MAG Evaluation Form

Welcome! <MAG Member>

Please read the following instructions before starting the evaluation:

  • Please evaluate each proposal on a scale of 1 to 5, where a higher grade means a stronger recommendation.
  • The grade is based upon your overall impression of the workshop proposal, taking into account all considerations listed below.
  • The considerations listed below are not to be scored individually. Provide only one score of 1 to 5 based upon your balancing of all considerations listed.
  • Proposers names are not given to MAG members when evaluating, but indication is provided if the main proposer is from a developing country (one of the considerations).
  • MAG members who do not have an expertise in a particular field are not obliged to evaluate a proposal. All MAG members should contribute to evaluations since subject expertise is not the only criteria.
  • If you click on each workshop proposal, you will be able to find the details of the workshop, and you will also find the description of the proposal.
  • Save button is to save your current evaluation for further edit. Submit button is to submit your evaluation to the secretariat. Please note that you will be able to edit your proposals after submitting them to the IGF Secretariat.
  • This webpage is enhanced by JQuery, it might run slowly on some old browsers (e.g. IE7).

Considerations for Evaluation

 

Workshop ID

 

Workshop Title

 

 

  1. Well thought through and complete proposal

 

  1. Relevance of topic to 2014 IGF themes
  1. Template complete including identification of proposed speakers
  • Have the speaker(s) been contacted?
  • Have the speaker(s) been confirmed?
  • Are additional speakers needed?
  1. First time workshop proposer
  1. New workshop topic/innovative format (“WOW factor”)
  1. Developing Country Participation in organizers and speakers
  1. Specificity in the problem/question/challenge to be addressed
  1. Remote participation
  1. Gender, geographic, stakeholder, perspective, diversity

Briefly and clearly identify deficiencies if your score is 3 or below:

(maximum 250 words)

 

 

 

 

SCORE (1-5) with 5 being the highest