[Rigf_program] Revised evaluation system for APrIGF proposals

[Duangthip Chomprang]

Dear Paul and the Team,

ISOC would like to volunteer. I would like to place my name, Thip from the Asia-Pacific Regional Bureau of the Internet Society in the committee. This is following up to the previous email volunteering for this.

Thip

Internet Society
Asia-Pacific Regional Bureau

On 7 Jun 2556 BE, at 14:00, Paul Wilson <pwilson at apnic.net> wrote:

> Dear all,
> 
> I have revised the proposal evaluation system as follows, which I believe takes into account all comments made at the meeting today.  
> 
> I hereby call for volunteers for the Selection Committee to please indicate your interest on the mailing list.  The deadline for volunteers will be 23:59 on 14 June 2013, UTC (or when 20 members have been selected, if that comes first).
> 
> NOTE: Volunteers MUST indicate their stakeholder affiliation (section B) and cannot be considered without this.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Paul.
> =====
> 
> 
> APrIGF Proposal evaluation system
> ---------------------------------
> 
> Version: 1.0, June 2013
> 
> This document describes the mechanisms for evaluating session proposals (for workshops, plenaries or other sessions) submitted to the APrIGF, and for selecting successful proposals.
> 
> 
> A. Selection Committee
> ----------------------
> 
> A volunteer subcommittee (Selection Committee) of the MSG will be assembled for the purpose of rating the proposals, as follows:
> 
> 1. After a call issued by the MSG chair, volunteers will submit their names and stakeholder affiliation (see below) to the MSG mailing list
> 
> 2. Names will be accepted in order of appearance on the list, providing that no single stakeholder grouping is represented by more than 40% or less than 10% of committee members.   
> 
> 3. Up to 20 volunteers will be accepted by this means (less if the deadline passes before reaching this number)
> 
> 4. The selected members of the Selection Committee will be published on the MSG mailing list.  
> 
> Committee members serve in their individual capacity to further the aims and success of the APrIGF, and not in a representative capacity for their stakeholder grouping or organisation.  
> 
> 
> B. Stakeholder Groups
> ---------------------
> 
> The APrIGF recognises 4 stakeholder groups as follows:
> 
> 1. Civil Society
> 2. Technical and Academic
> 3. Business
> 4. Governmental
> 
> 
> C. Criteria for Evaluation
> -----------------------
> 
> Proposals will be evaluated according to 3 criteria, interpreted according to the following guidance:
> 
> 1. Relevance
> 
> Is the proposal relevant to the themes of this APrIGF meeting?  Are the themes clearly stated and/or evident in the proposal?  Are the specific issues to be addressed by the proposal also clear and relevant?
> 
> 2. Completeness
> 
> Does the proposal provide all information as requested in the CFP, specifically:  discussion theme and issues, format and approach, and panelists.  Is this information clear and complete enough to properly describe an acceptable proposal?  Does it appear than panellists are actually confirmed, or are they just invited, or only proposed?
> 
> 3. Diversity
> 
> Will the proposed session represent viewpoints from multiple stakeholder, geographic, economic and/or cultural perspectives?  Are listed panelists properly qualified to represent one or more distinct stakeholder groups?  Will the session contribute to the overall diversity and multi-stakeholder representation of the APrIGF event?
> 
> 
> Each proposal will be evaluated on each criterial, with a score between 1 and 4 as follows:
> 
> 4 = criteria is fully satisfied
> 3 = acceptable
> 2 = needs improvement
> 1 = absent
> 
> (giving each proposal a total score between 4 and 12.  For averaging purposes, a rating of 0 will not be counted)
> 
> 
> D. Proposal Ratings
> -------------------
> 
> Following the assembly of the selection committee, committee members will submit their proposal ratings to the APrIGF secretariat, using the agreed ratings form. After the deadline for submission, the secretariat will publish a report of proposals showing the anonymised ratings received, average rating, and rank order from highest to lowest average rating.   The ratings given by specific (named) individual committee members will not be published.
> 
> 
> E. Selection Process
> --------------------
> 
> As its next meeting after publication of proposal ratings, the MSG will consider the list of rated proposals and select proposals in order of average rating, in consideration of diversity of the proposals, and possible merger of proposals which involve duplication of content, theme or issue.
> 
> During this discussion, selection committee members may modify their ratings, providing this can be achieved in a secure real-time manner.
> 
> The final decision of the MSG will be made by consensus.  MSG members with personal involvement in any proposal (as proponent, panelist, subject, or otherwise) may submit rating for such proposals and participate in the discussion but may not block not the consensus of the MSG. 
> 
> After this meeting, the selected proposals (including proposals for mergers) will be published on the MSG mailing list and APrIGF website.
> 
> ---
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Rigf_program mailing list
> Rigf_program at aprigf.asia
> https://mailman.dotasia.org/mailman/listinfo/rigf_program


_______________________________________________
Rigf_program mailing list
Rigf_program at aprigf.asia
https://mailman.dotasia.org/mailman/listinfo/rigf_program