[IRP] IRP Statement to Open Consultation for IGF 2010

M I Franklin cos02mf
Thu Jan 14 12:53:38 EET 2010

Thanks Graciela

Just want to note to everyone that this took longer to get to you all due 
to an overnight hold-up on the listserv because the original email was too 
big. So, the next version I send out will be in the body of the email only 
to keep within size-limits..

Additional comments/suggestions still welcome. Will be tightening up and 
tidying up text later today - so delays aside, there's still time!


--On Thursday, January 14, 2010 8:26 -0200 Graciela Selaimen 
<graciela at nupef.org.br> wrote:

> Dear all,
> Thanks a lot, Marianne.
> I totally support the statement.
> best
> Graciela
> 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..........
>> yours
>> MF
>> *******************************************
>> Open Consultation IGF 2010
>> 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
>> include:
>> 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
>> session.
>> 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.
>> ********************************************************************88
>> 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
> --

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

More information about the IRP mailing list