[Rigf_program] Revised evaluation system for APrIGF proposals

Thu Jun 20 17:10:21 HKT 2013

And me too.  Volunteer civil society.

Good reminder YJ :-)

Best,

Adam

On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 6:06 PM, Youn Jung Park <yjpark21 at gmail.com> wrote:

> Dear all,
> Last-minute volunteer for this task from academia/civil society.
> Talk to you all,
> YJ
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 9:36 PM, Ji-Young Lee <leejy at kisa.or.kr> wrote:
>
>>  Do you have any remaining slot for selection committee?
>>
>>
>>
>> Mr. Howoong Lee from the Ministry of Science, ICT and Future Planning of
>> Korea hopes to join it.
>>
>>
>>
>> As he failed to subscribe Rigf_program mailinglist in spite of the
>> request on June 14th, I'm writing on behalf of him.
>>
>>
>>
>> His group is "governmental".
>>
>>
>>
>> Ji-Young
>>
>> ------------ 원본 메일 내용 ------------
>> *보낸 사람 :* "Ji-Young Lee"<leejy at kisa.or.kr>
>> *받는 사람 :* rigf_program at ap.rigf.asia
>> *메일 제목 :* Re: [Rigf_program]Revised evaluation system for APrIGF
>> proposals
>> *보낸 날짜 :* Fri, 14 Jun 2013 14:04:56 +0900
>>
>>
>> I'd like to join the selection committee as a local secretariat, KISA.
>>
>>
>>
>> Among 4 stakeholder groups, I'm closest to the "governmental".
>>
>>
>>
>> Ji-Young
>>
>> ------------ 원본 메일 내용 ------------
>> *보낸 사람 :* "Paul Wilson"<pwilson at apnic.net>
>> *받는 사람 :* "<rigf_program at ap.rigf.asia>" <rigf_program at ap.rigf.asia>
>> *메일 제목 :* [Rigf_program] Revised evaluation system for APrIGF proposals
>> *보낸 날짜 :* Fri, 7 Jun 2013 17:00:29 +1000
>>
>>
>> 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 M! ! SG 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. Technic! al! and Academic
>> 3. Business
>> 4. Governmental
>>
>>
>> C. Cr ite ria 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 distin! ct s! takeholder
>> 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.! Selec! tion Process
>> --------------------
>>
>> As its next meet ing afte r 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
>>
>>   *Ji-Young Lee*
>> KISA(Korea Internet & Security Agency)
>> Tel : +82-2-405-6414 | Email : leejy at kisa.or.kr
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.dotasia.org/pipermail/rigf_secretariat/attachments/20130620/b43f2b35/attachment.html 
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
Rigf_program mailing list
Rigf_program at aprigf.asia
https://mailman.dotasia.org/mailman/listinfo/rigf_program