[IGFmaglist] PROPOSAL FOR WORKING GROUP ON IMPROVING THE IGF CALL FOR PROPOSALS AND SELECTION PROCESS

Sun Jul 24 13:41:49 EDT 2016

Thanks Rasha for your great proposal.

I fully agree with Flavio's suggestions, specially #6 as I believe
technology should be our best ally during the complete process.

On Sun, Jul 24, 2016 at 11:26 AM, Flávio Rech Wagner <flavio at inf.ufrgs.br>
wrote:

> Dear Rasha
>
> Thank you very much for this draft charter proposal.
>
> I would suggest two additional areas of improvement:
>
> 5) Establish a well defined and precise procedure for the final selection
> of workshops in the face-to-face MAG meeting, considering the results of
> the electronic review process but also taking into account that the final
> list of accepted workshops must present desired diversity and balance
> (among stakeholder groups, considering geographic diversity, giving
> priority to developing countries and newcomers, etc.).
>
> 6) Revise and improve electronic resources used throughout the various
> phases of the process (submission, review, proposals of mergers,
> clustering, final selection).
>
> Best regards
>
> Flavio
>
> Em 23/07/2016 22:34, Dr. Rasha Abdulla escreveu:
>
> *PROPOSAL FOR WORKING GROUP ON IMPROVING THE IGF CALL FOR PROPOSALS AND
> SELECTION PROCESS*
>
>
> Dear Colleagues,
>
> Below please find a draft charter proposal for the Working Group on
> Improving the IGF Call for Proposals and Selection Process (WG-ICPS) for
> your kind consideration.
>
>
> *Need for Updating the IGF Call for Proposals and Selection Process*
>
>
> Recognizing the work that has been done in previous years to enhance the
> workshop proposal call and selection process, the deliberations of the MAG
> second meeting in NYC established that there still is much room for
> improvement.  The same conclusion was reiterated during the IGF Retreat
> in Glen Cove, the report of which states:
>
> *“Some participants expressed the view that MAG members spend too much
> time in workshop evaluation. It was suggested that the workshop selection
> process be improved, streamlined, and more transparent. There can be more
> work done prior to the selection discussion, and the selection processes
> started much earlier. It was **discussed that if the MAG can establish
> more concrete and concise criteria up front, these can be reflected more
> clearly in all subsequent steps, e.g., call for workshops, proposal
> templates, clustering, etc. This will enable an improved Secretariat
> pre-screening process, including better evaluation of the proposals at the
> time of submission, suggested actions such as possible mergers, and more
> effective clustering.”*
>
> Areas of improvement include the following:
>
> 1)      Establishing well defined criteria for Stage 1 elimination by the
> Secretariat, so that workshops that make it into the MAG evaluation pool
> are all qualified for further MAG review.
>
> 2)      Establishing well defined criteria for Stage 2 evaluation by MAG
> members, so that all workshops evaluated pass through the same checkmarks
> and are evaluated according to the same criteria with the aim of reducing
> subjectivity in the evaluation process.
>
> 3)      Establishing a review system whereby each workshop is evaluated
> by a representative number of multistakeholder MAG members rather than by
> the whole MAG, effectively reducing the amount of work required from each
> MAG member while maintaining or improving the review standards and process.
>
> 4)      Improving the workshop proposal form and requirements to reflect
> the above and to provide better guidance to proposers and encourage more
> diversity.
>
> This working group is therefore proposed to work on the above and have a
> better system in place for the 2017 IGF. Feedback from all MAG members is
> invited, and we also recognize the need for feedback from IGF proposers and
> participants, particularly regarding Item 4.
>
>
> *Proposed (Tentative) Action Items / Timeline*
>
>
> Below is a proposed schedule for consideration by MAG members:
>
>
>
> *Activity*
>
> *Deadline / Dates*
>
> *Duration*
>
> 1.
>
> Discussion of the WG charter and modifications
>
> Online, July 24-30
>
>
>
> 2.
>
> Approval of the WG charter by MAG members
>
> During the next MAG virtual meeting
>
>
>
> 2.
>
> Working Group activity
>
> Post WG approval-next MAG face-to-face meeting
>
> 3.
>
> Working Group to submit recommendations to the MAG members
>
> During next MAG face-to-face meeting
>
> 4.
>
> Discussion and approval of the WG recommendations by MAG members
>
> During next MAG face-to-face meeting
>
>
>
>
>
> The above is mostly tentative and open to feedback and modifications.  All
> recommendations of the WG are of course subject to the MAG’s final
> approval.
>
>
> Best regards.
> Rasha
>
> Rasha A. Abdulla, Ph.D.
> Associate Professor and Past Chair
> Journalism and Mass Communication
> The American University in Cairo
> www.rashaabdulla.com
> Twitter: @RashaAbdulla
> <http://twitter.com/rashaabdulla>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Igfmaglist mailing listIgfmaglist at intgovforum.orghttp://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/igfmaglist_intgovforum.org
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Igfmaglist mailing list
> Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org
> http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/igfmaglist_intgovforum.org
>
>

-- 
Nacho Estrada | @acmuzic <http://twitter.com/acmuzic>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://intgovforum.org/pipermail/igfmaglist_intgovforum.org/attachments/20160724/3fbb8f5b/attachment.htm>