Now called: Compiling guideline points Re: [governance] May consultation: IGC input RP and access

Tue May 1 10:08:32 EDT 2012

Speaking particularly to Jovan's mention of 'hubs' -

one of the recurring themes in the IGC space is that the IGF is not and
should not be considered as a meeting held once a year to discuss internet
governance issues. Rather it is a continuing process of dialogue.

That being the case, it would be desirable that the hubs should exist
within the same context - that is they should be active all the time to
extend the internet governance discussion into the global
community/communities. The IGF has spread outwards into regional and  local
IGFs; now perhaps micro-local, geographic community level IG discussion
needs to be encouraged, together with the wider ranging community of
interest groupings that can be facilitated by the technology.

The problems come with how to foster and encourage continuing discussion
and how to aggregate and synthesise the resulting ideas so that they can be
shared continually and considered by the widest possible community.

I seem to have an aptitude for dreaming impossible dreams :-(

But it should be possible to make a start by considering the hubs as
'permanent' creations which attempt to keep the discussion active
throughout the year with the 'reward' of the camaraderie which can be
occasioned by remote participation at the big annual meeting.

Ideally the hubs are up and running now and ready to participate.

Deirdre

On 30 April 2012 10:14, Jovan Kurbalija <jovank at diplomacy.edu> wrote:

>  Following up on Adam's invitation to discuss, here are a few comments on
> IGF RP....
>
> It is good that we are moving out of Parento's formula of having 20% of
> investment (people, training) contributing 80% to the success of remote
> participation. The CSTD paper is a good blend of summarising experience
> over the last 6 years and paving the way for the future development. The RP
> process proves the importance of organic and bottom-up policy making.
>
> Here are a few more concrete comments:
>
> - One can see cross-fertilisation among different policy spaces. ICANN,
> which introduced transcription into the IG policy space, has effective RP.
> The WSIS Forum has introduced also highly functional RP. Last week, INET
> had both RP and remote hubs. Each policy space has its own specificities,
> but there is a lot of possibilities for learning from each other. At the
> next WSIS Forum there will be a session on e-participation. Ginger will
> maintain the tradition of RP-workshop at the IGF Baku, as well. Diplo has
> been trying to promote e-participation in other policy spaces in the
> context of the project "20 years of e-diplomacy". The first discussions are
> highly encouraging.
>
> - Since the "venue" problems are identified and will be fixed, the main
> challenge will be to have effective local hubs. The key contribution of
> e-participation will be in linking global/regional IG debates to the local
> policy context. The benefits will flow both ways from global to local
> (understanding the wider policy context) and from local to global (having
> reality check about policy discussions). Local hubs should be part of the
> local policy processes as well. I am sure that Ginger, Marilia, Bernard,
> Vlada and other conveyers of local hubs can develop the recommendations for
> the sub-section on local hubs.
>
> - E-facilitation and local hubs are one the ways to engage "silent
> majority". The more IGF moves beyond traditional IGF circles, the more
> relevant it will be to the world at large. Typically, the e-IGF attracts
> the most active people on social media. But, e-facilitators - especially in
> local hubs - should engage people beyond the "usual circles".  In the
> build-up for the IGF, local hubs should facilitate discussion on the most
> pressing local issues.
>
> - We should develop some sort of incentives for local hubs facilitators.
> It could be participation in the next IGF for the most successful hubs and
> publishing of reports from the local hubs. Last year we ran a pilot course
> on e-facilitation.  The results were good, and successful participants
> received a certificate, which some of them used for e-facilitation in other
> policy spaces. This could be also another encouragement.
>
> I reiterate Ginger's offer of Diplo support if we can help in any way. I
> look forward to the continued discussion.
>
> Regards, Jovan
>
>
> On 4/30/12 3:53 PM, Keisha Taylor wrote:
>
> Hi All,
>
> I like the ideas listed below. I think that the inclusion of social media
> should be more formally introduced as part of remote participation so that
> even if the sessions sometimes do not reach people (for
> technical/timezone/bandwidth etc issues), the conversations surrounding the
> sessions can reach a much bigger audience even if the actual sessions were
> missed.
>
> I also think that it may be useful to use the IGF to gage opinions or
> insight on various issues from not only  IGF attendees but from those who
> cannot attend. This be through surveys or other lightweight but effective
> initiatives. The results of this I think can provide some very interesting
> insight.
>
> Best
>
> Keisha
>
> On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 2:12 PM, Ginger Paque <ginger at paque.net> wrote:
>
>>  Hello everyone, and thanks for taking this important discussion
>> seriously.
>>
>> Adam Peake suggested we start a formal set of guidelines or input to the
>> IGF Remote Participation and Access issues for Baku.
>>  There have been great suggestions already, which I have compiled below.
>> If anything is missing, please let us/me know. I add any additional
>> comments, and will put this in a more coherent format before the end of the
>> week.
>>
>>  Ginger: Support the DCAD on access issues as RP and access are closely
>> linked Deidre says: Avoid conflating the issues
>>  Have a liason between RP working group or others who are working on RP
>> with Bernard or the IGF secretariat, to facilitate coordination of
>> volunteer efforts.
>>  Ask that experienced and new interested MAG members organize to support
>> these issues (Katitza? Vlada? others?)
>>  Add the guidelines and principles from previous IGF workshops.
>>
>>  Anriette Esterhuysen: refer to the report of the CSTD working
>> group on IGF improvements:
>>
>> 2. Enhance measures for broader participation
>>
>> 42. Remote participation is an integral part of the IGF. While remote
>> participation has improved, in particular through remote moderators and
>> hubs, there is still room for improvement in the following areas:
>>
>> (a) The Secretariat should continue to ensure the availability of
>> adequate technical and human resources, including remote moderators;
>> (b) Chairs and moderators should give remote and on-site participants
>> equal recognition and the opportunity to participate;
>>
>> (c) Low-bandwidth connections to remote participation tools should be
>> accommodated;
>>
>> (d) Linguistic diversity in remote participation should be fostered by
>> ensuring that online meeting platforms interface with on-site
>> interpretation;
>>
>> (e) Mechanisms that facilitate remote participation, such as live
>> transcripts, should be kept as an integral part of the IGF. Such
>> mechanisms are invaluable not only to remote participants, but also to
>> non-English-speakers and to people with disabilities, whether they are
>> on site or not.
>>
>> 43. It is important to ensure the accessibility of the IGF’s facilities
>> to persons with disabilities.
>>
>> 44. To improve participation in the IGF of diverse linguistic and
>> cultural groups, it is important to expand linguistic diversity
>> functions in the work of the IGF. For example, this could be achieved by
>> (resources permitting):
>>
>> (a) Increasing the translation of key documents into United Nations
>> official languages;
>>
>> (b) Exploring the use of simultaneous machine translations based on
>> realtime English transcripts;
>>
>> (c) Encouraging the use of any of the United Nations official languages,
>> not only English, as the working language in some workshops.
>>
>> 3. Improve the online visibility and accessibility of the IGF
>>
>> 45. A first step in this direction should be to enhance the IGF’s
>> website by providing interactive functionalities and making it more
>> attractive and inclusive. It should also maintain its conformance with
>> open standards and further improve accessibility to persons with
>> disabilities.
>>
>> http://unctad.org/meetings/en/SessionalDocuments/a67d65_en.pdf
>>  Deirdre William: identify and train moderators, consider some kind of
>> recognition for volunteers
>>  Nnenna: Avoid last minute changes in programming, and consider how they
>> affect in situ and RP when necessary
>>  Janna Anderson: Good lighting in the room helps RP images - Roland
>> Perry: have to manage ppt/presentations in lighting as well.
>> Tim Davies: Add social aggregator tool
>>
>>
>> On 30 April 2012 08:18, Roland Perry <roland at internetpolicyagency.com>wrote:
>>
>>> In message <CAMz5XN6UmOe4X3U-DNTJsSnURUqu0p47G0-xWGKf8H=
>>> xfWm80Q at mail.gmail.com>, at 08:24:44 on Mon, 30 Apr 2012, Deirdre
>>> Williams <williams.deirdre at gmail.com> writes
>>>
>>>> I also think that we should look at RP the other way round too.
>>>> Currently it isn't possible to make not being physically present the same
>>>> as being physically present. Therefore we at least should be clear about
>>>> what are MUST HAVES and what may come later.
>>>>
>>>> Also I think it is vital NOT TO conflate RP with access for people with
>>>> disabilities. They are both separate and important issues, and both of them
>>>> deserve individual attention
>>>>
>>>
>>> My point is that the same solution is equally useful to either
>>> community. I wasn't making a judgement about which community
>>> "deserved" the solution more than the other.
>>> --
>>> Roland Perry
>>>
>>>
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> 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
>>
>>
>  ****
>

-- 
“The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William
Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20120501/73a94073/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