Stage 1: Initial Screening by IGF Secretariat
Why: To remove any proposals that do not satisfy minimum criteria
Who: IGF Secretariat
When: Completed by 13 June 2016 (one week after proposal deadline)
How: Secretariat recommends declining the proposals that do not satisfy the following minimum criteria:
- MAG members may not themselves submit workshop proposals, but their institutions may do so
- The subject matter of the workshop proposal must be of direct relevance to Internet Governance
- Proposal must be complete and ready for final consideration, with all fields of the proposal submission form completed
- Proposers who held a workshop at previous IGFs were required to have submitted a workshop report after the meeting. The proposer must provide a link to this workshop report in their new proposal for IGF2016
- Proposals submitted by those who held workshops in the 2014 or 2015 IGFs, but who failed to file a workshop report afterwards, will be declined
- No more than 3 proposals from any one individual or institution will be accepted for consideration
Result: MAG members will be given a list of the workshop proposals that satisfy minimum criteria. MAG members will then evaluate these proposals individually before the in-person meeting the week of 11-15 July 2016.
Stage 2: Individual MAG member evaluation
Why: To select a subset of the proposals according to the number of session slots available during the IGF event, the finalization of which will take place during an in-person MAG meeting
Who: Individual MAG members
When: Completed by 4 July 2016, Synthesis paper prepared by Secretariat by 11 July 2016
How: When evaluating a workshop proposal, MAG members should take the items listed below into consideration, and then give the proposal a score from 1 to 5, with 5 being the best score. This score represents that individual MAG member’s balancing of the considerations. Proposals will be anonymized, though indication is provided if the proposer is from a developing country.
Considerations when Evaluating Proposals
1. Is the proposal well thought-through and complete?
2. Is the proposal relevant to Internet Governance and to the IGF2016 main theme, Enabling Inclusive and Sustainable Growth?
3. Does the proposal contain a list of proposed speakers, participating individuals and organizations, or a description of how different stakeholder perspectives will be represented?
4. Is this the first time this individual or organization has submitted a workshop proposal to the IGF? (first-time proposers are preferred over repeat-proposers)
5. Is the workshop session description consistent with the format listed? (for example, if the format is Debate, then does the proposal describe how the debate will be set up, with timings, etc., indicated)
6. Is the proposal for a new format? (Break-out Group Discussions, Debates, Flash Sessions, Birds of a Feather and Other formats are encouraged over the Panel format)
7. Is there diversity amongst the participants (gender, geography, stakeholder group, policy perspective, and inclusive of persons with disabilities)? (as a general matter, greater diversity is encouraged)
8. Is there developing country participation? (as a general matter, developing country participation is encouraged)
9. Does the description clearly specify the Internet Governance question to be addressed during the workshop?
10. Does the proposal include a well-considered plan for effective interaction with the workshop participants, both online and on-site?
Result: Individual MAG members will complete their review and evaluation of all workshop session proposals, except for those in which they are involved. Further, MAG members who do not have expertise in a particular field are not obliged to rate a proposal. If the score is 3 or below, MAG members should provide feedback on the proposal. This feedback should be given to those whose workshops were declined, to assist with future proposals. The total score for each proposal will be the mean average of the grades received by MAG members. Proposals will be rank ordered and accepted according to available space.
Upon receiving the MAG scoring, the Secretariat will develop a synthesis document for the MAG.
Stage 3: In-person MAG discussion, merger candidates identified, and finalization
Why: to determine the final programme
Who: MAG members and IGF Secretariat
When: MAG Meeting – week of 11-15 July 2016
How:
- MAG members look at the results to ensure an overall balance of the themes/topics covered.
- If two workshop proposals are very similar, the MAG may ask the proposers to work together and merge their workshops into one. Merger candidates will be identified during this meeting and contacted by the Secretariat to merge. MAG members are encouraged to assist. In the event that the proposers decline to collaborate the workshop slot can be lost.
- MAG members discuss 5-10 proposals just below the threshold of space availability to determine if improvements can be made to overcome proposal deficiencies.
- Proposers will then be contacted and asked to submit a revised proposal. If the proposer responds the expectation is they will get a workshop slot.
- Following the merger process and other necessary arrangements, the IGF programme will then be finalized.
Principles: The MAG’s workshop review and evaluation process should be: fair, transparent, inclusive, practical, and efficient.
For questions regarding this process, please contact Eleonora Mazzucchi at [email protected] or +41(0)229173678.