[IGFmaglist] 'Wild Cards'

Fri Jun 2 03:46:13 EDT 2017

 blockquote, div.yahoo_quoted { margin-left: 0 !important; border-left:1px #715FFA solid !important; padding-left:1ex !important; background-color:white !important; } Same here but I saw it in Flavio's reply.
Zeina

Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone

On Friday, June 2, 2017, 10:44, Michael Ilishebo <ilishebo at gmail.com> wrote:

Why am I missing Rasha's email responses on the MAG List?
I am unable to see them.

Ilishebo Michael
On Jun 2, 2017 09:15, "Marina Sokolova" <sokolova at data.minsk.by> wrote:

Dear all,I absolutely agree with Kenta's points 5 and 6 

   - "We should not make our evaluation process excessively complicated. If there are any important proposals which unfortunately got low evaluations as a result of our grading, we should pick them up after the entire evaluation results come out (but only if there is still room to be able to accept additional proposals from them)".   

   -  "In the past, we “conditionally” accepted some proposals as well as informed unsuccessful session organizers of the possibility to “revive” their proposals by e-mail from the Secretariat. I think this way is appropriate and we should keep this track without using the concept of a “wild card”.

The so-called "wild cards" could be useful for the capacity building process, i.e. we can start working with the proposers (suggesting them participation in IG school and other educational events) so that next year they were able to design a proper proposal. We, again, can become self-selected mentors for some of them.
Best regards,Marina Sakalova

2017-06-02 10:04 GMT+03:00 Kenta Mochizuki <kemochiz at yahoo-corp.jp>:

All,

Apologies for being unable to get involved in this discussion earlier and thank you so much for all of your comments on wild cards.

I would like to make some comments on this as follows:

1. I would like to ask the Secretariat to list up proposals which are so far explicitly suggested to be wild cards. I would like to know the up-to-date list (but if the MAG would like to maintain this concept, please see below).

2. I understand the concept of wild cards, but would like to know whether it is possible for each MAG member to expand the number or range of wild cards.

3. Ginger suggested voting on wild cards, but what is justification to do this, i.e., why only several proposals can be privileged for that voting although there is a formally-set procedure to evaluate proposals and we did it by the deadline.  In addition, it is still unclear “after” the voting and whether it is consistent with our decision-making rule, i.e., rough consensus.

4. In this regard, I support Elizabeth, Arnold, Raquel, and Alejandora. If we would really like to maintain this concept, wild cards should be considered after the entire evaluation results come out.

5. Personally, I cannot support the concept of a “wild card”. We should not make our evaluation process excessively complicated. If there are any important proposals which unfortunately got low evaluations as a result of our grading, we should pick them up after the entire evaluation results come out (but only if there is still room to be able to accept additional proposals from them).

6. In the past, we “conditionally” accepted some proposals as well as informed unsuccessful session organizers of the possibility to “revive” their proposals by e-mail from the Secretariat. I think this way is appropriate and we should keep this track without using the concept of a “wild card”.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

Kenta

============================== ======

Kenta Mochizuki (Mr.)

Attorney at Law (New York)

Public Policy, Corporate Intelligence

Yahoo Japan Corporation

TEL: 03-6898-4205 / 080-4797-5462

FAX: 03-6898-9646

E-MAIL:kemochiz at yahoo-corp.jp

BLOG:https://publicpolicy.yahoo.co. jp/

============================== ======

From: Igfmaglist [mailto:igfmaglist-bounces at int govforum.org]On Behalf Of Zeina BOUHARB
Sent: Friday, June 02, 2017 1:47 PM
To: flavio at inf.ufrgs.br; Dr. Rasha Abdulla <rasha at aucegypt.edu>
Cc: IGF Maglist <Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org>
Subject: Re: [IGFmaglist] 'Wild Cards'

Totally agree with Rasha.

Zeina 

From: "flavio at inf.ufrgs.br" <flavio at inf.ufrgs.br>
To: Dr. Rasha Abdulla <rasha at aucegypt.edu>
Cc: IGF Maglist <Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org>
Sent: Friday, 2 June 2017, 1:08
Subject: Re: [IGFmaglist] 'Wild Cards'

+1 to Rasha.

Flávio

Em 1 de jun de 2017 6:50 PM, "Dr. Rasha Abdulla" <rasha at aucegypt.edu> escreveu:

Dear all,

Many interesting points being made here. I agree that the wildcards (if we choose to go by that name, I still don't think it's much different from what we did in the past) should be identified after the final cut. However, I also understand that based on (at least) last year's experience, most of us are fairly certain that the cutting point would be above 3.5 or so, which is why some members are already proposing workshops for wildcards.

I think generally speaking, we should keep wildcard suggestions to a minimum, and we should highlight why a particular WS might deserve a wild card. It seems doable to me that we might look at these sessions during our face to face meeting. Keep in mind that there is a set number of WS that can be accommodated, and so really for every wildcard we accept, we are probably taking out a WS that scored (maybe significantly) higher. Let's see what we can accommodate based on possible mergers as well. So I think that if we agree to admitting wildcards, we have to be very flexible about the whole process of doing so, and we have to do in the strictest possible manner (least number and only for a very good reason), because it's taking away from a WS that made the selection cutting point (or purposefully raising the selection cutting point to allow for wildcards).

Best regards.

Rasha

Rasha A. Abdulla, Ph.D.
Associate Professor and Graduate Director
Journalism and Mass Communication 
The American University in Cairo
www.rashaabdulla.com
Twitter: @RashaAbdulla
<http://twitter.com/rashaabdul la>

On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 7:13 PM, Alejandra Erramuspe <alejandra.erramuspe at agesic.gu b.uy> wrote:

Hi everyone!

I have the same concerns that Raquel expressed.

I don´t know why we all should have a wild card. Don't you think that is it better that once the MAG as a whole make the evaluation, we could see if any proposal we think is important or interesting has been left out and look for the way to include it?

I believe that the possibility to merge proposals (2 or more) should not be underestimated as well as the possibility to merge proposals with a main session.

best,

Alejandra Erramuspe
Comunicación Institucional
AGESIC
Liniers 1324 Piso 3
Torre Ejecutiva
Tel.: 2901 2929 int. 8591
Montevideo - Uruguay

De:"Miguel Ignacio Estrada" <miestrada at gmail.com>
Para: "Raquel Gatto" <gatto at isoc.org>
CC: "IGF Maglist" <Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org>
Enviados: Jueves, 1 de Junio 2017 13:59:52
Asunto: Re: [IGFmaglist] 'Wild Cards'

My proposal intends to address the wildcarded WS selection process:

3. The Secretariat/WGNSF will gather all the wildcards and check for the WS that gets most wildcards, in case there is one, the Secretariat should contact the WGSF should contact the proposer and the WGNSF should start working with them on its enhancements. Those enhancements could include the merger with other "wildcarded" WS

4. If there is not a WS with more wildcards than others, the focus should be on the topic, and the Secretariat/WGNSF should check which topic got most WS related wildcards, and after selecting one, the WGNSF should start working on a merger of those WS.

On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 1:35 PM, Raquel Gatto <gatto at isoc.org> wrote:

Hi Nacho and all,

Thanks for outlining a draft procedure! And agree on taking for the new formats wg.

I also agree with you, Elizabeth and Arnold on timing. Wildcards would be more relevant after we know the cutting rate for the workshop proposals.

However, I am still unclear on how we are going to consider all the wildcards. For example, if each MAG member has a wildcard, are we talking about potentially 50+ WS going up for approved? Or there will be any kind of sorting out a limit of 5-10 to be worked further ahead? 

In general, I think we need to have a limit so we dont overpass the approved workshops by rating. However I would only pick on numbers after knowing how many are in good standing against the number of slots. Probably a picture for the next Tuesday call.

My cents!

Raquel Gatto 

Regional Policy Advisor

Internet Society

Em 1 de jun de 2017, às 13:16, Miguel Ignacio Estrada <miestrada at gmail.com> escreveu:

Dear Arnold/Elizabeth, thanks for asking on the timing, this wasn't included in my suggestion and it is the more important aspect at the moment. 

I totally agree with you both that the wildcard should be "used" after the selection, if not some of us would be "loosing" it if our wildcarded WS makes it to the final cut.

So my proposal would be:

1. After all the WS are selected, each MAG member will have the opportunity to choose one of the non selected WS that she/he finds relevant/interesting.

2. The Secretariat should reserve a place in the agenda for the selected WS

3. The Secretariat/WGNSF will gather all the wildcards and check for the WS that gets most wildcards, in case there is one, the Secretariat should contact the WGSF should contact the proposer and the WGNSF should start working with them on its enhancements. Those enhancements could include the merger with other "wildcarded" WS

4. If there is not a WS with more wildcards than others, the focus should be on the topic, and the Secretariat/WGNSF should check which topic got most WS related wildcards, and after selecting one, the WGNSF should start working on a merger of those WS.

Any suggestions / comments?

In case there is support, we should move this discussion to the WGSF to leave the MAG list for more general issues.

On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 12:06 PM, THOMAS-RAYNAUD Elizabeth <elizabeth.thomas-raynaud@ iccwbo.org> wrote:

If I understand correctly the suggestion made by Miguel and the question by Arnold,

The wild card option would indeed need to be identified by MAG members after the evaluation results are shared.

I support the suggestion that Miguel made on the new formats WG taking it on as their first task.

The question of voting in this regard is not clear to me and second the call for clarity.

Cheers,

Elizabeth THOMAS-RAYNAUD

International Chamber of Commerce (ICC)

Project Director, ICC Business Action to Support the Information Society (BASIS)

Senior Policy Executive, Digital Economy

From: Igfmaglist [mailto:igfmaglist-bounces@ intgovforum.org]On Behalf Of Rhijn, mr. A.C.F. van (Arnold)
Sent: 01 June 2017 16:38
To: IGF Maglist
Subject: Re: [IGFmaglist] 'Wild Cards'

Dear Chengetai/colleagues,

Thank you for bringing this new concept of a ‘wildcard’ to the table. I would like to have more clarification on this, as it is still unclear to me how this relates to the MAG’s voting process. At first sight, it looks like complicating this process even more, or undermining it, but I may be wrong.

In my view, a wildcard can only be considered if in the context of the evaluation process a workshop proposal didn’t make the final cut. So, this consideration should be done after the MAG’s final decision and not before. Like the use of wildcards in sports, this means that a certain workshop proposal is allowed to play a role in the IGF program, although this proposal has not qualified for it through the normal process. At least, this is how understand the concept of a wildcard. But then, how are we going to select workshop proposals for wildcards under which criteria? Why not just see what will come out from our meeting in June?

Appreciate some more clarity here.

Best regards,

Arnold

Van: Igfmaglist [mailto:igfmaglist-bounces@ intgovforum.org]Namens Miguel Ignacio Estrada
Verzonden: donderdag 1 juni 2017 13:06
Aan: Ginger Paque
CC: IGF Maglist
Onderwerp: Re: [IGFmaglist] 'Wild Cards'

Dear Chengetai/Renata,

I think it would be more productive if each MAG member chooses just 1 WS (each one has one wildcard). This way the wildcard would be as a "vote" for that WS and the final decision will be easier for the MAG and the Secretariat.

If that's OK with the MAG, the "Wildcards Project" could be the first task for the WG on New Session Formats. We should then work together with the Secretariat in the Wildcards voting, selected WS enhancements and room allocation.

I look forward your comments.

On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 7:31 AM, Ginger Paque <virginiap at diplomacy.edu> wrote:

Thanks, Chengetai, and Renata.

Because of the under-discussed important topic and low participation of Venezuela, this workshop by first-time proposers should be considered even if it doesn't make the first cut-off:

IGF 2017 WS #282 Biometrics and identity in the Global South | Internet Governance Forum

I think the topic is very important, as we see Venezuela in crisis, and a requirement for a fingerprint (then stored) to buy groceries (to avoid over-buying and speculation). Fingerprint to vote (stored--linked to the vote?), as well as general implications for privacy and freedom of expression, are important for IG.

Things like poor planning for online participation, and no agenda can be addressed with the organisers. I'd be happy to offer my help to the organisers, if the Secretariat can provide contact information.

Thanks for your consideration.

Ginger

Virginia Paque

DiploFoundation

Upcoming courses:  Master in Contemporary Diplomacy; Education Diplomacy; Consular and Diaspora Diplomacy; Cybersecurity; Development Diplomacy; Economic Diplomacy; Language and Diplomacy http://www. diplomacy.edu/courses

On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 4:14 AM, Chengetai Masango <cmasango at unog.ch> wrote:

Dear All,

The Secretariat  received three suggestions for 'wild card’ workshop proposals from Renata for the MAG' consideration :

| 
Workshop #6
Collaborative Community Development Program Learn IG Promoting Youth
on the Table
My grade was 3.25
Comments
A few changes on the content, if possible
"Youth as speakers" is a better name. Substitute "youths" for "young
people". Rephrase "as a holiday" to "and not truly engaging".
http://www.intgovforum.org/ multilingual/content/igf-2017- ws-6-collaborative-community- development-program-learn-ig- promoting-youth-on-the
Get perspectives from LAC and Africa.
 |
| 
Workshop #8
Open Source: Defending Freedoms in the Digital Future
My grade was 3.25
Comments
Get other regional voices, such as LAC and stakeholder group government.
 |
| 
Worskhop #218
The Cost of Zero-Rating in the Americas. Current Practices, and the Future.
My grade was 3.25
Comments
Are the Americas only in the major cities like Rio and Sao Paulo? Get
Civil Society activists who are truly in places where zero-rating
makes a difference like countryside area.
 |

Best regards,

Chengetai 

______________________________ _________________
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

--

Nacho Estrada |@acmuzic

Dit bericht kan informatie bevatten die niet voor u is bestemd. Indien u
niet de geadresseerde bent of dit bericht abusievelijk aan u is gezonden,
wordt u verzocht dat aan de afzender te melden en het bericht te 
verwijderen. 
De Staat aanvaardt geen aansprakelijkheid voor schade, van welke aard 
ook, die verband houdt met risico's verbonden aan het elektronisch 
verzenden van berichten. 

This message may contain information that is not intended for you. If you
are not the addressee or if this message was sent to you by mistake, you
are requested to inform the sender and delete the message.
The State accepts no liability for damage of any kind resulting from the
risks inherent in the electronic transmission of messages.

______________________________ _________________
Igfmaglist mailing list
Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org
http://intgovforum.org/ mailman/listinfo/igfmaglist_ intgovforum.org

--

Nacho Estrada |@acmuzic

______________________________ _________________
Igfmaglist mailing list
Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org
http://intgovforum.org/ mailman/listinfo/igfmaglist_ intgovforum.org

--

Nacho Estrada |@acmuzic

______________________________ _________________
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_intgovfor um.org

______________________________ _________________
Igfmaglist mailing list
Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org
http://intgovforum.org/mailman /listinfo/igfmaglist_intgovfor um.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/20170602/9a69b558/attachment.htm>