As internet governance meetings go virtual, compromise becomes harder to reach
(2020/07/16)
- Reference: 1594886293
- News link: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2020/07/16/virtual_internet_governance_meeting_compromises/
- Source link:
The move to virtual meetings among internet governance bodies has had mixed results, according to Joyce Chen, a senior advisor for strategic engagement at the Asia-Pacific internet registry APNIC.
Writing on the APNIC Blog, Chen said that APNIC has recently been involved in numerous international meetings with the International Telecommunications Union, United Nations and other governance bodes, and observed: “One of the advantages of a fully virtual format is greater representation and diversity of participants.”
“Previously, physical intergovernmental meetings were represented by a select few per economy that could afford to travel to these closed-door meetings. Economies with smaller travel budgets and small delegations tend to be at a disadvantage in terms of getting their views adequately represented.”
But smaller nations may have another problem: unreliable internet access.
“However, virtual meetings have also brought to light the problems of unequal last-mile connectivity,” Chen wrote. “Connectivity issues can present a governance risk when not all views are properly registered.”
She also worried that virtual meetings don’t allow for side conversations and therefore make it hard to reach compromises.
“In addition, virtual meetings do not lend themselves well to effective ‘corridor chats’, where many private conversations and negotiations take place at the sidelines of the meeting. The lack of corridor diplomacy affects participants’ ability to network, negotiate language or text for declarations and resolutions, or share information in a private setting.”
“Remote participants in a virtual meeting generally come with pre-baked positions that sometimes become intractable due to the lack of opportunities for proper engagement,” she added, “What results is the inability to reach a compromise in an effective and efficient manner.”
Which ironically leaves the internet as both an enabler of ongoing internet governance meetings and a problem for their conduct.
Chen opines that collaborative drafting or side chats could improve matters in future.
“Although there is no rulebook or set of guidelines for engagement in a fully virtual environment, necessity dictates that policymakers will need to continue to adapt and evolve new rules of engagement to cope with this ‘new normal’,” she concluded. ®
Get our [1]Tech Resources
[1] https://whitepapers.theregister.com/
Writing on the APNIC Blog, Chen said that APNIC has recently been involved in numerous international meetings with the International Telecommunications Union, United Nations and other governance bodes, and observed: “One of the advantages of a fully virtual format is greater representation and diversity of participants.”
“Previously, physical intergovernmental meetings were represented by a select few per economy that could afford to travel to these closed-door meetings. Economies with smaller travel budgets and small delegations tend to be at a disadvantage in terms of getting their views adequately represented.”
But smaller nations may have another problem: unreliable internet access.
“However, virtual meetings have also brought to light the problems of unequal last-mile connectivity,” Chen wrote. “Connectivity issues can present a governance risk when not all views are properly registered.”
She also worried that virtual meetings don’t allow for side conversations and therefore make it hard to reach compromises.
“In addition, virtual meetings do not lend themselves well to effective ‘corridor chats’, where many private conversations and negotiations take place at the sidelines of the meeting. The lack of corridor diplomacy affects participants’ ability to network, negotiate language or text for declarations and resolutions, or share information in a private setting.”
“Remote participants in a virtual meeting generally come with pre-baked positions that sometimes become intractable due to the lack of opportunities for proper engagement,” she added, “What results is the inability to reach a compromise in an effective and efficient manner.”
Which ironically leaves the internet as both an enabler of ongoing internet governance meetings and a problem for their conduct.
Chen opines that collaborative drafting or side chats could improve matters in future.
“Although there is no rulebook or set of guidelines for engagement in a fully virtual environment, necessity dictates that policymakers will need to continue to adapt and evolve new rules of engagement to cope with this ‘new normal’,” she concluded. ®
Get our [1]Tech Resources
[1] https://whitepapers.theregister.com/
"The lack of corridor diplomacy affects participants’ ability to network"
Pascal Monett
So, not being able to quietly negotiate a special deal on the side is hampering international diplomacy. What is needed is the possibility, in Skype, Zoom et al, to click on a participant and open a private chat with them. When in a private chat, no other users can hear the two until they're done.
What remains to decide is if the two can hear the others while they are chatting in private. Maybe a volume slider, so that they can be aware of the general goings-on.
In any case, this is a programming issue that should not be too difficult to solve.
Entirely valid if not entirely unforeseen
Compromise is not the only thing that's hard to reach. Productivity an quality can also suffer.
Any form of discussion that eliminates spontaneous interaction is inefficient, as fast feedback contributes a lot to clarity and relevance. Online, one person at a time gets to hold the floor.
As an extreme case of this, I contribute to standards development, the mechanism for which is isolated parties independently commenting on drafts, the accumulated comments being then filtered and summarised by editors. The results of this process are slow progress, mixed messages and inaccuracies. Elsewhere, I have participated in design meetings where ideas are interactively thrashed out, and these by comparison are efficient and effective.