[IRP] IRP Statement to Open Consultation for IGF 2010
Thu Jan 14 12:26:01 EET 2010
Thanks a lot, Marianne.
I totally support the statement.
M I Franklin escreveu:
> Dear All
> See attached. I've pasted in this first version below for those who
> prefer it (but its a long email!).
> Please keep comments brief. Any additional ideas and suggestions
> welcome. Time is short so the plan is to have the penultimate version
> out tomorrow afternoon..........
> Open Consultation IGF 2010
> INTERNET RIGHTS AND PRINCIPLES DYNAMIC COALITION Statement
> The IRP Dynamic Coalition would like to contribute to the Open
> Consultation for IGF 2010 in two areas: observations for taking stock
> of IGF 2009 and suggestions for the format and agenda of the Vilnius
> meeting. The comments below are organised under [..] themes, under
> which we take stock of IGF 2009 and then offer practical suggestions
> for the format and planning of IGF 2010.
> 1) General Organization: Generally speaking coalition members found
> the meeting to be well organised, with signs of continued progress in
> all aspects. Coalition members who were participating in or who
> organised workshops would like to commend the organisers for their
> good work in this regard, particularly given the relatively limited
> budget and resources available to the IGF. Some specific concerns
> a. Discussions, especially in plenary sessions tended to become
> diverted into the issue of whether the IGF should continue, and if so,
> how. We think it is time to move on and to keep these issues from
> overwhelming the topics in hand.
> b. Continuity and more explicit links between the main sessions and
> the workshops could have been stronger. Clear links in the program by
> cross-referencing of session/workshop themes and titles is one way to
> create these links before the meeting. During and after the meeting,
> we would like to see formal feedback opportunities put in place and
> integrated into the stocktaking; from organizers and/or moderators of
> both main sessions and workshops.
> c. Main sessions based around the "traditional" themes of openness,
> diversity, and such like started to feel a bit repetitive particularly
> in relation to the freshness of new themes introduced onto the
> program. The need for continuity and depth needs to be balanced by new
> themes as well
> d. Some panels in main sessions were overloaded with panellists.
> This always means less time for a wider plenary discussion. Moderators
> of larger sessions need to find ways to ensure that discussion
> actually takes place and when it does it dynamic and inclusive. To
> this end we would suggest that there is an upper limit set on the
> number of panellists and/or length of formal presentations. Moreover
> that enough time is set aside for discussion. It is important that
> contributions from the floor, and remote participants get enough time
> to have their say and be adequately responded to by panellists and
> other participants.
> e. Rather than having main sessions based around broad themes, we
> think this year is the moment to broach more specific questions or
> policy dilemmas. These can be proposed in advance with an eye to
> opening up the discussion about specific solutions before the actual
> 2) Remote Participation: On the whole the facilities for remote
> participation seemed to work well. However, there are some specific
> issues that we think need to be attended to this year to ensure fuller
> and more diverse participation in the IGF.
> a. Workshop organisers were not given enough support in good time
> or enough information on how to use the technology provided properly.
> When technical hitches did occur, there were not enough technicians on
> hand so many moderators found themselves doing DIY instead. This is
> unprofessional and causes delays and loss of focus for everyone. More
> information in advance from IGF HQ would be useful. But also during
> the event, and given the importance of enabling remote participation
> but also having it run smoothly, the need for more dedicated staff in
> this respect is indispensable.
> b. We would also suggest, in line with suggestions from the Remote
> Participation Working Group (RPWG), that Workshops include both a
> moderator on-the-ground and an online moderator in their planning.
> Some-one needs to monitor remote participation, in partnership with
> the workshop moderator, in order to streamline, filter and facilitate
> remote participation in the proceedings; e.g. by gathering text-based
> comments, setting up a queue for spoken interventions, or having
> remote participants be given the floor en bloc if this is more
> practicable. We would also urge all moderators to understand the many
> remote participants are doing this at difficult times of their 24 hour
> day and that time-lags require careful attention be paid to timing
> responses and requests by moderators on the ground.
> c. The above points underscore our support for proposals to
> organise adequate guidelines as well as a brief training
> session/module/virtual tour for all moderators before the IGF meeting.
> During the meeting is not the time to experiment.
> 3) Emerging Key themes: A wide range of stakeholders in the plenary
> sessions reaffirmed the importance of upholding human rights in the
> internet age. However these sentiments tended to be expressed in
> general rather than specific terms.
> a. The challenge for this coming year is to focus on how upholding
> human rights can be achieved in practice; what roles different
> stakeholders can or should play in this regard, and how these play out
> more specifically in different Internet governance issue-areas.
> b. With this in mind we would like to see not only workshops but
> also main sessions that look more closely at what a "human rights
> agenda" or "development agenda: for Internet Governance might actually
> look like. Discussions around broad themes such as openness and
> diversity have already taken place. It is time to get down to
> specifics and we do not see why these specifics always have to be
> covered in workshop sessions.
> 4) Participation: Increasing diversity in terms of cultural,
> regional, and linguistic representation remains a core issue for a
> number of dynamic coalitions. Our comments and suggestions about
> continuing to improve remote participation technically and
> organizationally relate to these concerns. Practically there is a need to
> a. Setting up coherent - vertical and lateral - links between
> discussions and themes from national, regional and international IGFs
> better, during the meetings as well as in the record of these various
> meetings. At present the public record is piecemeal and not easily
> accessible. We recognise that this is process that needs dedicated
> time and resources to do so and urge the IGF to put aside some
> resources for this.
> b. Find more ways to open up the meetings to lay-participants. By
> this we mean that preparatory consultations, main sessions, and
> specialised workshops need to be more accessible not only to 'everyday
> internet users' but also for any communities or groups from areas
> where the Internet is either less extensive or who have other
> communication priorities.
> Dr Marianne Franklin
> 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
> IRP mailing list
> IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org
More information about the IRP