Suggestions for remote participation Re: [governance] IGF2012, Remote Connection

Ginger Paque ginger at paque.net
Fri Nov 9 09:36:55 EST 2012 

Definitely, Lee, thanks for pointing this out.
Twitter:
*paqueg* @paqueg
 <http://twitter.com/paqueg>

1600 participants at #IGF12 <http://twitter.com/search?q=%23IGF12>? What
about the remote participants? Where is that very important count?
Inclusion INCLUDES
#eparticipation<http://twitter.com/search?q=%23eparticipation>


On 9 November 2012 08:30, Lee W McKnight <lmcknigh at syr.edu> wrote:

>  Hi,
>
> If I may comment, and recognizing everyone's hard work; and the need for
> participants and moderators to become more familiar with the processes.
>
> I previously suggested changing the terminology from 'remote' to
> 'distributed' participation.
>
> But whatever we call it, the main challenge is the psychological one of
> retraining our own minds/understanding of who is 'in the room.'   Since it
> is a virtual room.
>
> For example, the just released statistics by category of who 'really'
> attended the 7th IGF: do those include distributed participants?
>
> Lee
>
>
>
>
>  ------------------------------
> *From:* gpaque at gmail.com [gpaque at gmail.com] on behalf of Ginger Paque [
> ginger at paque.net]
> *Sent:* Friday, November 09, 2012 9:16 AM
> *To:* Marilia Maciel
> *Cc:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> *Subject:* Re: Suggestions for remote participation Re: [governance]
> IGF2012, Remote Connection
>
>  Yes, Marilia, this is very important. We will be working on this
> document before posting to the IGC list and Secretariat. If you--or anyone
> else-- would like to join us, please let me know offlist.
>
> We will be actively working to join forces with the DCAD, Tim Davies, and
> others to work towards a compilation of guidelines, principles and
> standards for remote participation, in particular to avoid (as noted by
> Norbert in the session) repeating the same mistakes. We expect to be
> actively involved in the next open consultation to provide this support to
> the RP efforts of the IGF Secretariat (Chengetai and Bernard).
>
> This is an evolving, maturing process, which cannot be sustained by tech
> preparation alone. My first impression is that we now have a lot of
> information that we need, to put together the bigger picture, involving the
> strategies and awareness-raising of panel design, workshop structure and
> event planning. We need an organizational structure that counts remote
> participants as 'real' participants from the beginning. We need not only
> trained remote moderators, but aware and inclusive panels and panel
> moderators who consider remote participation to be part of the meeting.
>
> Thanks to everyone for their efforts and energy to include the rest of the
> world, isolated and/or excluded by distance and different access from the
> meetings in Baku.
>
> Best regards,
> Ginger
>
>
> On 9 November 2012 05:15, Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Thanks for the feedback Ginger. The times zones were difficult to
>> reconcile, but I will look for the transcripts online.
>> Maybe we could send the result of the discussions of the workshop today
>> and the suggestions for improvement that will be made on the list as a
>> contribution to the next Open Consultation.
>>
>>  Marília
>>
>> On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 3:37 PM, Ginger Paque <ginger at paque.net> wrote:
>>
>>> These are excellent points, Marilia. We have been discussing similar
>>> ideas, including Pranesh's suggestion that as remote participants we must
>>> 'make ourselves be noticed'. I think we do need to raise our concerns in a
>>> dynamic, strong, constructive way to make this possible. I ask that you
>>> join us tomorrow at WS 52 Remote Participation: Reality and Principles, at
>>> 11:00 a.m. Baku time, conference room 9, where we will discuss these issues
>>> and the way forward. We will continue collaborative work on the Remote
>>> Participation principles, started last year in Nairobi, on an open etherpad
>>> document. The url and password will be published tomorrow morning. If you
>>> cannot join us, we will add your points to the document. We invite others
>>> to make their voices heard, so we can include your points in our final
>>> document. We hope to see you there, or to include you with our work. This
>>> is an important issue of access, and must be addressed.
>>> Obrigada, saludos,
>>> Ginger
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 8 November 2012 10:28, Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at gmail.com>wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi all,
>>>>
>>>>  I would like to start a thread of concrete suggestions for improving
>>>> RP. I know all of us who participated remotely have our impressions of what
>>>> could be better, so why not share them?
>>>>
>>>>  My personal views about being a remote participant today - for the
>>>> first time in the IGF - is that the webcast of all sessions and the
>>>> captioning are tremendous tools, the existence of hubs multiplies IGF
>>>> discussions, and the fact that RP is available to any individual in the
>>>> world is a remarkable sign of openness. But, in spite of all the undeniable
>>>> achievements, progress needs to be made to ensure inclusion of views of
>>>> remote participants into the IGF debate.
>>>>
>>>>  That difficulty, in my opinion, has to do with one main reason: In
>>>> spite of the huge number of remote participants (47 hubs, more than 800
>>>> people last year), the *methodology of most workshop sessions* *remains
>>>> unchanged*. We have not adjust to the new reality and the sessions are
>>>> planned exclusively for those who are physically in the IGF. One possible
>>>> reason for that could be that we have too many sessions on the schedule and
>>>> too many issues to discuss. My feeling was that session moderators were so
>>>> under pressure that, on the heat of the debate, they tended to see remote
>>>> participants as an obstacle to "moving the discussion forward", not as IGF
>>>> participants.
>>>>
>>>>  Maybe* less and longer sessions* on IGF schedule would reduce
>>>> pressure. Time pressure makes people impatient with the difficulties that
>>>> non-native English speakers may have, or with occasional technical
>>>> glitches, which we need to cope with, if we really want to include remote
>>>> participants. It is up to us to decide what we value the most as a
>>>> community: Speed of discussions? Inclusion? Sometimes they are in a
>>>> trade-off.
>>>>
>>>>  It would be important to r*educe the distance between remote
>>>> participants and the session moderator*. Most session moderators don't
>>>> remember to look at the screen and check if questions are popping up in
>>>> Webex. So remote participants lose the "timing" of making interventions.
>>>> Maybe we could establish a procedure so remote participants could *send
>>>> questions to the session moderator before the IGF*, so he could
>>>> incorporate some of them into his own set of questions to the panelists.
>>>> For the "live" questions, the remote participation moderator should have a
>>>> *clear visual way* to sign to the session moderator that a remote
>>>> question has been asked, like raising a red flag. Of course, audio
>>>> interventions need to be more encouraged, even if their moment needs to be
>>>> carefully planned and agreed upon between the session moderators and the
>>>> technical team.
>>>>
>>>>  *There should not be a session without a remote moderator*. Imagine
>>>> someone who blocked her agenda to participate in a workshop and then,
>>>> surprise: you stay in a room talking to the walls. If remote participation
>>>> is an integral part of the IGF, this is unacceptable. Workshops without
>>>> remote moderators should not be approved (for real), and those physically
>>>> present in the room should confirm if the moderator is indeed there. As a
>>>> last resort, anyone could take the role of being a moderator in case the
>>>> person is missing.
>>>>
>>>>  My main point is that, in spite of the technical improvements that
>>>> should always be made, *making remote participation inclusive is up to
>>>> the community, especially of those who plan the sessions*. Some
>>>> organizers did a great job in linking up with remote hubs, planing for the
>>>> participation of remote speakers and participants. But I seems they were
>>>> still a minority.
>>>>
>>>>  To mention the *technical aspects*, to me the greater problem was
>>>> lack of integration between webex, webcast and captioning. Going back and
>>>> forth in different windows was not practical. On a positive side, the
>>>> quality of the image of the webcast seemed to be better, and the cameras
>>>> were placed in a better position inside the room. It helped to read facial
>>>> and body expressions.
>>>>
>>>>  One last point: some time ago, it was proposed that a task force
>>>> would be created to *exchange knowledge and best practices regarding RP
>>>> * with other organizations that have also been struggling and making
>>>> progress at it, such as ITU (and many others as a matter of fact) in the
>>>> UN. I don't know why it did not fly. I hope that political sensitivities do
>>>> not hamper what could be a fruitful dialogue about a topic that is a common
>>>> challenge.
>>>>
>>>>  Best wishes and a safe journey to all returning from Baku!
>>>>
>>>>  Marília
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 9:38 AM, Imran Ahmed Shah <ias_pk at yahoo.com>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>  Hi all,
>>>>>  I was logged into Room #10 remotely, webex but there was no other
>>>>> attendee.
>>>>>  The webex Schedule (as on 6th and 7th) has single first day
>>>>> pre-meeting of 5th Nov but after refreshing promt appear for login and
>>>>> after login it connected me Room #  7th Nov meeting.
>>>>>
>>>>>  I keep trying to obtain response from Moderator (Ms Nina), but could
>>>>> not established interactive response, and I do not know that have she read
>>>>> my text input or not. I think Moderator was too busy in the meeting
>>>>> physically and given zero importance to single Remote Participant. So, RP
>>>>> was useless.
>>>>>
>>>>>  Regards
>>>>>
>>>>>  Imran
>>>>>  (for IGFPAK)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>   ------------------------------
>>>>> *From:* Jean-Yves GATETE <gate.one205 at yahoo.fr>
>>>>> *To:* "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" <governance at lists.igcaucus.org>;
>>>>> Rudi Vansnick <rudi.vansnick at isoc.be>
>>>>> *Sent:* Thursday, 8 November 2012, 3:18
>>>>> *Subject:* Re: [governance] IGF2012, Remote Connection
>>>>>
>>>>>   Hi all,
>>>>>  as Mr Rudi, I ve been following via that webcast tool too. I have
>>>>> the same problem too and the Room10 is not working either.
>>>>>
>>>>>  Wishing you all the best,
>>>>>
>>>>>  Jean-Yves GATETE
>>>>>
>>>>>    *De :* Rudi Vansnick <rudi.vansnick at isoc.be>
>>>>> *À :* Crepin-Leblond Olivier <ocl at gih.com>
>>>>> *Cc :* governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>>>> *Envoyé le :* Jeudi 8 novembre 2012 10h54
>>>>> *Objet :* Re: [governance] IGF2012, Remote Connection
>>>>>
>>>>> I've used the remote participation tools daily (till today). The webex
>>>>> allows to participate through the chat and the Q&A windows, but the webcast
>>>>> is always giving me the same error.
>>>>> If I want to see the room I have to use the webcast tool (
>>>>> http://webcast.igf2012.com/) , which is of course not fully
>>>>> synchronised with the webex session. From room 6 till room 9 the audio in
>>>>> the webcast is very low. With the volume on the max here I can hardly
>>>>> understand the speakers.
>>>>>
>>>>> The descriptions of the rooms workshops in the webcast window is not
>>>>> updated and gives sometimes wrong session information.
>>>>>
>>>>> Rudi Vansnick
>>>>> ------------------ Internet Society Belgium  ---------------------
>>>>> President - CEO                            Tel +32/(0)9/329.39.16
>>>>> rudi.vansnick at isoc.be            Mobile +32/(0)475/28.16.32
>>>>> Dendermondesteenweg 143            B-9070 Destelbergen
>>>>> www.internetsociety.be        "The Internet is for everyone"
>>>>>
>>>>> Op 8-nov-2012, om 04:29 heeft Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond het volgende
>>>>> geschreven:
>>>>>
>>>>> > I suppose rp has probably been flooded with enquiries.
>>>>> > Since the beginning of the week, I saw Bernard run around trying to
>>>>> fix
>>>>> > things.
>>>>> > The remote participation computers running Webex are all wired in and
>>>>> > appear to work well but the network sometimes goes through some
>>>>> periods
>>>>> > of being very slow. This is when the WIFI works and guess what, the
>>>>> WIFI
>>>>> > does not work well at all. In fact, I have spent complete afternoons
>>>>> > without WIFI. (not enough IPv4 addresses to allocate -- and no IPv6
>>>>> > connectivity at all in case you ask)
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Whilst so far, I have been super impressed with the host country,
>>>>> this
>>>>> > is, in my opinion, the poorest Internet connectivity we've had at the
>>>>> > venue in recent IGFs. <sigh>
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Kind regards,
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Olivier
>>>>> >
>>>>> > On 07/11/2012 00:04, Norbert Bollow wrote:
>>>>> >> On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 8:16 PM, shaila mistry <shailam at yahoo.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>> >>> Hi everyone
>>>>> >>> I too have tried several times to participate. Each time I am sent
>>>>> a
>>>>> >>> different route of downloads and logins , finally leading to a
>>>>> dead end.
>>>>> >>> Please advise what can be done ?
>>>>> >>> Shaila Rao Mistry
>>>>> >> Have you tried contacting
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> "Remote Participation general help" <rp at intgovforum.org>
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> ?
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> Do they respond?
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> If yes, what are they saying?
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> If no, let us know, so that we can push locally for those help email
>>>>> >> addresses to be handled in a meaningful way.
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> In the long run, what we need is funding to put a competent person
>>>>> in
>>>>> >> charge of ensuring in an ongoing manner (year after year) that IGF
>>>>> >> remote participation is made available in a way that can be expected
>>>>> >> to work (which presupposes learning from what went wrong in earlier
>>>>> >> years, and it presupposes serious testing well before the first day
>>>>> of
>>>>> >> the IGF). It is simply unacceptable for an entirely new technical
>>>>> team
>>>>> >> to put in charge of remote participation every year, and the remote
>>>>> >> participation infrastructure again and again being so absurdly
>>>>> >> unreliable.)
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> Greetings,
>>>>> >> Norbert
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >
>>>>> > --
>>>>> > Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD
>>>>> > http://www.gih.com/ocl.html
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> > ____________________________________________________________
>>>>> > 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
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>>> 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
>>>>
>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>> 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/20121109/19df7ce4/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