[IRP] IRP Statement to Open Consultation for IGF 2010

Mon Jan 11 14:27:20 EET 2010

Thanks all

Due to the limited time-window, I can only incorporate comments coming in 
up to midnight GMT. Will have the first version ready later in the day on 
Tuesday, 12/01 to allow time for other timezones.

So, go for it!

cheers
MF

--On 11 January 2010 07:08 -0430 Ginger Paque <gpaque at gmail.com> wrote:

> I think this is a good approach.
>
> Could you please re-word slightly the note on Remote Participation?
>
> The Remote Participation Working Group (RPWG) proposes a short training
> session for panel moderators and remote moderators before the start of
> the IGF meeting. We also propose that the Workshop design include not
> only a moderator, but an online moderator, so that someone on the panel
> is monitoring the remote participation. This can be a panel member or
> rapporteur, even the panel moderator if necessary, but a remote moderator
> should be assigned to handle remote participation, and should have
> orientation before the meeting starts. This is the most significant
> change that needs to be added for IGF 2010.
>
> The RPWG is finally setting up the definitive webpage at
> www.igfremote.info, as www.igfremote.org was hijacked. Information will
> be more readily available this year, for Remote Hubs, and for remote
> individuals and remote presenters.
>
> Best, Ginger
>
> M I Franklin wrote:
>
> Dear All
>
> Thanks Lisa for these comments.
>
> Anyone else have anything to add?
>
> Cheers
> MF
>
> --On 08 January 2010 11:30 +0000 Lisa Horner <lisa at global-partners.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
>
> Thanks for taking the lead with this Marianne.  Some very quick notes
> below...would be good to hear people's thoughts and have a discussion
> about the options...
>
> 1) Contributions that take stock of last year's IGF in Sharm el Sheikh
>
> - Overall, the meeting was well organized. I think things have improved
> each year.
> - Remote participation seemed to work well.  However, workshop
> organizers weren't given much support on how to use it properly and
> technicians weren't always on hand.  More information in advance would
> be useful.
> - A wide range of stakeholders in the plenary sessions reaffirmed the
> importance of upholding human rights in the internet age. The challenge
> now is to focus on how that can actually be achieved in practice, and
> what roles different stakeholders can/should play.
> - Discussions, especially in plenary, seemed to be distracted by the
> issue of whether the IGF should continue, and if so, how. (does anyone
> have an update on the status of those discussions?)
> - Links between the main sessions and the workshops still weren't great.
> - Main sessions based around the "traditional" categories of openness,
> diversity etc felt a bit stale.  The new themes introduced were
> refreshing.
> - main sessions without a large number of panelists worked better, but
> we need to find better ways of ensuring that wider plenary discussion
> remains coherent, dynamic and inclusive.
>
> 2) Suggestions for the agenda and format of the Vilnius meeting.
>
> - Rather than having main sessions based around broad themes, could more
> specific questions or policy dilemmas be proposed in advance, that
> people can debate in advance and suggest specific solutions to?
>
> - Related to the previous point, having sessions that look at a "human
> rights agenda" or "development agenda for IG" I think would be more
> useful than broad themes such as openness and diversity.  I think these
> debates have been had in previous open consultations, but I haven't been
> able to keep up with everything...does anyone have any insights on this?
> As a coalition, we should probably discuss whether it's realistic to
> propose a human rights main session...could we propose a development
> main session, and then push for HRs to be a major part of that.  Should
> we be proposing development/HRs as an overarching theme again?
>
> - Again related to previous point, the coalition should propose that it
> participates in the organization of the main session related to
> "openness" or development/HRs/Privacy.
>
> - Can we suggest ways of linking the national, regional and
> international IGFs better together?  It would probably be useful if this
> could be done in a thematic way, for example with feedback from each IGF
> on "openness" being collected beforehand and reported back in the
> openness session.  Would require work though - no resources to do it??
>
> - Can we suggest ways of linking the workshops better to the main
> sessions?  There was no formal feedback session last year, and workshop
> organizers weren't given a formal opportunity to feedback in the main
> sessions as far as I'm aware.
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: irp-bounces at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org
> [mailto:irp-bounces at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org] On Behalf Of
> M I Franklin
> Sent: 07 January 2010 18:50
> To: irp
> Subject: [IRP] IRP Statement to Open Consultation for IGF 2010
>
> Dear All
>
> Greetings. To follow on from Max's speed-of-light sending out of the
> minutes of today's IRP phone-conference, this email is a call for
> contributions to a statement from the DC as part of the open
> consultations
> in preparation for Vilnius later this year.
>
> Fouad's invitation for ideas and comments for the MAG meetings is pasted
>
> below fyi so the DC statement also contributes to this side of the
> process;
> point 4 in particular.
>
> In short, the IRP statement can cover:
>
>
> Time is short, so we need your comments by Monday at the latest. I will
> then cobble up a first draft for one more round. The statement has to be
>
> ready to go by 15 January.
>
> All input welcome on either or both of the two aspects above.
>
> Thanks.
> ciao
> MF
>
> --On Thursday, January 07, 2010 6:08 +0500 Fouad Bajwa
> <fouadbajwa at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> Dear Friends,
>
> As you are all aware about the IGF Open Consultation and MAG meetings
> in February 2010, I would like to request those people that cannot
> participate but would like to be heard to forward their interventions
> so that we can read and extend them on the floor during the Open
> Consultation. I further request statements to be brief, concise and to
> the point as the floor has to be passed on to the wide participation
> during the consultation.
>
> As for the MAG, we have a strong Civil Society MAG group including
> myself. The MAG is responsible for suggesting the design/organization
> of the IGF2010. IF you have concerns regarding the programming of the
> IGF2010, you can forward your statements for intervention to me so
> that they can be shared amongst our other team members. Once again,
> the requirement for being brief, concise and to the point applies here
> as well!
>
> Ideas for interventions can involve statements such as but not limited
>
> to:
>
>
> 1. Issues surfaced during the IGF2009 in Sharam.
> 2. Developing Country Participation/Inclusion Issues.
> 3. Main Program / Main Theme Issues for IGF2010.
> 4. Human Rights Issues/Rights on the Internet Issues.
> 5. Development Agenda for Internet Governance Issues.
> 6. Youth and Gender Participation Issues.
>
> For your convenience and live correspondence, I will be available on
> Skype (ID:fouadbajwa , kindly don't forget to introduce yourself
> please while adding me) throughout the three days of meetings (1 day
> open consultation + 2 days MAG meetings).
>
> I look forward to assisting your interventions.
>
> --
> Regards.
> --------------------------
> Fouad Bajwa
> Advisor & Researcher
> ICT4D & Internet Governance
> Member Multistakeholder Advisory Group (IGF)
> Member Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC)
> My Blog: Internet's Governance
> http://internetsgovernance.blogspot.com/
> Follow my Tweets:
> http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa
> MAG Interview:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATVDW1tDZzA
> _______________________________________________
> IRP mailing list
> IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org
>
>
> http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/listinfo.cgi/irp-internetri
> g
>
> htsandprinciples.org
>
>
>
>
> Dr Marianne Franklin
> Reader
> Convener of the Transnational Communications & Global Media Program
> Media & Communications
> Goldsmiths, University of London
> New Cross
> London SE14 6NW
> United Kingdom
> Tel (direct): #44 (0)207 919-7072
> Fax: #44 (0) 207 919-7616
> email: m.i.franklin at gold.ac.uk
> http://www.goldsmiths.ac.uk/media-communications/staff/franklin.php
> http://www.goldsmiths.ac.uk/pg/ma-transnational-communications-global-me
> dia.php
>
> _______________________________________________
> IRP mailing list
> IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org
> http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/listinfo.cgi/irp-internetri
> ghtsandprinciples.org
> _______________________________________________
> IRP mailing list
> IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org
> http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/listinfo.cgi/irp-internetrig
> htsandprinciples.org
>
>
>
>
> Dr Marianne Franklin
> Reader
> Convener of the Transnational Communications & Global Media Program
> Media & Communications
> Goldsmiths, University of London
> New Cross
> London SE14 6NW
> United Kingdom
> Tel (direct): #44 (0)207 919-7072
> Fax: #44 (0) 207 919-7616
> email: m.i.franklin at gold.ac.uk
> http://www.goldsmiths.ac.uk/media-communications/staff/franklin.php
> http://www.goldsmiths.ac.uk/pg/ma-transnational-communications-global-med
> ia.php
> _______________________________________________
> IRP mailing list
> IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org
> http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/listinfo.cgi/irp-internetrig
> htsandprinciples.org
>
>

Dr Marianne Franklin
Reader
Convener of the Transnational Communications & Global Media Program
Media & Communications
Goldsmiths, University of London
New Cross
London SE14 6NW
United Kingdom
Tel (direct): #44 (0)207 919-7072
Fax: #44 (0) 207 919-7616
email: m.i.franklin at gold.ac.uk
http://www.goldsmiths.ac.uk/media-communications/staff/franklin.php
http://www.goldsmiths.ac.uk/pg/ma-transnational-communications-global-media.php