MAG Workshop Review and Evaluation Process for IGF 2015


1st Stage – Initial screening

•    Why: To remove any proposals that do not objectively satisfy minimum criteria

•    Who: IGF Secretariat

•    When: Completed by 13 April 2015 (two weeks after deadline for proposals)

•    How: Secretariat recommends declining the proposals that do not objectively satisfy minimum criteria:

o    MAG members may not themselves submit workshop proposals, but their institutions may do so;

o    The subject matter of the workshop proposal must be of direct relevance to Internet Governance;

o    Proposal must be complete and ready for final consideration, with all fields of the proposal submission form completed;

o    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 IGF2015. Proposals submitted by those who held workshops in the 2013 or 2014 IGF, but who failed to file a workshop report afterwards, will be declined;

o    No more than 3 proposals from any individual or institution will be accepted for consideration.

Result: MAG members will be given a list of the workshop proposals which satisfy minimum criteria. MAG members will then evaluate these proposals individually before the in-person meeting from 20-22 May 2015 in Geneva.

2nd  Stage – Evaluation process

•    Why: To select a subset of the proposals according to the number of session slots available during the IGF event

•    Who: MAG members

•    When: Completed by 3 May 2015, Synthesis paper prepared by Secretariat by 11 May 2015

•    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 available score.

The overall score represents that individual MAG member’s balancing of the considerations. Proposers names’ are not given to MAG members when evaluating (anonymous) but indication is provided if the proposer is from a developing country. The average scores of each proposal are used to rank order, and to scale to space availability.

Considerations when Evaluating Proposals

1.    Is the proposal well thought-through and complete?

2.    Is the proposal relevant to Internet Governance?

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 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, are all sides of the issues represented)?

6.    Is the proposal for a new format? (Break-out Group Discussions, Debates, Flash Sessions, Birds of a Feather, Roundtables and Other formats are encouraged over the Panel format),

7.    Is there diversity amongst the participants (gender, geography, stakeholder group, perspective)? (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 problem/question/challenged to be addressed during the workshop?

10.    Does the proposal include a well-considered plan for remote participation?

Result: MAG will complete review and evaluation. Secretariat completes and distributes compilation/synthesis document. MAG members that do not have an expertise in a particular field are not obliged to rate a proposal therefore the score for each proposal should be the mean average. Also provided should be the clear deficiencies if the mean average score is 3 or below. This feedback should be given to those whose workshops were declined, to assist with future proposals.

3rd Stage – MAG discussion, merger candidates identified, and finalization

•    Why: to determine the final programme.

•    Who: MAG members and IGF Secretariat

•    When: 20-22 May 2015 - MAG Meeting

•    How:

o    MAG members look at the results to ensure an overall balance of the themes/topics covered.

o    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.

o    MAG members discuss 5-10 proposals just below the threshold of space availability to determine if improvements can be made to overcome proposal deficiencies.

o    Proposers will then be contacted and asked to submit a revised proposal before 5 June 2015. If the proposer responds the expectation is they will get a workshop slot.

o    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 processs, please contact Eleonora Mazzucchi at [email protected] or +41(0)229171653