Now called: Compiling guideline points Re: [governance] May consultation: IGC input RP and access
Jovan Kurbalija
jovank at diplomacy.edu
Wed May 2 02:51:58 EDT 2012
Exactly, Deirdre, local hubs should be part of a sustained, ongoing
process, as permanent as possible. But I do not think that one
can/should impose any arrangement, especially in a bottom-up and
volunteer process. People should be nudged into action, by showing that
there is a possibility to link their local discussions and concerns to
global policy making.
Here a few possible reasons why hubs should be strengthened (in
cooperation with other existing networks/frameworks):
- to connect with people addressing similar issues worldwide (policy
cross-fertilisation can be very useful; we feel better if we realise
that our local problems are not unique, as we tend to believe).
- to connect with global (IGF) and regional processes so participants
see that their local efforts have some resonance in larger policy
shaping environments.
- to move beyond immediate social circles (communities - especially
online - tend to look inwards and to gather people who think the same
way); hubs should encourage diversity.
Local hubs and similar forms of e-participation may also help in
bridging the increasingly wide gap between local communities and
regional/global policy processes.
Regards, Jovan
On 5/1/12 4:08 PM, Deirdre Williams wrote:
> 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
> <mailto: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
>> <mailto: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
>> <mailto:roland at internetpolicyagency.com>> wrote:
>>
>> In message
>> <CAMz5XN6UmOe4X3U-DNTJsSnURUqu0p47G0-xWGKf8H=xfWm80Q at mail.gmail.com
>> <mailto:xfWm80Q at mail.gmail.com>>, at 08:24:44 on Mon, 30
>> Apr 2012, Deirdre Williams <williams.deirdre at gmail.com
>> <mailto: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
>> <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
>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir
> William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979
--
*Jovan Kurbalija, PhD*
Director, DiploFoundation
Rue de Lausanne 56 *| *1202 Geneva*|***Switzerland
*Tel.*+41 (0) 22 7410435 *| **Mobile.*+41 (0) 797884226
*Email: *jovank at diplomacy.edu <mailto:jovank at diplomacy.edu>*|
**Twitter:*@jovankurbalija<http://twitter.com/jovankurbalija>
*The latest from Diplo:*From the fundamentals of diplomacy to the most
prominent 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20120502/d7879b66/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