[Icann-see] Fwd: Web site seedig.net
Narine Khachatryan
ms.narine.khachatryan at gmail.com
Mon Jan 11 22:09:45 CET 2016
Dear Dusan,
A small remark regarding
what can be added to
SEEDIG process, as you suggested in the previous email. I looked through
http://www.seedig.net/about/ .
It has been noted by many Internet Governance activists, that one of the
main issues of multistakeholderism has been related to an appropriate
stakeholder representation, as well as the inclusion of underrepresented
groups, so on and so forth.
Since different organisations represent and advocate for various interests
(with the purpose of finding a common ground), and since not rarely
representatives wear many hats, could we in frames of SEEDIG process
develop a common approach to stakeholder representation issue.
That common approach, based on certain criterions, could help us to be if
not more accurate, but at least more adequate in issues, such as 'which hat
is primary for this or that representative'.
Do we give priority to people who wear several hats? If yes, how do we
decide (based on what criterions) which stakeholder group he/she represents
primarily? We all know about colliding interests.
Or on the contrary do we try to engage people who represent only a single
stakeholder group?
This common approach / framework could also be another effort towards if
not including, but at least not missing important voices of parts of the
public who are usually unable to deliver their voices effectively.
Best regards,
Narine
Narine Khachatryan
Safer Internet Armenia <http://www.safe.am/> Media Education Center
<http://www.mediaeducation.am/> Youth IGF - Armenia
<https://www.facebook.com/igf.armenia>
On
Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at
10:17 PM
Narine Khachatryan <ms.narine.khachatryan at gmail.com>
wrote:
Dear all,
One more comment about the web site and its features.
It is good that the proposals having a "Continue Reading" Option, can be
commented by readers, or ''evaluators" with a 'Leave a Reply' option. At
the moment not all the proposals do have this feature.
If the community decides to keep the dislike buttion, it would be wise to
make the "Leave a Reply" option available for all the proposals. Perhaps,
those participants who dislike would wish to explain why, particularly, etc.
Regards,
Narine
--
Narine Khachatryan
Safer Internet Armenia <http://www.safe.am/> Media Education Center
<http://www.mediaeducation.am/> Youth IGF - Armenia
<https://www.facebook.com/igf.armenia>
On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 7:54 PM, Dusan Stojicevic <dusan at dukes.in.rs> wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> Thanks, all your kudos for the site should go to the whole executive
> committee.
>
> Also, thanks for all your suggestions and opinions.
>
> I would like to answer to two of them, especially about dislikes.
>
> Some facts:
> During the "call for issues" we didn't ask anybody about going into
> public with personal data (as they were submitted together with the
> proposals). According to most of our laws on that subject, it would be
> tricky to publish the names of authors for proposals without prior
> consent (which we have not asked for). So, the executive committee made
> the consensual decision that proposals are to be published without names.
> On the other hand, when you have the proposal and the name of the
> proponent together, you almost naturally check WHO is the author. Even
> if you are not aware, you can ask yourself: do you like the proposal as
> such, or you like the proposal because of the person who proposed it?
> At SEEDIG, we discussed about this inside the executive committee, and,
> considering also the data protection issues underlined above, we
> considered that, at least in this phase of the planning process, we
> should talk only about the proposals itself (disregarding the authors).
> And here the dislike is coming naturally. Dislike (without using names,
> only proposals) is rather common in our region. It can be considered as
> part of our culture. And it's not natural for us, in real life, never to
> say ‘I don't like this’, only ignore. Leaving aside any cultural
> difference, to dislike something is not necessarily a bad or
> discouraging thing, especially when you don’t have the name of the
> proponent publicly displayed. And in this part of the world, when we
> have to make decision, we often say: "say now what you think or don't
> speak about that, ever". In our specific case, ‘dislike’ is mainly meant
> to say that ‘I don’t think this issue should be discussed at SEEDIG’.
> Beyond these points, and as we have already underlined before, please
> note that we are talking about something in early test phase. We are
> taking in all your comments, and, based on them, we will consider how to
> move forward for next year, when it comes to the online evaluation of
> proposals. So, again, thank you all for sharing your opinions on this
> beta tool.
>
>
> Secondly, about SEEDIG as a process and about linkages between SEEDIG
> and EuroDIG: SEEDIG as a process is well explained on the website, we
> think. And there is already text available which underlines the linkages
> between SEEDIG and EuroDIG:
>
>
> http://www.seedig.net/about/ . Beyond that,
> if there are concrete suggestions about what is missing/should be added,
> please let us know and we’d be happy to discuss this further.
>
> Furthermore, how to implement SEEDIG-EuroDIG linkages is subject to
> further discussion, both at the SEEDIG virtual planning meetings (later
> this week) and at the EuroDIG planning meeting (later this month). We
> are, again, taking note of all your comments and suggestions and
> encourage you to further engage in this discussion, either by
> participating in the afore-mentioned meetings or by writing on the
> mailing list.
>
> Again, I want to thank you for all your inputs about SEEDIG, it was very
> helpful! Further thoughts are also welcome.
>
>
> Regards,
> Dusan
>
> On 11.1.2016 14:58, Michael Oghia wrote:
> > Dear Narine, all:
> >
> > Those are all good points as well, thank you. I'd also add it's
> > important to consider how we can leverage the experience and perspective
> > we have in the SEE region, especially how it relates to different
> > variations in issues experienced by the larger European region
> > (censorship and restriction of free expression particularly come to
> mind).
> >
> > On another note, something I apologize for not reiterating before is
> > that the website is very well-designed and intuitive. Dusan, you and the
> > team did a great job at designing and programming it. Kudos!
> >
> > Best,
> > -Michael
> > __________________
> >
> > Michael J. Oghia
> > Istanbul, Turkey
> > 2015 ISOC IGF Ambassador
> > #TCKchat <http://www.bateconsult.com/category/tck-chat/> co-host, 1st
> > session
> > Skype: mikeoghia
> > Twitter <https://www.twitter.com/MikeOghia> *|* LinkedIn
> > <https://www.linkedin.com/in/mikeoghia>
> >
> > On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 3:22 PM, Narine Khachatryan
> > <ms.narine.khachatryan at gmail.com
> > <mailto:ms.narine.khachatryan at gmail.com>> wrote:
> >
> > Dear all,
> >
> >
> > I join my voice to Sandra, congratulations with the SEEDIG new web
> > site, marking the beginning of this year! Thank you, Dusan, and all
> > who worked on it. Its navigation, usability, and features are very
> good.
> >
> >
> > An observation and suggestion regarding the linkage of SEEDIG, as an
> > independent initiative, and EuroDIG, as a panEuropean initiative.
> >
> >
> > Participants of SEEDIG and this list, have mentioned repeatedly that
> > processes in SEE in contrast to Central and Western Europe, related
> > to governance and participation, awareness and democratic
> > engagement, transparency and accountability are either not the same
> > or perceived in multiple-valued ways.
> >
> >
> >
>
> When aligning those processes (up to incorporating the results of
> > SEEDIG into EuroDIG and the global IGF) we need to ensure, that we
> > are not losing important voices of parts of the public who are
> > unable to deliver their voices effectively. Due to a variety of
> > reasons, including the lack of democratic institutions, lack of
> > resources, due to polysemantic perceptions of multistakeholderism
> > and bottom-up and top-down processes, etc.
> >
> >
> > In the process of setting up the good practices we need to be sure
> > that we are not throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
> >
> >
> > Wishing you all a peaceful, safe and happy New Year!
> >
> >
> > Best regards,
> >
> >
> > Narine
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 2:20 PM, Michael Oghia <mike.oghia at gmail.com
> > <mailto:mike.oghia at gmail.com>> wrote:
> >
> > I agree with Sandra's points. I also found the inclusion of a
> > dislike option discouraging and unnecessary.
> >
> > -Michael
> > __________________
> >
> > Michael J. Oghia
> > Istanbul, Turkey
> > 2015 ISOC IGF Ambassador
> > #TCKchat
> > <http://www.bateconsult.com/category/tck-chat/> co-host, 1st
> session
> > Skype: mikeoghia
> > Twitter <https://www.twitter.com/MikeOghia> *|* LinkedIn
> > <https://www.linkedin.com/in/mikeoghia>
> >
> > On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 12:17 PM, <sandra at eurodig.org
> > <mailto:sandra at eurodig.org>> wrote:
> >
> > Dear all, first of all let me wish you a happy and peaceful
> > new year, I guess it is not too late to do so.
> >
> > Congratulations for this website, it is really enjoyable to
> > see how SEEDIG is evolving, I am sure these efforts will
> > lead to a successful 2nd edition in Belgrade.
> >
> > I have two comments:
> >
> > 1. I would like to share some thoughts we had when we
> > introduced the online evaluation system back in 2014. The
> > first tool was programmed by young Dutch people and it was
> > agreed that we invite the community to express support for a
> > proposal, but do not introduce a dislike option. We found it
> > might be discouraging for the submitter and can lead to
> > tensions, even if you not include the name of the submitter.
> > We also learned in the process that the word "voting", leads
> > the community to take the results too literally when
> > interpreting the results. This means they expected that the
> > one with the highest rank becomes the most prominent session
> > and so on. We tried to make it always clear that the online
> > review is "only" an additional tool to gain feedback from
> > the community besides the planning meeting, but still it is
> > misunderstood by some and we keep on explain it ...
> > something to consider for the test phase.
> >
> > 2. I would like to encourage you to highlight a bit more
> > SEEDIG as an independent initiative being part of a global
> > process. The linkage between SEEDIG and EuroDIG was very
> > well received during the IGF in Joao Pessoa and I would like
> > to build upon that. By underlining for instance the
> > alignment of the processes, the joint call for proposals and
> > the way results of SEEDIG should feed into EuroDIG (and
> > thereafter into the IGF) we could set some good practises
> > for other regions and I am confident that this will
> > strengthen the global IG process.
> >
> > During the planning meeting on 26. January in Brussels we
> > should come up with some concrete ideas on how to include
> > SEEDIG results in EuroDIG meaningful and then deliver the
> > message to the global IGF. Looking forward to your input
> here!
> >
> > Best Sandra
> >
> > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> > Von: icann-see-bounces at rnids.rs
> > <mailto:icann-see-bounces at rnids.rs>
> > [mailto:icann-see-bounces at rnids.rs
> > <mailto:icann-see-bounces at rnids.rs>] Im Auftrag von Dusan
> > Stojicevic
> > Gesendet: Samstag, 9. Januar 2016 16:25
> > An: icann-see at rnids.rs <mailto:icann-see at rnids.rs>
> > Betreff: [Icann-see] Web site seedig.net <http://seedig.net>
> >
> > Dear all,
> >
> > Let me introduce to you SEEDIG’s website - check
> > www.seedig.net <http://www.seedig.net>.
> > Still fresh and new and still in beta testing, but fully
> > operational.
> > If You have any comments or proposals, please do not
> > hesitate to give us
> > feedback.
> >
> > Also, all proposals submitted for the April SEEDIG meeting
> > can be found
> > here http://www.seedig.net/category/proposals/.
> > [16:22:40] Sorina Teleanu: You can like or dislike any of
> > them, but
> > please note that likes and dislikes are part of a testing
> > exercise for
> > next year’s event. Because of the short time-frame, online
> > evaluation is
> > not planned for this year, but this is something we will
> > improve for
> > next year.
> >
> > e-SEE you all on the virtual meeting
> >
> http://www.seedig.net/2016/01/08/two-virtual-planning-meetings-on-14-and-15-january/
> >
> > and please don’t forget to register in advance.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Dusan
> >
> > ---
> > Ova e-pošta je provjerena na viruse Avast protuvirusnim
> > programom.
> > https://www.avast.com/antivirus
> >
>
>
<https://www.facebook.com/groups/safe.am>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.rnids.rs/pipermail/seedig/attachments/20160112/1fd11864/attachment.htm>
More information about the seedig
mailing list