[IGFmaglist] Workshop evaluation call

Mark Carvell mark.carvell at culture.gov.uk
Wed Apr 15 04:16:47 EDT 2015


Dear Susan

Yes I agree with your rationale for merging: primarily to avoid duplication
of workshops when the time available in the IGF programme is under
pressure, but also to retain the commitment of applicants to the IGF
process.

As I mentioned on yesterday's call, in my evaluations last year I made
specific recommendations as to which applications should merge with which
other ones (sometimes more than one). This should help us to map out the
merger proposals quickly. Quite often it was a case of a weaker proposal -
due to lack of balance of participation, lack of confirmed speakers or
format deficiency but nonetheless has merit on substance - that would
benefit therefore from being incorporated into a stronger proposal on the
same topic. Hopefully the applicant for the latter would welcome the
input(s) from the proposer(s) of the weaker one(s) - perhaps even seeing it
as enriching the scope of their proposal. This relies of course on goodwill
and "community spirit"; applicants can understandably be protective of a
proposal which they have being working on for a long period and be
initially at least reluctant to open it up to others. That reluctance may
be overcome if they can see the merits of merging as delivering an even
stronger event with more participation, with perhaps additional aspects of
the issue covered as well, which will succeed in engaging a wider audience
on the day. Nonetheless this may require some diplomatic prompting by the
MAG to secure.

Appreciate very much your leadership on this issue.

Kind regards

Mark

Mark Carvell
UK Government: Global Interner Governance Proposal






On 15 April 2015 at 05:59, Bhatia, Virat <virat.bhatia at intl.att.com> wrote:

> Dear Susan, Subi, Peter and All,
>
> What Susan is suggesting is perhaps the best way to approach mergers, i.e.
> have a guided process, since our experience in the past, consistent with
> what Subi has stated, has not been an encouraging one. Left to themselves,
> there is no incentive for a superior ranked proposal to accommodate a
> merger.
>
> We end up raising hopes for those who have marginal scores, and after a
> painful, multi-week process, it falls apart. I have shared Subi’s
> experiences, including in 2013, as having submitted the highest scoring
> proposal below the cut-off mark, and yet being rejected on the grounds that
> “we are discussing 2 different aspects of the same issue”
>
> I would suggest in addition to this guided process, we should limit the
> number of mergers to no more than 6-8.  Leaving some 15-20 merger options
> out there will make it overly burdensome on MAG members, in terms of time
> and effort. And in the end, we must realize that MAG only has “persuasive”
> abilities - no real authority to get the mergers accomplished.  Thankfully,
> this year the notice went out informing workshop submitters that mergers
> are a possibility, so unlike in previous years, a request for merger will
> not come as a surprise, or be rejected on those lines alone.
>
> In summary, a 2 member MAG guided process, but with a cut off on the
> number of merger proposals, might yield better results than in the past.
>
> Thanks for your suggestions and efforts. My two penny worth….
>
> Regards,
>
> Virat
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Igfmaglist [mailto:igfmaglist-bounces at intgovforum.org] *On Behalf
> Of *Susan Chalmers
> *Sent:* Wednesday, April 15, 2015 9:45 AM
> *To:* Janis Karklins
> *Cc:* igfmaglist at intgovforum.org
> *Subject:* Re: [IGFmaglist] Workshop evaluation call
>
>
>
> 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
> proposal.
>
>
>
> 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?
>
>
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Susan
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Susan Chalmers
> susan at chalmers.associates
>
> *CHALMERS* & ASSOCIATES
> http://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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Igfmaglist mailing list
> Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org
> http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/igfmaglist_intgovforum.org
>
>


-- 
Mark Carvell
Global Internet Governance Policy
Department for Culture, Media and Sport
mark.carvell at culture.gov.uk
tel +44 (0) 20 7211 6062
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://intgovforum.org/pipermail/igfmaglist_intgovforum.org/attachments/20150415/389cc718/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Igfmaglist mailing list