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

[Embley, Charity G]

Hi Renata,


I just wanted to add something on the on-going conversation about remote participation.  I'm going out on a limb and assume that the concept of remote participation that you all were referring to is in relation to remote hubs and how distant participants (who are unable to attend IGF meetings)  would be able to remotely attend the meetings.  Please correct me if I'm mistaken on this assumption.  Anyways, a couple of years ago, Marilia Maciel, Raquel Gatto, Rafik D, Ginger P and myself were part of the IGF Remote Participation Working Group (If I might have forgotten anybody - my apologies) and the goal was to make remote participation accessible.  The remote hubs were established and even funded in some countries as an outreach initiative.  We do have a Facebook page called IGF Remote Participation Working Group. You can search it. The page will kind of give you an overview and there are initiatives on remote participation that have been established since 2010. It has not been updated since 2011and I still get notifications.  But if it is something that you would like to continue working on, that should not be a problem, especially if Ginger is also taking a lead on it.


Thanks!




____________________________________________________________________________________

Charity Gamboa Embley, M.Ed
PhD Curriculum & Instruction: Language, Diversity and Literacy|   College of Education| MS 1071
Texas Tech University| 3008 18th Street, Lubbock, TX 79409-1071

[1461939201588_PastedImage]
________________________________
From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org <governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org> on behalf of Renata Aquino Ribeiro <raquino at gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, December 11, 2016 9:15:50 PM
To: Internet Governance; Norbert Bollow; Deirdre Williams; Arsène Tungali; Bianca Ho
Subject: Re: [governance] Towards true remote participation (was Re: Next IGF in Geneva? How about Berlin?)

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 --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20161213/2ca0ffc5/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