<html>
  <head>
    <meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
      http-equiv="Content-Type">
  </head>
  <body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
    Dear Marilyn<br>
    <br>
    You are absolutely right when you state that we must be, and want to
    be, as inclusive as possible. We do not want to dismiss interests of
    any proposers. Our objective, of course, is to welcome many more
    proposers and to have them all come to João Pessoa. But that would
    be an ideal situation.<br>
    <br>
    We have to face reality. We cannot accommodate all 247 proposals in
    the programme of IGF. We cannot even think of a merger process that
    considers a too large number of proposals. That would be simply
    unfeasible as a process, simply for lack of time and resources (and
    also for many other practical reasons already commented in our
    list).<br>
    <br>
    We are not MAG members to "reject" proposals. This is not a language
    we shall use in our communication with the community. We shall not
    announce that we have "rejected" or "dismissed" 150 proposals. But
    we will have anyway to announce the 100 proposals that were kept in
    the programme, so that others may feel "rejected".<br>
    <br>
    And then we need criteria to select proposals, because we cannot
    accept or merge all of them. Even after detecting that some
    proposals do not fit well to IGF, or fail on sufficiency, and even
    after an effort for merging as many proposals as feasible, I am
    fairly convinced that we will still have much more that 100
    proposals left to consider. And then we will have to use criteria to
    select those that can be accommodated in the programme. We cannot
    escape the fact that these criteria have to be "comparative" and
    based on (1) some sort of scoring (because a subjective evaluation
    of all 247 proposals, without some scoring, is, unfortunately,
    simply unfeasible) and (2) agreed priorities (first-time proposers,
    developing countries, new formats, diversity, etc.).<br>
    <br>
    This is not like having a goal of "rejecting" the others, but it is
    unavoidable that many proposers, even if we take utmost care with
    the language we use, will feel like "rejected". Those proposers
    whose workshops could not be accepted because of lack of space and
    time will like to know why their proposals could not be accepted. So
    we need to give them some feedback, of course using positive
    language and helping them, as much as possible, to improve their
    proposals for the next years. The proposed "buttons" are meant to
    facilitate both the "scoring" and the feedback.<br>
    <br>
    Would you like to propose some concrete, feasible improvement to the
    evaluation and selection process, so that we become more inclusive
    and positive? <br>
    <br>
    Best<br>
    <br>
    Flavio<br>
    <br>
    <div class="moz-cite-prefix"><br>
    </div>
    <blockquote cite="mid:BAY182-W64732564480C23F0E0736CD3E30@phx.gbl"
      type="cite">
      <style><!--
.hmmessage P
{
margin:0px;
padding:0px
}
body.hmmessage
{
font-size: 12pt;
font-family:Calibri
}
--></style>
      <div dir="ltr">I am hoping that through mergers, we will be able
        to be more open and receptive to bringing in more proposers.
        <div><br>
        </div>
        <div>All of the submitters want to attend, and contribute. </div>
        <div><br>
        </div>
        <div>IF the MAG earns a reputation for negativity toward
          applicants, rather than an accommodating perspective. We must </div>
        <div>make efforts to be inclusive, while maintaining a focus on
          a high quality IGF.</div>
        <div><br>
        </div>
        <div>BUT, we need to also ensure that we are being the open, and
          'place to come'. </div>
        <div>Suggesting we would reject 150 workshops shocks me.</div>
        <div><br>
        </div>
        <div>IF that is the MAG objective, we should stop with welcoming
          proposals, and write a script that says</div>
        <div>only those who meet MAG criteria need 'enter here'.</div>
        <div><br>
        </div>
        <div>That is not why I am a MAG member.</div>
        <div><br>
        </div>
        <div>NO one who submitted did so thinking that we would casually
          dismiss their interests.</div>
        <div><br>
        </div>
        <div>SOME will not fit, and some can be merged, and some may
          fail on sufficiency.</div>
        <div><br>
        </div>
        <div>BUT, to just announce that we will reject 150 of the
          workshops seems quite negative.</div>
        <div><br>
        </div>
        <div>Of course, our MAG list is posted, so all can see what we
          discuss, and for me, I hope for as much </div>
        <div>flexibility and openness as we can provide, while achieving
          a high quality event, focused on the</div>
        <div>main and sub themes, but allowing for some flexibility in
          Emerging Issues.  </div>
        <div><br>
        </div>
        <div>This is a critical year for inclusiveness.</div>
        <div><br>
        </div>
        <div>Marilyn Cade</div>
        <div><br>
          <br>
          <div>
            <hr id="stopSpelling">Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2015 16:38:38 +1200<br>
            From: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:susan@chalmers.associates">susan@chalmers.associates</a><br>
            To: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:mark.carvell@culture.gov.uk">mark.carvell@culture.gov.uk</a><br>
            CC: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:igfmaglist@intgovforum.org">igfmaglist@intgovforum.org</a><br>
            Subject: Re: [IGFmaglist] Evaluating workshop proposals -
            Standardized reasons for scores of 3 or less<br>
            <br>
            Dear Flávio, Mark,
            <div><br>
            </div>
            <div>Flávio, I appreciate your approach, thank you kindly
              for suggesting standardised reasons for workshop proposals
              that have a score of 3 or less. </div>
            <div><br>
            </div>
            <div>For those workshops which must be respectfully declined
              - which will be about 150 - proponents will be provided
              with this feedback.</div>
            <div><br>
            </div>
            <div>These tick box options will exist alongside a free text
              box, where we can submit additional thoughts on the
              proposal. Please word your thoughts constructively and
              compassionately for the proponent.</div>
            <div><br>
            </div>
            <div>Unless there are any strenuous objections, I suggest
              that we submit these to the Secretariat, so that the IT
              person can get started on adding these to the website. Is
              that okay with everyone?</div>
            <div><br>
            </div>
            <div>Mark, in regards to your observation, there are a few
              "positive discrimination" elements - in favour of
              developing countries, first time proposers, new session
              formats - upon which the MAG has found rough consensus.
              MAG members are asked to reflect these elements in their
              overall score. These elements are not individually
              weighted. That is a conversation that the next MAG may
              wish to entertain.</div>
            <div><br>
            </div>
            <div>Sincere regards,</div>
            <div>Susan </div>
            <div><br>
            </div>
            <div><br>
            </div>
            <br>
            <div><br>
              On Wednesday, April 15, 2015, Mark Carvell <<a
                moz-do-not-send="true"
                href="mailto:mark.carvell@culture.gov.uk">mark.carvell@culture.gov.uk</a>>
              wrote:<br>
              <blockquote class="ecxgmail_quote" style="border-left:1px
                #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
                <div dir="ltr">
                  <div class="ecxgmail_default"
                    style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">Dear
                    Flavio</div>
                  <div class="ecxgmail_default"
                    style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;"><br>
                  </div>
                  <div class="ecxgmail_default"
                    style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">Many
                    thanks. This list captures very effectively and
                    comprehensively the key evaluation criteria so is
                    very helpful and I support. </div>
                  <div class="ecxgmail_default"
                    style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;"><br>
                  </div>
                  <div class="ecxgmail_default"
                    style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">I
                    have just one query regarding 4 in both lists: I
                    accept that "<span
                      style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px;">first-time
                      proposers are preferred over repeat-proposers"
                      serves to re-fresh active stakeholder
                      participation in the IGF but I hope the intention
                      is not that having previously submitted a proposal
                      should be </span>a decisive negative criterion
                    when comparing with other similar proposals. If it
                    were, we would have to explain that to the
                    applicant.</div>
                  <div class="ecxgmail_default"
                    style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;"><br>
                  </div>
                  <div class="ecxgmail_default"
                    style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">Kind
                    regards</div>
                  <div class="ecxgmail_default"
                    style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;"><br>
                  </div>
                  <div class="ecxgmail_default"
                    style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">Mark</div>
                </div>
                <div class="ecxgmail_extra"><br>
                  <div class="ecxgmail_quote">On 15 April 2015 at 11:33,
                    Flavio Rech Wagner <span dir="ltr"><<a
                        moz-do-not-send="true" target="_blank">flavio@inf.ufrgs.br</a>></span>
                    wrote:<br>
                    <blockquote class="ecxgmail_quote"
                      style="border-left:1px #ccc
                      solid;padding-left:1ex;">
                      <div> Dear MAG members<br>
                        <br>
                        As already mentioned by Susan, I volunteered
                        during the yesterday's virtual meeting on
                        workshop evaluation to propose "standardized
                        reasons" - kind of "buttons" the evaluators
                        could easily click on - for why a proposal
                        received a score of 3 or less. <br>
                        <br>
                        These reasons would match the "Considerations
                        when Evaluating Proposals", which have been
                        already defined by the MAG and are copied at the
                        end of this message for your reference. <br>
                        <br>
                        Based on the "considerations", I suggest that
                        the online evaluation form includes two sets of
                        "buttons". The reasons directly match each of
                        the considerations.<br>
                        <br>
                        For each proposal, each evaluator may click on
                        one or more buttons, as s/he thinks appropriate.
                        <br>
                        <b><br>
                          FIRST SET OF REASONS</b><br>
                        <br>
                        The first set gives reasons that, after
                        aggregation by the secretariat, will be sent to
                        the proposers to explain the final average
                        scores their proposals received (numbers before
                        the reasons correspond to the numbers of the
                        "considerations").<br>
                        <br>
                        (1) The proposal is either (a) not well
                        thought-through or (b) incomplete.<br>
                        (2) The proposal is not relevant to Internet
                        Governance.<br>
                        (3) The proposal does not include either (a) a
                        list of proposed speakers, participating
                        individuals and organizations, or (b) a
                        description of how different stakeholder
                        perspectives will be represented.<br>
                        (5) The workshop description is not consistent
                        with the format listed.<br>
                        (7) There is no diversity amongst the
                        participants (gender, geography, stakeholder
                        group, perspective).<br>
                        (9) The description does not clearly specify the
                        Internet Governance problem/question/challenge
                        to be addressed during the workshop.<br>
                        (10) The proposal does not include a
                        well-considered plan for remote participation.<br>
                        <br>
                        <b>SECOND SET OF REASONS</b><br>
                        <br>
                        The second set corresponds to reasons that
                        justify the subjective score given by the
                        evaluator, in comparison with other proposals,
                        but do not necessarily represent a weakness of
                        the proposal, so that these reasons do not need
                        to be sent to the proposers:<br>
                        <br>
                        (4) This is not the first time this individual
                        or organization has submitted a workshop
                        proposal to the IGF.<br>
                        (6) This is not a 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).<br>
                        (8) There is no participation from developing
                        countries.<br>
                        <br>
                        I am looking for your feedback.<br>
                        <br>
                        Best<br>
                        <br>
                        Flavio<br>
                        <br>
                        ----------<br>
                        <br>
                        <strong>Considerations when Evaluating Proposals<br>
                          <br>
                        </strong>from<strong><br>
                        </strong><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/workshop-proposals/mag-workshop-review-and-evaluation-process-for-igf-2015"
                          target="_blank">http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/workshop-proposals/mag-workshop-review-and-evaluation-process-for-igf-2015</a><strong><br>
                          <br>
                        </strong>
                        <p style="padding-left:30px;">1.    Is the
                          proposal well thought-through and complete?<br>
                          2.    Is the proposal relevant to Internet
                          Governance? <br>
                          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?<br>
                          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),<br>
                          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)?<br>
                          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),<br>
                          7.    Is there diversity amongst the
                          participants (gender, geography, stakeholder
                          group, perspective)? (as a general matter,
                          greater diversity is encouraged),<br>
                          8.    Is there developing country
                          participation? (as a general matter,
                          developing country participation is
                          encouraged),<br>
                          9.    Does the description clearly specify the
                          Internet Governance
                          problem/question/challenged to be addressed
                          during the workshop?<br>
                          10.    Does the proposal include a
                          well-considered plan for remote participation?</p>
                        <br>
                      </div>
                      <br>
                      _______________________________________________<br>
                      Igfmaglist mailing list<br>
                      <a moz-do-not-send="true" target="_blank">Igfmaglist@intgovforum.org</a><br>
                      <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/igfmaglist_intgovforum.org"
                        target="_blank">http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/igfmaglist_intgovforum.org</a><br>
                      <br>
                    </blockquote>
                  </div>
                  <br>
                  <br clear="all">
                  <div><br>
                  </div>
                  -- <br>
                  <div>
                    <div dir="ltr">Mark Carvell
                      <div>Global Internet Governance Policy</div>
                      <div>Department for Culture, Media and Sport</div>
                      <div><a moz-do-not-send="true" target="_blank">mark.carvell@culture.gov.uk</a></div>
                      <div>tel +44 (0) 20 7211 6062</div>
                    </div>
                  </div>
                </div>
              </blockquote>
            </div>
            <br>
            <br>
            -- <br>
            <div dir="ltr">
              <div>
                <div dir="ltr"><br>
                  <br>
                  Susan Chalmers<br>
                  <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:susan@chalmers.associates">susan@chalmers.associates</a><br>
                  <br>
                  <span style="color:rgb(68,68,68);"><b>CHALMERS</b>
                    & ASSOCIATES</span><br>
                  <a moz-do-not-send="true"
                    href="http://chalmers.associates" target="_blank">http://chalmers.associates</a></div>
              </div>
            </div>
            <br>
            <br>
            _______________________________________________
            Igfmaglist mailing list
            <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Igfmaglist@intgovforum.org">Igfmaglist@intgovforum.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/igfmaglist_intgovforum.org">http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/igfmaglist_intgovforum.org</a></div>
        </div>
      </div>
      <br>
      <fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
      <br>
      <pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
Igfmaglist mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Igfmaglist@intgovforum.org">Igfmaglist@intgovforum.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/igfmaglist_intgovforum.org">http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/igfmaglist_intgovforum.org</a>
</pre>
    </blockquote>
    <br>
  </body>
</html>