[IGFmaglist] Workshop evaluation call

Susan Chalmers susan at chalmers.associates
Wed Apr 15 00:14:43 EDT 2015

Dear Chair, Peter, all,

During the our recent workshop evaluation call, we discussed the option of
a tickbox for each proposal, that each MAG member can check if they think
that the workshop should be considered for a merger. This is a data point
that we can use for discussion at the MAG meeting.

Perhaps it would help to first find consensus around what the reasons are
for "merging" two workshops. At the next meeting, the MAG could have a
fuller discussion on what procedure should follow.

I believe that the MAG wishes to solve a few different problems with the
"merger process."

   - We'd like to be as inclusive as possible, and encourage
   cross-community collaboration.
   - At the same time, we would like to avoid having virtually the same
   workshop happen twice, though with different people.
   - These considerations must be reconciled with the fact that there is
   limited time, resource, and space

I'd be curious to know what everyone else thinks on the above. In any
event, if two workshops are asked to collaborate, then that collaboration
should be guided either by the Secretariat or by willing MAG members -
perhaps a new MAG member and a returning MAG member together, on one

Until we understand why we will be merging workshops, it might make the
most sense to separate the "merger" consideration from the scoring of the
workshop. If the box is ticked, then the MAG member must remember why, and
can have the opportunity to raise the point during the meeting. It would be
up to the Chair to determine when the merger discussion should happen
during the meeting.

Does that seem like a workable course of action?


Susan Chalmers
susan at chalmers.associates


On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 3:24 PM, <karklinsj at gmail.com> wrote:

>  Peter,
> Such a statement will put one of the proponents in weak position.
> Discussions on merger are not going well. That is fact based on previous
> experience.
> If the statement is sent to both, that puts the Secretariat in weak
> position as at one point one of two should be selected.
> In my view mergers should be handled on case by case basis thru direct
> contact with proponents.
> JK
> Sent from Surface
> *From:* Peter Dengate Thrush <barrister at chambers.gen.nz>
> *Sent:* ‎Wednesday‎, ‎April‎ ‎15‎, ‎2015 ‎3‎:‎53‎ ‎AM
> *To:* igfmaglist at intgovforum.org <Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org>
> On 15/04/2015, at 4:24 am, Susan Chalmers <susan at chalmers.associates>
> wrote:
> snip
> Third, the MAG will have to find agreement on how we wish to handle
> "merger" workshop proposals. It would be good to start this conversation
> online, in the lead up to the May meeting.
> Sorry to miss the call.
> I'm not quite sure if there is disagreement about this....
> I assume we are talking about competing proposals that each make the grade
> on the score card.
> Wouldn't competing proposers get a message from the Secretariat saying:
> *"The proposals from you and X have been considered and found to have
> potential for inclusion in the IGF programme, but have considerable overlap
> with each other. *
> *We invite you to consult with each other ( contact details provided -
> possibly need to get permission to release these first) to see if a single
> proposal can be formulated. *
> *Unless we hear from you by (due date) that one of the proposals has been
> withdrawn or a single, merged proposal agreed upon, we shall have to
> decline your proposal. We reserve the right to review any composite
> proposal for its suitability"*
> Perhaps older hands at this can indicate what the problems areas in this
> issue are?
> Thanks
> Peter
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20150415/081c79d8/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the Igfmaglist mailing list