[IRP] IRP Statement to Open Consultation for IGF 2010 [v2]

Max Senges max
Fri Jan 15 18:13:25 EET 2010


Thanks Marianne! Great work!


"The future is here. It?s just not widely distributed yet."
?William Gibson


Max Senges


Mobile: 01622122755

On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 5:01 PM, Bodle, Robert <Robert_Bodle at mail.msj.edu>wrote:

> Dear M.F. (M.I.),
> This is a comprehensive statement and I endorse it (one tweak - 4) a.
> "Setting" should be "Set").
> Thank you for coordinating this and accommodating last minute endorsements.
> Robert Bodle
> --
> Robert Bodle, PhD
> Assistant Professor of Communication Studies
> Chair, Instructional Delivery Committee
> Facilitator, Faculty Learning Community - Mobile Learning
> Division of Arts and Humanities
> Interactive Media Design & Computing
> College of Mount St. Joseph
> http://twitter.com/MSJCOM
> http://twitter.com/robertbodle
> ________________________________________
> From: irp-bounces at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org [
> irp-bounces at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org] On Behalf Of M I
> Franklin [cos02mf at gold.ac.uk]
> Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2010 4:29 PM
> To: Lisa Horner; irp
> Subject: Re: [IRP] IRP Statement to Open Consultation for IGF 2010 [v2]
> Dear all
> In order to allow time for any last input, see below; new order of
> appearance, some rephrasing, and a couple of additional comments (See 1c; .
> 2 e)
> Last round for comments (inclusions)!
> yours
> MF
> ******************
> Open Consultation IGF 2010
> The comments below from the Internet Rights and Principles Dynamic
> Coalition are our contribution to the Open Consultations for IGF 2010. Each
> of the four themes below take stock of IGF 2009 by offering practical
> suggestions for the format and planning of IGF 2010.
> 1)      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.
> Whilst openness and diversity continue to be important issues, we think
> this year is the moment to broach more specific questions or policy
> dilemmas within these broader themes
> c.      The coalition is ready and willing to contribute to organizing and
> facilitating main sessions along these Human Rights related themes.
> 2)      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. Aspects that could be paid more attention this year
> include:
> a.      Discussions, especially in plenary sessions tended to become
> diverted
> into the issue of whether the IGF should continue, and if so, how. This is
> a key issue however we think it is important to avoid having these issues
> sidetrack the topics on hand in main sessions and workshops this year.
> b.      Continuity and more linking between the main sessions and the
> workshops
> could be strengthened. 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 'classic' themes of openness, diversity,
> and
> such like need to be supplemented and reinvigorated by including new themes
> onto the program. The need for continuity and in-depth discussions of
> ongoing themes need to be balanced by new themes as well for this is a
> fast-moving area.
> d.      Some panels in main sessions were overloaded with panellists. This
> always means less time for a wider plenary discussion. We realise that
> larger panels allow for a greater diversity in some cases. However we would
> urge moderators of larger sessions to ensure that there is enough time for
> discussion and that when discussion takes place it is dynamic and inclusive
> of panellists and other participants. It is important that contributors
> from the floor as well as from remote participants get enough time to have
> their say and be adequately responded to by panellists and other
> participants.
> e.      In light of the above we would also like to see more innovative
> panel
> formats encouraged; modelled on town-hall meetings, brainstorming, and
> other sorts of small-group, or interactive forms of discussion for
> instance. Formal panels have their place but good work is also done in
> small groups/break-out sessions as well.
> f.      Rather than having main sessions largely 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.
> 3)      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 in the role of do-it-yourself technical
> supporters. This causes delays, frustration and a loss of focus for
> everyone.  More information in advance from the IGF in liaison with the
> Vilnius venue organisers 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.
> 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 to 'everyday internet users', any
> interested communities or groups from areas where the Internet is either
> less extensive or who have other communication priorities.
> *********
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> IRP mailing list
> IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org
> http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/listinfo.cgi/irp-internetrightsandprinciples.org
> _______________________________________________
> IRP mailing list
> IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org
> http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/listinfo.cgi/irp-internetrightsandprinciples.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/pipermail/irp-internetrightsandprinciples.org/attachments/20100115/1f263d76/attachment-0001.htm>

More information about the IRP mailing list