[IRP] IRP Statement to Open Consultation for IGF 2010
Thu Jan 14 17:10:14 EET 2010
just few comments about
point 1.d I think that is more matter of time limitation for each panelist,
we tried this approach at youth workshop and we left long time for
participants to interact with panelists. my fear that limiting the number
of panelists will impact people from developing countries and not the "vip"
(it should be limitation for panelists to participate in many workshops)
point 2.a I am not sure that DIY term (do it yourself) is know as term by
do you want to drop topics like "openness and diversity"?? I don't agree so
much with this approach.
2010/1/14 M I Franklin <cos02mf at gold.ac.uk>
> 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
> 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
> 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
> 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
> 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the IRP