7a2312c5/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