[IGFmaglist] Possible WG - ACCESS (was: Re: IGF: Intersessional and WG Proposals)
Renata Aquino Ribeiro
raquino at gmail.com
Tue May 17 20:23:16 EDT 2016
I declare once more interest in this work and also propose some
interaction with the already existing list on Outreach.
On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 7:40 PM, Ginger Paque <virginiap at diplomacy.edu> wrote:
> Hello Lynn and everyone,
> Lynn, thanks for addressing this, particularly since our agenda is full, and
> everyone is working on priorities important to them and the IGF. I know that
> the Secretariat is very aware of issues faced by persons with disabilities
> (and online participants). I think it would help to analyse whether the
> Secretariat prefers to address these issues internally, or if a WG can
> assist in reviewing processes and procedures, reaching out to the community,
> and channeling voices from the community. In addition to the work being
> done, this is an area where the perception of the global community, and of
> the IGF as a continuing example of best practices, should be considered as
> I'm willing to co-chair and work on this WG, if we decide it is a priority
> that can be effectively addressed by a WG, and if there is support/interest
> for its work.
> Best wishes,
> Ginger (Virginia) Paque
> 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
> On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 5:21 PM, Lynn St.Amour <Lynn at internet-matters.org>
>> Dear colleagues,
>> Thank you to everyone for the comments and especially to those who have
>> volunteered. The Secretariat and I are preparing an update on the status of
>> WGs, BPFs, etc. and that should be out Tuesday.
>> I agree with Renata’s observation that coupling discussions on diverse WGs
>> can make it hard to follow the discussion (and am experiencing that first
>> hand) so let’s use specific titles to thread these discussions. That should
>> make them easier to follow.
>> To that point, I would like to ensure Ginger’s comments below on the
>> possibility of a WG on access were not missed in all the emails. It is too
>> important an area to just let slip by. Is there interest/support for such
>> a WG?
>> > On May 10, 2016, at 9:31 AM, Ginger Paque <VirginiaP at diplomacy.edu>
>> > wrote:
>> > Thanks for the explanations and nuances of this discussion. I agree with
>> > Marilyn that the issue of gender and abuse needs to be ongoing.
>> > I think that gender and access is a broader priority issue, because we
>> > need to make sure we address getting online and opening doors (while, of
>> > course, still making sure these doors are safe to open). I join Renata, Jac,
>> > and others in support of a BPF on gender and access as an important, ongoing
>> > part of IGF work.
>> > I had earlier brought up the possibility of a WG on access that included
>> > online participation and disability efforts. There was no interest
>> > manifested, as other important priorities are being addressed. While online
>> > participation is being supported on an ongoing basis by the IGF Secretariat
>> > and team, I am concerned whether we are giving disability issues the
>> > attention they need.
>> > Cheers,
>> > Ginger
>> > 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
> Igfmaglist mailing list
> Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org
More information about the Igfmaglist