[IGFmaglist] MAG WG on RP Comments on IGF 2015

Ginger Paque virginiap at diplomacy.edu
Tue Dec 1 14:04:02 EST 2015


Hello everyone,
Congratulations and thanks, once again, to everyone for a very successful
IGF.

The MAG WG on RP has noted our comments about the RP at the IGF 2015, and
would like to share them as a contribution to IGF 2016 while our memories
are still fresh. We welcome your feedback, corrections, and additional
comments. Thanks to the WG on RP for all of the valuable work on these
comments.

Best wishes,
Ginger

*MAG Working Group on Remote Participation*

Comments on IGF 2015 Brazil

We appreciate the significant improvements in smooth technical strategy and
supervision of the online/remote/e-participation at the IGF 2015.


*Main points:*

●      Requests for assistance were attended in a timely manner.

●      Assistance with remote presentations (audio and video) was smoothly
facilitated.

●      Downtime was minimal, and immediately addressed.

●      Luis Bobo and James Gannon were responsive, constant, and
knowledgeable, and willing to assist and share this expertise.

●      Remote moderator substitutes and support were readily available,
especially with the help of Slobodan Marković  in main sessions.

●      We applaud the provision of links and passwords to online sessions,
upon request, to the DCAD and anyone who might need them to facilitate
entering sessions. This was implemented on-the-spot by Luis Bobo, and much
appreciated.



*Suggestions:*

●      Remote moderators must not be placed at the rear of the room behind
a divider. While we can see that this facilitated technical consolidation,
it made communication and interplay between remote moderators and the panel
and panel moderators very difficult, if not impossible, especially in large
rooms and main sessions. The panel organiser must have a clear strategy for
communication with the remote moderator, and must have this clearly agreed
with the remote moderator before the session. Main sessions actually had
remote moderators standing up, jumping up and down and widely waving the
remote moderator card, in order to (not) be seen. The instructions for
remote participation should be improved in the workshop proposal
information.

●      The remote moderator must be in contact with the session chair
before the session begins and coordinate inclusion of the remote
participants. The chair must have in mind the remote participants and check
often with the remote moderator to see if a remote participant is waiting
in the queue.

●      The session chair should provide the remote moderator with all
presentations, photographs, charts and other materials that will be shown
in the room, so the remote moderator can show them to the remote
participants in the remote participation platform.

●      It was not clear whether data and comments about numbers of remote
participants and problems faced were collected. We did not see evidence
that it was collected, and we feel these statistics are important.
Statistics should include the ratio of in situ to remote interventions,
especially in the case that not all interventions were permitted to time or
other constraints.

*About Statistics (from Luis Bobo)*: Statistics were noted for number of
people registered, which was around 2000 for the whole week. Also, the
hosts took notes of the interventions if any (including remote hubs). We
had remote hubs taking the floor from the USA, Mexico, Nigeria, Zimbabwe,
Uganda and Egypt; interventions by video from places like France, UK and
India and interventions via Chat from other places like Benin; also remote
presenters from places like Denmark, Japan, Mauritius, Spain and Slovenia.
However, we can improve by establishing a system to register all this
automatically.

Statistics like those provided above by Luis Bobo should be available for
all IGFs.These statistics  should be readily and permanently available on
the IGF website.

●      Encourage panel moderators and remote moderators to ask for remote
participation input, comments and questions, but also to moderate the
conversations: allowing everybody to come in, treat them politely, but also
knowing that it is possible to expel someone if behavior is not in
compliance with the  IGF Code of Conduct
<http://www.intgovforum.org/aboutigf/igf-code-of-conduct>.

●      In ceremonies (and even in sessions) it is important to share the
list of speakers through the remote participation platform.

●      Follow up on the offer from Dr Derrick Cogburn for the possibility
of use of the Cotelco software for improved remote and disabled access.

●      Ensure that the need for call in numbers and access for blind and
other persons with disabilities is addressed as well as possible.



*Technical issues*

●      Send the IGF Secretariat and Remote Participation WG RP field
support team to the conference venue at least 2-3 days prior to Day 0.

●      Address all technical issues in a timely manner, even if they don’t
affect the in situ meeting. There was a problem with the constant hum on
the audio stream in the main session room, making it practically unusable
for the remote participants (probably due to the faulty Behringer Audio
Interface in the remote participation booth). This problem was not resolved
and the issue persisted until the end of the conference. This problem might
have been easily overcome with an inexpensive USB soundcard and a piece of
cable connected to the main mixing console.

●      Incorporate all in situ/remote participant resources. We had
requested screens projecting remote participation and twitterfalls. These
projections were not provided, although there seemed to be more than
sufficient screens in each room. Was this an organisational decision? This
is a significant way to bring online/remote participation into the general
atmosphere of the room. If this is not done, because of precaution about
content of comments, transparency requires that this decision be shared.

●      Remote participants should be more readily allowed to make audio,
not just ‘transmitted text’ interventions. Written language and typing/time
issues discourage coherent remote interventions.

●      It was not clear to remote participants how to intervene in a
language other than English, particularly as audio interventions were not
encouraged.



*Training issues*

●      Send the IGF Secretariat and Remote Participation WG RP field
support team to the conference venue at least 2-3 days prior to Day 0 for
setup, testing and training.

●      Carry out local training with real remote participants and remote
moderators.

●      *Require* remote moderators to attend a webinar with remote
moderators to ensure they understand the concepts of remote moderation, not
just the technical aspects of WebEx. Review all aspects of the remote
moderator guidelines with them, and* make sure that they understand that
they are advocates for and representatives of the remote participants.*

●      Ensure that all session moderators and organisers understand the
importance of remote participation, and that they have a copy of the remote
participation principles and guidelines.

●      Remote moderation training and preparation should include the
requirement and indications of how to ask whether any persons with
disabilities are attending online, and whether they need any additional
assistance or information, e.g. dial in numbers.

●      *The outcome of the 2015 IGF, ‘Remote Participation Principles’ (WS
27) should be posted on the IGF remote participation page and circulated to
workshop/session organisers and remote moderators during planning stages.*


*Organizational issues that affect remote participants*

●      Make open mic sessions appropriately longer in order to better
accommodate the audience and remote participant interventions.

●      Make the main sessions more interactive. Integrate interaction with
the audience in the structure of the session, *don’t just ‘throw’ (add on)
the questions/comments from the audience and the RPs towards the end of
session*. The main sessions on Zero Rating and Cybersecurity were examples
of well-thought out integration of interaction with the audience and the
RPs at IGF 2015. However, a longer time would have allowed for better
audience discussion, and better RP inclusion.

●      The remote moderator *must be in contact with the session chair
before the session begins* and coordinate inclusion of the remote
participants. The chair must have in mind the remote participants and
constantly check with the remote moderator if a remote participant is
waiting in the queue (as often as the moderator checks the in situ queue,
she should check the RP queue). The chair should provide the remote
moderator/tech team with all presentations, photographs, charts and other
materials that will be shown in the room, so the remote moderator can show
them to the remote participants in the remote participation platform.

●      Incorporate all in situ/remote participant resources. We had
requested screens projecting remote participation and twitterfalls. These
projections were not provided, although there seemed to be more than
sufficient screens in each room. Was this an organisational decision? This
is a significant way to bring online/remote participation into the general
atmosphere of the room. If this is not done, because of precaution about
content of comments, transparency requires that this decision be shared.

●      Institutional history of statistics of all previous IGFs, guidelines
and principles should be maintained and available on the IGF website for
consultation all year.

●      Secure funding for optimal implementation of remote/online
participation for the IGF.

Attachments: Remote Participation Principles; ITU official paper on
accessible remote participation



Ginger (Virginia) Paque
DiploFoundation

*Upcoming online courses: *Humanitarian Diplomacy, 21st Century Diplomacy,
Diplomatic Law: Privileges and Immunities, Infrastructure and Critical
Internet Resources, Multilateral Diplomacy. http://www.diplomacy.edu/courses
<http://diplomacy.us5.list-manage.com/track/click?u=89e7299f9fe54eed66d45cf3d&id=26d5253c70&e=bc0aff4eba>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://intgovforum.org/pipermail/igfmaglist_intgovforum.org/attachments/20151201/eecdabeb/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: MAGWGonRPcommentsonIGF2015 Final.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 16785 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://intgovforum.org/pipermail/igfmaglist_intgovforum.org/attachments/20151201/eecdabeb/attachment.docx>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: T-TUT-FSTP-2015-ACC-PDF-E.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 514038 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://intgovforum.org/pipermail/igfmaglist_intgovforum.org/attachments/20151201/eecdabeb/attachment.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: WSNo27IGF2015RPPrinciples.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 20218 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://intgovforum.org/pipermail/igfmaglist_intgovforum.org/attachments/20151201/eecdabeb/attachment-0001.docx>


More information about the Igfmaglist mailing list