[IGFmaglist] 'Wild Cards'
Jac sm Kee
jac at apcwomen.org
Fri Jun 2 05:57:12 EDT 2017
Hi everyone,
Thanks for a robust discussion on this. It sounds to me that there may
be some confusion because of using the term wildcard. From what I read,
it appears that we are not trying to change the process of assessment
radically from what was before, but making an effort to systematise a
process based on learnings and to improve maybe broader participation
and transparency.
To risk summarising/synthesising what is already synthesised, penning
some observations:
* Principle is that we decide on workshops from the assessment/grading,
agree on accepted workshops based on an average and percentage (4s and
above usually make it, and then depending on overall numbers, 3.75 or 3.5).
* There will then be a specific percentage/numbers of workshops to be
filled through discussions at the MAG meeting (with improvements made to
remote participation as well), through consensus/voting/objections.
* For the above, some suggestions on improving the process:
*** That all MAG members already pre-identify a minimum amount of WS
(ranging from 1 to 3?) that they encountered in the assessment process
that they would like to be put into the bucket list for consideration
(these are what is now termed as wildcards)
*** That if you already know this, then this can be shared with the
secretariat before hand who will compile a list and share with everyone
so we all have a chance to go through them and consider prior to the
discusssion during the MAG (post cut-off accepted WSs decision)
*** That this will help to a)save time; b) also give a better sense of
what to support or not based on all the bucket list with knowledge that
there will be a limitation overall; c) that it is also more transparent
in terms of which WS that you know probably wont make the cut (i.e.
below 3.75) that you think have enough merit to be supported; d) and if
a "wildcard" WS has more than one MAG member putting it on the list,
chances are it's already got some level of support and so may short-cut
the process of negotiation as well (although objections can still be
made during the discussion).
*** But that this does not preclude additional WS that don't make the
cut to be raised as potential WS to be supported either way during the
discussion (because we don't know what happens post-average of
everyone's assessment)
* So in the agenda item where we are discussing workshops that don't
make the cut, we do not only limit ourselves to the wildcards, but also
allow for spaces where other WS that dont make the cut to also be put
into the bucket for consideration
* And some criteria for consideration would be:
*** Can it be improved? E.g. through format changes suggestions, or more
diverse stakeholders
*** Can it be merged? Bearing in mind mergers have not really worked
well before and should be treated with caution
*** Is it a critical topic that needs to be raised?
*** Is it from a region/stakeholder grp that needs more participation,
and thus should be weighted up?
*** And potentially more
Hopefully this makes sense and has captured some of the discussions as I
understood it so far. If I misread some stuff, clarification is appreciated!
Best,
jac
---------------------------------
Jac sm Kee
Manager, Women's Rights Programme
Association for Progressive Communications
www.apc.org | www.takebackthetech.net | erotics.apc.org
Jitsi: jacsmk | Skype: jacsmk | Twitter: @jhybe
On 02/06/2017 15:04, Kenta Mochizuki wrote:
> 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 <mailto:kemochiz at yahoo-corp.jp>
>
> BLOG: https://publicpolicy.yahoo.co.jp/
>
> ====================================
>
>
>
> *From:*Igfmaglist [mailto:igfmaglist-bounces at intgovforum.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 <mailto:flavio at inf.ufrgs.br>"
> <flavio at inf.ufrgs.br <mailto:flavio at inf.ufrgs.br>>
> *To:* Dr. Rasha Abdulla <rasha at aucegypt.edu <mailto:rasha at aucegypt.edu>>
> *Cc:* IGF Maglist <Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org
> <mailto: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
> <mailto: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 <http://www.rashaabdulla.com/>
> Twitter: @RashaAbdulla
> <http://twitter.com/rashaabdulla>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 7:13 PM, Alejandra Erramuspe
> <alejandra.erramuspe at agesic.gub.uy
> <mailto:alejandra.erramuspe at agesic.gub.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
> <mailto:miestrada at gmail.com>>
> *Para: *"Raquel Gatto" <gatto at isoc.org <mailto:gatto at isoc.org>>
> *CC: *"IGF Maglist" <Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org
> <mailto: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
> <mailto: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 <mailto: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
> <mailto:elizabeth.thomas-raynaud at 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
> <mailto:igfmaglist-bounces at 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
> <mailto:igfmaglist-bounces at 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
> <mailto: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
> <http://diplomacy.us5.list-manage.com/track/click?u=89e7299f9fe54eed66d45cf3d&id=4c5460f299&e=bc0aff4eba>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 4:14 AM, Chengetai Masango
> <cmasango at unog.ch <mailto: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
> <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
> <mailto:Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org>
> http://intgovforum.org/
> mailman/listinfo/igfmaglist_ intgovforum.org
> <http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/igfmaglist_intgovforum.org>
>
>
>
>
> ______________________________ _________________
> Igfmaglist mailing list
> Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org
> <mailto:Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org>
> http://intgovforum.org/ mailman/listinfo/igfmaglist_
> intgovforum.org
> <http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/igfmaglist_intgovforum.org>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Nacho Estrada | @acmuzic <http://twitter.com/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
> <mailto:Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org>
> http://intgovforum.org/ mailman/listinfo/igfmaglist_
> intgovforum.org
> <http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/igfmaglist_intgovforum.org>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Nacho Estrada | @acmuzic <http://twitter.com/acmuzic>
>
> ______________________________ _________________
> Igfmaglist mailing list
> Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org
> <mailto:Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org>
> http://intgovforum.org/ mailman/listinfo/igfmaglist_
> intgovforum.org
> <http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/igfmaglist_intgovforum.org>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Nacho Estrada | @acmuzic <http://twitter.com/acmuzic>
>
>
> ______________________________ _________________
> Igfmaglist mailing list
> Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org <mailto:Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org>
> http://intgovforum.org/ mailman/listinfo/igfmaglist_
> intgovforum.org
> <http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/igfmaglist_intgovforum.org>
>
>
>
>
> ______________________________ _________________
> Igfmaglist mailing list
> Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org <mailto:Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org>
> http://intgovforum.org/ mailman/listinfo/igfmaglist_
> intgovforum.org
> <http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/igfmaglist_intgovforum.org>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Igfmaglist mailing list
> Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org <mailto: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 --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 842 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://intgovforum.org/pipermail/igfmaglist_intgovforum.org/attachments/20170602/f6a485e0/attachment.sig>
More information about the Igfmaglist
mailing list