[IGFmaglist] Handout for this morning's meeting

[William Drake]

Hi Mike

Thanks for this.

On Feb 20, 2014, at 11:48 AM, Michael R. Nelson <mrnelson at microsoft.com> wrote:

> Bill, I think we developed some excellent ways to avoid the problems we saw last year. The first screen is just to catch obviously inappropriate proposals (e.g. product pitches, off-topic).

I don’t recall many product pitches, and would have thought "off topic” proposals could be dealt with as they had been in prior years, as part of a single systematic review.  But again, if everyone else wants to do a preliminary, ok.  If the Secretariat does the first screening, it may need some help, we’re adding to the workload of a very few people.

The doc doesn’t specify timelines.  So how do you all see see the dates for start and completion of the different stages?

Best

Bill

> And a single MAG member could prevent a proposal from being screened at the first pass. And if there are technical problems with a submission (due to misunderstanding), we will go back to proposer for clarification. No one should be automatically rejected--if they make a great proposal but specify the wrong type of session, for instance.
> 
> After the main evaluation process, a handful of proposals that ALMOST made the cut (and could fill a clear gap in the agenda), will be given feedback and given a week or two to improve and resubmit their proposal.
> 
> I also think having an independent appeals process could be invaluable and save a lot of time and anguish.
> 
> Mike
> 
> Sent from my Windows Phone
> From: William Drake
> Sent: ‎2/‎20/‎2014 11:23 AM
> To: Susan Chalmers
> Cc: MAG-public
> Subject: Re: [IGFmaglist] Handout for this morning's meeting
> 
> Hi
> 
> I was not able to attend this session but will add two cents based on experience.  It seems that some members are now converging around the idea of a multi-stage vetting process.  I’d just like to recall for those who weren’t on MAG last year that our experiment with that did not go well at all and was enormously labor intensive. Many of us who were here last year swore never again.   Leaving aside the ridiculous pressures it put on MAG members to do two separate review processes in a very tight time frame (which is even tighter this year), the first, purportedly “light" vetting seemed to yield a lot more community dissatisfaction than the second, more systematic and fair review of full proposals.  We had hundreds of initial apps and many were rejected based on just a couple of sentences of loose description people rushed together to meet the deadline, with no listing of panelists etc. so the MAG could get a real feel for what the session might look like.
> 
> If the majority is truly committed to doing a multistage process again I’ll of course roll with it, but am puzzled as to how the presumed benefits are being weighted against he actually experienced costs.  
> 
> Best,
> 
> Bill
> 
> On Feb 20, 2014, at 8:49 AM, Susan Chalmers <susan at susanchalmers.com> wrote:
> 
> > Please find attached.
> > 
> 
> ***********************************************
> William J. Drake
> International Fellow & Lecturer
>   Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ
>   University of Zurich, Switzerland
> Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, 
>   ICANN, www.ncuc.org
> william.drake at uzh.ch (direct), wjdrake at gmail.com (lists),
>   www.williamdrake.org
> ***********************************************
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Igfmaglist mailing list
> Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org
> http://mail.intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/igfmaglist_intgovforum.org

***********************************************
William J. Drake
International Fellow & Lecturer
  Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ
  University of Zurich, Switzerland
Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, 
  ICANN, www.ncuc.org
william.drake at uzh.ch (direct), wjdrake at gmail.com (lists),
  www.williamdrake.org
***********************************************

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://intgovforum.org/pipermail/igfmaglist_intgovforum.org/attachments/20140220/7ef25281/attachment.htm>