[governance] Towards true remote participation (was Re: Next IGF in Geneva? How about Berlin?)

[Renata Aquino Ribeiro]

Hi everyone

It is great to see these ideas, please keep suggestions coming.

A Best Practices Forum on Remote Participation could be a way to
discuss these ideas and create recommendations, also referring to the
previous existing great work by the Dynamic Coalition on Accessibility
and others.

How about we think about this for IGF2017? Bianca Ho and I thought
about this and would be great to hear your thoughts.

Best,

Renata


On Sat, Dec 10, 2016 at 11:07 AM, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Dec 2016 07:48:32 -0400
> Deirdre Williams <williams.deirdre at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I suggested we make the technology work for us so -
>> earlier in the week I was discussing remote participation with
>> someone and the possibility of a "signup sheet" of some type for each
>> session was suggested to solve the problem of getting correctly
>> spelled names and correct affiliation into the transcript. However
>> this has difficulties for those who prefer anonymity.
>> The scheduling software which has been used (the circles with
>> initials or pictures) might be a way to create the "signup sheet" -
>> with the proviso that if you wish to be anonymous or don't want to
>> talk you don't sign up?
>
> How about instead of a "signup sheet" creating a "list of active
> participants" for each session, where the "active participants"
> are those who make an intervention?
>
> I'd envision this per-session "list of active participants" to
> include contact information.
>
> When an in-person participant makes an intervention from the floor, the
> protocol for collecting this contact information could be as simple as
> giving a business card to the person who passes the microphone around.
>
> For panelists and for remote participants, name and contact information
> is already collected anyway.
>
> Just listening to a session should IMO not lead to personal information
> about that being recorded in any way, and that should IMO be
> independent of whether you listen by being personally in the workshop
> room or whether you listen via the Internet.
>
> I think it's different when you make an intervention. The IGF is a
> public policy process and there is a need for transparency also in
> regard to who says something. This need for transparency is not absolute
> however. There needs to be room for justified exceptions. For example
> it must IMO be accepted for human rights NGOs to arrange for anonymous
> interventions from people in situations where their freedom of speech
> is not adequately protected. In such cases, the concerned human rights
> NGO can still provide some form of contact information.
>
> Greetings,
> Norbert
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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 --------------
____________________________________________________________
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