IGF 2019 Workshop Submission and Review Process

                           Stage 1: Initial Screening by IGF Secretariat                             

Why:    Remove proposals that do not satisfy minimum criteria
Who:    IGF Secretariat
When:  Complete within 1 week after proposal deadline

All proposals must meet the minimum criteria listed below. Proposals that do not will be removed from consideration for the IGF programme.

• The proposer must complete all fields of the submission form with relevant information.
• The proposal must have at least 3 provisionally confirmed speakers who have been contacted by the proposer, and who have expressed their interest and intent to participate.
• Workshop reports are important to building discussion at the IGF. If the proposer organized an IGF workshop in recent years, he/she would have been required to submit a report to the IGF Secretariat. Proposers can provide a link to the report on the submission form. If a report was not submitted, the proposal will be declined.
• MAG members cannot submit workshop proposals.   

The initial screening will be completed by: 19 April 2019, one week following the close of the Call for Proposals.

Stage 2: MAG member evaluation

Why:    Rank proposals according to criteria
Who:    Individual MAG members
When:  Complete by 8 May 2019; the Secretariat will prepare a synthesis/analysis document by 22 May 2019

After Stage 1, the IGF Secretariat will circulate the workshop proposals to individual MAG members for evaluation. MAG members will evaluate workshops based upon the following criteria:

1. Policy Question(s) The IGF serves to bring people together from various stakeholder groups as equals, in discussions on public policy issues relating to the Internet.  Accordingly, workshop proposals should clearly define the public policy question, or questions, that will be explored during the workshop. Weight during Grading: 15%
2. Relevance: Proposals should be relevant both to Internet Governance and one of the three themes for the IGF2019: Security & Safety, Inclusion, or Data Governance. A widely-recognized working definition of Internet governance was developed by WGIG: Internet governance is the development and application by Governments, the private sector and civil society, in their respective roles, of shared principles, norms, rules, decision-making procedures, and programmes that shape the evolution and use of the Internet. The narratives for each theme are available here. Weight during Grading: 20%
3. Format: This criterion does not favour any one format over another, but considers whether the workshop session, as described in the proposal, is consistent with the format listed (for example, if the format is Debate, then does the proposal describe how the debate will be set up)? Weight during Grading: 10%
4. Diversity: The IGF is an inclusive, global forum, where diversity helps inform and advance Internet policy issues. Diversity within an IGF workshop session occurs when a broad spectrum of participants shares different viewpoints on the same Internet policy issue or issues. This criterion favors workshop session proposals that demonstrate diversity amongst speakers in terms of gender, geography, stakeholder group, policy perspective, inclusions of persons with disabilities and youth. Proposers and speakers from developing countries, and youth participants are particularly encouraged, as well as people who will be new to the IGF, including communities from the host country to foster greater local participation. To meet the minimum for this criterion, proposals must satisfy at least 3 diversity elements listed in the workshop proposal submission form. Weight during Grading: 20%
5. Content: Under this criterion, MAG members will assess the overall quality of the proposal as presented, including whether the description of the session is well-thought through, presents a concrete plan, and all responses are complete. Weight during Grading: 20%
6. Interaction:  Workshop sessions should be engaging for all participants.  The interaction criterion will consider the plans proposed for interaction between speakers and other participants, including remote participants. Weight during Grading: 15%

The total score for each proposal will be the mean average of the grades received by MAG members. 

Upon receiving the MAG member scoring, with a target date of 8 May 2019, the Secretariat will prepare a synthesis of the evaluation by 22 May 2019. The Secretariat will conduct a final review of the results by 5 June 2019, in preparation for the in-person MAG meeting on 5-7 June 2019. 

Stage 3: MAG discussion, identification of merger candidates, and finalization

Why:    Determine the final list of workshop sessions
Who:    MAG members and IGF Secretariat
When:  MAG Meeting on 5-7 June 2019

Before and during the June meeting, MAG members will look at the results to ensure an overall balance of the topics within the programme.  Proposals that did not score highly overall, but which show promise and could help balance the programme, may be set aside for further consideration. Proposers will then be contacted and asked to submit a revised proposal, addressing any shortcomings in their initial submission.

In some cases, the MAG will receive workshop proposals on the same issues, topics and format. Similar workshops may be accepted on the condition that they “merge” together. In this case, the workshop proposers will be contacted by the IGF Secretariat.

Following the merger process and other necessary arrangements, the IGF programme will then be finalized. 

WORKSHOP SELECTION FOR IGF 2019

PROPOSED SCHEDULE