[IGFmaglist] 'Wild Cards'

Sat Jun 3 01:43:09 EDT 2017

+1

Segun H. Olugbile

CEO|CPAA
Abuja

www.cpaa.com.ng

On 1 Jun 2017 18:14, "Alejandra Erramuspe" <
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>
> *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 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 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 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>
>>> 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>
>>> 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 <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
>>> http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/igfmaglist_intgovforum.org
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Nacho Estrada | @acmuzic <http://twitter.com/acmuzic>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Igfmaglist mailing list
>> Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org
>> http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/igfmaglist_intgovforum.org
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Nacho Estrada | @acmuzic <http://twitter.com/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
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://intgovforum.org/pipermail/igfmaglist_intgovforum.org/attachments/20170603/3e5b500e/attachment.htm>