[IGFmaglist] IGF MAG WG on Call for Proposals and Workshop Evaluation Process

Sat Feb 4 06:38:28 EST 2017

Dear Lynn and MAG members,

Thank you for kick-starting discussion on this process early.

While I deeply appreciate and commend the Secretariat and MAG members
selfless service and commitment to hosting of IGF workshop, it is important
to voice out my concern on some of the issues raised by Marilyn. The
workshop selection and evaluation is yet to be truly transparent and
objective in its action. The fundamental roles of MAG as the evaluator and
adviser should be re-emphasized, perhaps we should harness new ways of
addressing conflict of interest.

In the true sense of it, it may be difficult  for a MAG member to evaluate
a workshop proposal emanating for his/her affiliated  association or
institution.  The policy on MAG members full disclosure should be made
stricter in response to conflict of interests during the workshop selection
process. We should consider addressing it in the next MAG meeting. I think
we need to have a reviewable  scale of preference or a principle for
prioritizing the basis of workshop selection every year.

I'll suggest Secretariat do an assessment on the MAG members direct
involvement in the last IGF workshops before kickstarting this new workshop
selection process. We need to identify the conflicting gaps and errors
before we can move forward. If not, we'll be denying ourselves a truly
vibrant, robust and a fair process.

For instance, during the IGF in Mexico, l particularly like the response I
received from Virat when I asked why he's not participating directly in the
workshop. He simply said, as MAG member, he decided not to get involved but
to *listen, watch and observe, where necessary provide **assistance, *which
he did*.* His response summed up our roles as MAG members. This was
collaborated by Brian when I asked him the same question in Mexico.

Then I have another question...should the Secretariat get involve in
moderating a workshop or a session?

Another important issue I'll like raise is building the capacity of the MAG
members on their specific roles during during the IGF. There are
assumptions that we know, but honestly, I discovered it wasn't so during
the IGF event... Or we knew but we unintentionally comprised it. Why not
re-asses ourselves before moving forward to take up our position.

Best Regards.

Segun H. Olugbile

*____________________________________________________________*
President, Global Network for Cybersolution - GNC  (www.gncafrica.org)
Member, National Cybercrime Advisory Council, Presidency (www.cert.gov.ng)
Member, Nigeria IGF Multi Stakeholders Advisory Group (www.nigf.org.ng)
Technical Advisor to ECOWAS on West Africa IGF (www.waigf.org)
Member, African Multi-Stakeholders Advisory Group  (www.afigf.org)
Member, Global IGF Multi-stakeholders Advisory Group to UN Sec. Gen. (
www.intgovforum.org)
Fellow, European School of Internet Governance (www.eurossig.eu)
Member, African Information & Communication Technhology Alliance (
www.aficta.org)
Managing Partner, Continental Project Affairs Associates (www.cpaa.com.ng)

*---------------------------------------------------------------*

*GNC | 5th floor (Olujinmi Chamber floor) NICON Insurance Plaza, Central
Business District, Abuja, FCT - Nigeria*

*CPAA | 72(b) Kwame Nkruma Cresent, Asokoro District Abuja-FCT |** Tel: 234
803 701 7537, 818 180 6044   *

*Cheerfulness and contentment are great beautifiers and are famous
preservers of youthful looks - Charles Dickens*

On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 7:05 PM, Marilyn Cade <marilynscade at hotmail.com>
wrote:

> Will the working group be open to include some who are not MAG members,
> but are experienced in developing workshops? As a former MAG member, it is
> not my intent to join this group, but I do want to follow its work closely.
>
>
> I am and have been concerned for some time about the workshop process. I
> was the first to insist that the MAG be put on a "diet" and not allowed to
> submit workshop proposals, as they were heavy on the moderating roles, and
> on the workshop submission roles in the past. In the early days, this was a
> necessity, due to the growth and development phases, but by the time I
> joined the MAG, it was long over due to insist on a change.
>
>
> I think that the MAG needs to do more to advise on what is expected ahead
> of time, and then the Secretariat should publish a sort of Request for
> Workshop proposals in a} 90 minute sessions in the following topics b)
> Flash Sessions/Innovative approaches c) 30 minute and 60 minutes sessions
> in the following topics.
>
>
> Perhaps it is important to build in something like the Open Consultation
> segment on the WSIS Forum, where those submitting workshops can share
> candidly and without risk of then having a later rating influenced by their
> candidness. It might be important to have the submissions sent to the
> Secretariat and then presented as a document without attribution, to avoid
> any later penalties, whether intentional or just a function of how people
> react to hearing feedback about their actions. We all mean well, but we are
> human, after all.
>
>
> I speak to a lot of the workshop proposers each year, and I hear comments
> like:
>
>
> So, a few of the  groups have submitted a lot of proposals, but used
> different names to submit but when you see the moderators, rapporteurs,
> remote moderators, you see that it is the same group and they get 3-4
> approved workshops, while new proposers rate low. And they are lucky to get
> one, or get none.
>
>
> Experienced submitters have a sort of game plan down and they can fulfill
> all requirements easily -- we are new and we are really trying to figure
> out the requirements. Is there a mentoring or coaching or training webinar
> we can attend?
>
>
> From my perspective as a former MAG member, I continue to have concerns
> about integrity and independence of the MAG members who are staff in an NRO
> or Association, or who are part of an NGO or a professional
> organization/association membership are rating that organizations's members
> submissions on workshops. I raised this several times during the three
> years that I was a MAG member, and raised it before I was a MAG member.
>
>
> The declaration of "interests" does not seem to be working well. Maybe a
> Statement of Interest for all MAG members, not just a bio would be a useful
> requirement.
>
>
> Another comment from someone who did get a workshop, but found it a real
> struggle:  If MAG members' organizations are taking up all the workshops,
> where is the space for newcomers -- regardless of what stakeholder group
> they come from?
>
>
> Another non MAG comment:  What about the  non MAG folks who just work hard
> all year and present a workshop and then are struck down in favor of
> workshops affiliated with MAG members?
>
>
> Maybe the MAG WG needs to think more deeply:
>
> Not just what the criteria for the workshop approval is, but add in a few
> factual analysis issues:
>
>
> - Over the last five years, do an  analysis of the number of times that a
> single person/single organization takes on speaker roles; remote moderator
> roles and rapporteur in workshops, so that it is possible to analyze how to
> better distribute opportunities to participate.  Facts are our Friends,
> right?
>
> -how often was it a newbie in these roles: Even a newbie can be welcomed
> to act as rapporteur or remote moderator and gain skills through mentoring
> and coaching.
>
>
> Ideas: Could the Secretariat perhaps offer a coaching/mentoring session
> for those who want to be workshop rapporteurs -- using online services, as
> they do with the remote moderation role? Could there be a training/coaching
> for facilitators, similar to what ICANN is now doing with its mentor/mentee
> program ?
>
>
> Everyone wants to cut the number of workshops, but then when the majority
> go to the same organizations -- whichever stakeholder group they come from
> -- where is the opportunity for the new folks just now coming into the
> IGF?  The new format did offer some opportunity, but it was not as robust
> as a full workshop session.
>
>
> How many workshops per issue?
>
> It is not always bad to have more than one workshop on a topic, given the
> wide range of perspectives.  Some seem to want to push all interested into
> a single workshop on a topic -- whatever it is, accommodating different
> views usually will require more than one workshop.  What might be important
> is to limit the workshop on a topic to only one per group and to show more
> diligence on making sure that it is not the same groups/people that are
> submitting multiple workshops -- and when they do, make them pick the
> workshop they put forward, BEFORE the rating.
>
>
> I share only some of the comments that have been made to me, when I just
> listened.
>
>
> Listening might be the most important thing that a sub working group could
> do, AND, I do strongly advise that those MAG members who are in any way
> engaged with members, staff who are submitting workshops from their
> affiliated groups, and who are engaging back at home in the development and
> planning, need to clearly declare that so that all 'interests' are visible.
>
>
>
> And for taking comments from workshop proposers, the Secretariat should
> devise a process which allows submission of comments that are then
> consolidated and presented without attribution. Do not assume that Chatham
> House rules are sufficient in such sensitive issues, as workshop space is a
> scare resource. Allow for submissions to the Secretariat that need to be
> from someone that tells the Secretariat who they are, but then have the
> summary anonymized. Hold an open consultation call about the feedback.
>
>
> I have had many concerns about the workshop evaluation process but I think
> that it would be important to  also learn more about how other groups do
> this: for instance, it might be useful to look at the IEEE-ITU joint work
> -- which is peer reviewed, but has a strict requirement that those
> evaluating DO NOT in any way support submissions. [even indirectly].
>
>
> As noted, I will follow the work of this group and agree it is needed, but
> I hope it is not dominated by MAG members.  in my view, MAG members should
> be in the business of listening and learning, not deciding.
>
>
> Marilyn Cade
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Igfmaglist <igfmaglist-bounces at intgovforum.org> on behalf of
> Laura Watkins <laura.watkins at nominet.uk>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, January 31, 2017 11:41 AM
> *To:* Juan Fernandez Gonzalez; Lynn St.Amour
> *Cc:* IGF Maglist
>
> *Subject:* Re: [IGFmaglist] IGF MAG WG on Call for Proposals and Workshop
> Evaluation Process
>
> Dear Lynn and all MAG colleagues,
>
> I would also like to be involved in this working group if the numbers are
> not getting too out of hand as I notice that a lot of people have put
> themselves forward.  I am planning to attend the MAG & open consultation
>
> Kind reagrds
> Laura
>
> Laura Watkins
> Policy Executive
>
>
> D: +44 (0)1865 332242    E: laura.watkins at nominet.uk
>
> Minerva House, Edmund Halley Road, Oxford Science Park, Oxford, OX4 4DQ,
> United Kingdom
>
>
> Nominet UK. Registered in England and Wales No. 3203859
>
> This message is intended exclusively for the individual(s) to whom it is
> addressed and may contain information that is privileged, or confidential.
> If you are not the addressee, you must not read, use or disclose the
> contents of this e-mail. If you receive this e-mail in error, please advise
> us immediately and delete the e-mail. Nominet UK has taken every reasonable
> precaution to ensure that any attachment to this e-mail has been swept for
> viruses. However, Nominet cannot accept liability for any damage sustained
> as a result of software viruses and would advise that you carry out your
> own virus checks before opening any attachment.
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Igfmaglist [mailto:igfmaglist-bounces at intgovforum.org
> <igfmaglist-bounces at intgovforum.org>] On Behalf Of Juan Fernandez Gonzalez
> Sent: 31 January 2017 15:04
> To: Lynn St.Amour <Lynn at Internet-Matters.org>
> Cc: IGF Maglist <Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org>
> Subject: Re: [IGFmaglist] IGF MAG WG on Call for Proposals and Workshop
> Evaluation Process
>
> Dear Lynn and MAG colleagues:
>
> I volunteer to collaborate with this WG.
>
> I agree with you on the importance of this.
>
> Best regards
>
> Juan
>
>
> ----- Mensaje original -----
> De: "Lynn St.Amour" <Lynn at Internet-Matters.org>
> Para: "Renata Aquino Ribeiro" <raquino at gmail.com>
> CC: "IGF Maglist" <Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org>
> Enviados: Sábado, 28 de Enero 2017 11:38:06
> Asunto: Re: [IGFmaglist] IGF MAG WG on Call for Proposals and Workshop
> Evaluation Process
>
> Thank you Renata, Wisdom,
>
> Just to be clear though, the old WG was never established — MAG members
> were so keen to help that they started volunteering before the Charter was
> approved.  This is a new call for volunteers (and new list) based on the
> charter approved in December 2016.  We need to establish a small dedicated
> diverse WG.
>
> Very much look forward to your continuing support,
>
> Lynn
>
>
> > On Jan 27, 2017, at 7:25 PM, Renata Aquino Ribeiro <raquino at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi
> >
> > I'm already on this list and hope to contribute more in 2017.
> >
> > Em 27/01/2017 19:28, "Wisdom Donkor" <wisdom.dk at gmail.com> escreveu:
> > Thank you Madam Chair for this very important information and thank you
> Rasha for agreeing to lead the process once again. You have my full support.
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > On Friday, January 27, 2017, Lynn St.Amour <Lynn at internet-matters.org>
> wrote:
> > Dear MAG colleagues,
> >
> > while we wait for the 2017 MAG and MAG Chair to be announced, we have
> support to continue to use last years MAG mailing list to carry out
> informal discussions and advance some critical work areas until the 2017
> MAG and MAG Chair are formally in place.
> >
> > Late last year the charter was approved for the MAG WG on Call for
> Proposals and Workshop Evaluation Process.  The charter is attached
> unchanged (except for the updated timetable), and Rasha has again agreed to
> lead this WG.  Once the 2017 MAG is announced they can formally (re)approve
> the charter but it is imperative that work begin on this now.   There needs
> to be a solid proposal for review at the first MAG meeting so time really
> is of the essence.  Fortunately, a fair amount of work was done last year
> and it should be possible to move this forward quickly.
> >
> > We need a small dedicated diverse WG - with good outreach to their
> communities and to proposers.  I would like to call for volunteers to help
> move this forward.
> >
> > There will be time for community/proposer reviews, and it will be the
> > responsibility of the new MAG to approve any changes to this
> > Call/Evaluation process
> >
> > Thank you in advance to Rasha and to those who volunteer to help.
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Lynn
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > WISDOM DONKOR (S/N Eng.)
> > E-government and Open Government Data Platforms Specialist National
> > Information Technology Agency (NITA)/ Ghana Open Data Initiative
> > Project.
> > ICANN Fellow / Member, UN IGF MAG Member, ISOC Member, Freedom Online
> > Coalition (FOC) Member, Diplo Foundation Member, OGP Open Data WG
> > Member, GODAN Memember, ITAG Member
> > Email: wisdom_dk at hotmail.com
> > wisdom.donkor at data.gov.gh
> > wisdom.dk at gmail.com
> > Skype: wisdom_dk
> > facebook: facebook at wisdom_dk
> > Website: www.nita.gov.gh / www.data.gov.gh www.isoc.gh /
> > www.itag.org.gh
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Igfmaglist mailing list
> > Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org
> > http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/igfmaglist_intgovforum.org
> >
> --
> Juan Alfonso Fernández González
> Asesor
> Ministerio de Comunicaciones
> República de Cuba
> Email: juan.fernandez at mincom.gob.cu
> Tel.: +535 2885103
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20170204/08ccc52e/attachment.htm>