[IGFmaglist] Workshops and a couple of feedback points I received

Baher Esmat baher.esmat at icann.org
Sun Apr 5 07:04:57 EDT 2015


I generally agree with Subi on this but at the same time I¹d rather leave it
to the discretion of each MAG member as setting one rule across the board
may be impractical.

Best
Baher

On 4/2/15, 1:21 PM, "Subi Chaturvedi" <subichaturvedi at gmail.com> wrote:

> Marilyn, I agree on the mentorship role not being conflict, I think we should
> lend all assistance individually and collectively but on the latter I differ.
> 
> I would refrain/abstain from evaluating a workshop where I have been either
> invited to speak or moderate. That's a personal choice.
> 
> Similarly if one is serving on a board or in a leadership role in an
> organisation or is co-proposing a workshop the same might be advised.
> 
> Looking forward to hearing more from other colleagues as well.
> 
> Regards 
> 
> Subi 
> 
> On 2 Apr 2015 16:42, "Marilyn Cade" <marilynscade at hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > Thanks, Subi.
>> >
>> > Also, a few other questions.
>> >
>> > As we all supported mentoring role, can we also clarify when that means
>> that a MAG member cannot participate in evaluation?
>> > Those of us who informally, or more formally mentored submitters -- helping
>> them through our rather more structured approach -- were not necessarily
>> endorsing a workshop, but were responding to request for help. Secondly, just
>> because a MAG member is invited as a speaker should not be interpreted that
>> they are biased toward the workshop, so how do we determine the neutrality
>> and allow participation in ratings and rankings.
>> >
>> > M
>> >
>> > ________________________________
>> > From: subichaturvedi at gmail.com
>> > Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2015 14:54:29 +0530
>> > Subject: Re: [IGFmaglist] Workshops and a couple of feedback points I
>> received
>> > To: marilynscade at hotmail.com
>> > CC: igfmaglist at intgovforum.org
>> >
>> >
>> > Thanks Marilyn for initiating the thread. Following on from the call
>> yesterday. I wish to start by thanking Susan, Fiona and all the members of
>> the group for their excellent contributions on guidelines.
>> >
>> >  I got questions on how can workshop proposers ensure, gender and
>> geographical diversity of speakers, especially from first time workshop
>> proposers.
>> >
>> > This is a question to the secretariat and to Susan and other colleagues on
>> the MAG.
>> >
>> >  I do not have clarity on how those workshops were scored which said yes to
>> help needed from the MAG / Secretariat on recommendations of
>> speakers/panelists. Last year while evaluating workshop proposals there were
>> no standard guidelines MAG members used individual discretion for this point.
>> >
>> > How were they evaluated? Was this held against them. Were they scored
>> negatively?
>> > Was help provided to them?
>> >
>> > Or were they rated in the general pool and incase they didn't meet the
>> scores were they dropped off without necessary assistance being provided? We
>> did look as workshop proposals on a case by case basis at the end, but I do
>> not recall specific discussion on this issue.
>> >
>> > 2. IS the link with registration of panelists/speakers operational and are
>> workshop proposers familiar with it? is that an available resource for
>> workshop proposers especially first time and developing country proposers who
>> may not be familiar with the existing pool.
>> >
>> > 3. There were questions too on the exact objective of the background paper
>> and the optimal length and it's importance / contribution towards acceptance
>> of a workshop. First time proposers may not have absolute clarity on this as
>> well.
>> >
>> > Prior to evaluating workshop proposals , I reiterate my support for a
>> webinar be held early and a robust discussion be had so that the odds aren't
>> stacked up against new proposers and developing country proposers whose first
>> language may not be english and titled heavily in favour of veterans. As a
>> teacher I vouch for the fact that evaluation is a tricky and a deeply
>> contested subject.
>> >
>> > I also hope that we will continue to work towards excellence in quality but
>> will also strive towards enabling new and first time proposers to not just
>> participate and learn but also lead and share.
>> >
>> > The mentorship role of the MAG may also continue both pre-workshop
>> submission, during as well as post evaluation.
>> >
>> > 4. Where we mention on the website
>> > http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/
>> >
>> > "A list of all proposals for the IGF 2015 overarching theme and sub-themes
>> (those made during the December meeting and those submitted during the online
>> public consultations) is available."
>> >
>> >
>> > Can it also be added that the workshop proposers may reach out to the
>> secretariat at (email) , in case they are facing any difficulties or have a
>> query. 
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Thanks
>> >
>> > Subi
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On 1 April 2015 at 14:50, Marilyn Cade <marilynscade at hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> This is only following up on comments made by folks who were asking
>>> questions about their proposals.
>>> >> Two noted they tried to upload background papers justifying asking to
>>> have a panel. One noted that they thought
>>> >> that panels were a valid approach and questioned the resistance and
>>> apparent opposition of the MAG to allow
>>> >> the use of panels, especially when proposers are focused on speakers from
>>> developing countries.
>>> >>
>>> >> The second question I received was about allowing a change from one
>>> format to another, if it developed that
>>> >> a different format was better for the topic, as long as that happened
>>> quickly, and with all needed process.
>>> >>
>>> >> Sorry, one more - one person told me that they uploaded their background
>>> paper but do not know how to verify it was
>>> >> received.
>>> >>
>>> >> Marilyn Cade
>>> >>
>>> >> _______________________________________________
>>> >> Igfmaglist mailing list
>>> >> Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org
>>> >> http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/igfmaglist_intgovforum.org
>>> >>
>> >


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://intgovforum.org/pipermail/igfmaglist_intgovforum.org/attachments/20150405/2abef475/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 5062 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://intgovforum.org/pipermail/igfmaglist_intgovforum.org/attachments/20150405/2abef475/attachment-0001.p7s>


More information about the Igfmaglist mailing list