[governance] WG: Final deadline and requirements for workshop proposal completeness

[Nick Ashton-Hart]

Dear Ginger,

It is certainly the case that RP is a lot of work (for all involved) though it has great benefits. I remember very vividly how much work it is from my days being in charge of it at ICANN! :)

I know the Secretariat does the best that it can. Frankly, what they do given that it is almost all-volunteers doing it is pretty miraculous. That said, I do think that the way in which things are structured, including the deadline issues, does not really produce the best result for anyone.


On 17 Jul 2013, at 14:06, Ginger Paque <ginger at paque.net> wrote:

> Nick and all,
> I understand and share your concern. As a strong proponent of e- and remote participation, I will reiterate to Chengetai the importance of excellent and timely tech and Internet training and support for remote presenters and participants. This is one important reason to note whether your panellists will present remotely (there is a field for it in the workshop form), so the organizers are aware of the approximate number of remote panellists, and can prepare for it. The RP prep work is not easy, and is one reason workshop details must be available quite early on.
> 
> If you think about it, you will realise that the IGC exists online, not in any physical space. We have the experience and the motivation to take advantage of online participation for the IGF meeting as well. I do not know who/what/how RP will be managed for Bali, but I know it is a high priority for the IGF Secretariat. 
> 
> We can also be prepared for glitches: consider asking panellists to pre-record and send a backup intervention in case there are problems. It might save them in case of virtual jet lag, if they must present at 2 a.m. local time, and their alarm clock doesn't go off. A copy of a .ppt or speaking notes might allow someone else to step in if necessary (De Williams did this for me once in the Caribbean. I was supposed to present remotely, but had local Internet problems. Since the organizers had my .ppt, De gave my presentation on site, and did a great job). We have switched to Skype if WebEx has problems; we have read out interventions sent in by email or Skype when there is a problem.
> 
> I think all of you know that onsite presentation takes a lot of preparation, time and energy. So does RP, sometimes--often even--not as much. I think we should put the time and effort into good RP when that is our best option, the same way we do when being on site is our best option.
> 
> Please let me know if I can help in any way during this process. If I can, I am willing.
> Good luck,
> Ginger
> 
> 
> On 17 July 2013 06:31, Nick Ashton-Hart <nashton at consensus.pro> wrote:
> I am doing this too, but I worry: past history is that the first day or two of the IGF the Internet can be less than reliable. If we have many remote presenters because of this unreasonable expectation of advance notice and they can't present, what will events be like?
> 
> Still what can you do.
> 
> On 17 Jul 2013, at 13:03, Ginger Paque <ginger at paque.net> wrote:
> 
>> NO! Definitely not official--that is my own personal suggestion. For our workshop, I found that my preferred discussants could not always confirm they would be in Bali. So I asked them to confirm they would participate--and that if they could not be in Bali physically, that they would join us remotely. For me, this was a way to confirm my panel participants, even though they did not yet have funding to travel to Bali. Chengetai did confirm that this is a viable option and that remote presenters will have tech support.
>> Best, Ginger
>> 
>> 
>> On 17 July 2013 02:23, Chaitanya Dhareshwar <chaitanyabd at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Ginger is that an official proviso - as I don't remember it being there in the original request for proposals. Maybe I'm wrong?
>>  
>> -C
>> On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 9:39 PM, Ginger Paque <ginger at paque.net> wrote:
>> with the proviso that they will present remotely if they cannot be in Bali.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> 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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130717/7de1e916/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 670 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130717/7de1e916/attachment.sig>
-------------- 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