Evaluation of Sessions for the 17th LACIGF 2024

Introduction

Starting in 2024, the LACIGF will feature an agenda composed of sessions proposed by the Latin American and Caribbean community interested in internet governance and digital policies. 

For the selection of the sessions, the LACIGF relies on a Workshop Selection Committee (CST), defined in its 2021 statutes. The CST is responsible for selecting the sessions that will be part of the annual LACIGF event.

The CST is composed of 12 members, 3 from each sector (technical community, civil society, private sector, and government) who applied in a public call and were chosen by the LACIGF Multistakeholder Committee (CMPI) based on criteria of openness, transparency, inclusion, diversity, and non-discrimination to ensure equitable participation from all sectors. See the current composition of the CST at https://lacigf.org/en/conformation/. One-third (⅓) of the CST is renewed each year.

The CST, along with the LACIGF Secretariat, is also responsible for preparing the calls, establishing the criteria, and defining the evaluation mechanisms for LACIGF sessions each year. See the roles and responsibilities of the CST at https://lacigf.org/en/powers-and-responsibilities/.

CST members can submit session proposals or participate in sessions, but they will not evaluate sessions in which they are mentioned as proposers or participants (moderator, rapporteur, panelist, facilitator).

At the end of the proposal submission period, the Secretariat will review the submitted proposals and anonymize the proposers, distributing the proposals among the CST members in the most convenient way, ensuring there is no conflict of interest.

Evaluation Process

The session proposals received for the 17th LACIGF will be evaluated by the Workshop Selection Committee.

Below is a detailed outline of the proposal evaluation process.

A – Distribution of Proposals

Each session proposal submitted for the 17th LACIGF will be evaluated by a minimum of 4 and a maximum of 8 CST members, with at least one (1) from each sector.

The proposals will be distributed by the Secretariat considering the thematic preferences of the evaluators, which will be identified prior to distribution, also ensuring a balance in the number of proposals assigned to each evaluator.

The Secretariat will distribute the proposals avoiding any conflict of interest so that no CST member evaluates a proposal presented by or in which they or their organization are participants. This information will only be known to the Secretariat.

CST members will indicate in advance to the Secretariat the organizations they are affiliated with to validate the absence of conflicts of interest.

After the distribution of proposals, there will be a period for evaluators to inform the Secretariat if there is a conflict of interest or if the assigned proposals do not match their thematic preference. If so, the Secretariat will redistribute the proposal.

The evaluation process will be anonymous, meaning evaluators will not know the names or organizations of the proposers, and proposers will not know the names or organizations of the evaluators of their proposal.

The proposals must be fully completed. Proposals must not contain information that directly or indirectly identifies the organizations or individuals proposing the session, except in the form fields where this is explicitly requested. This information will be anonymized by the Secretariat.

If the proposal incorrectly identifies organizations and/or proposers in other fields of the submission form, the Secretariat will ask the Responsible Contacts to correct the content of the relevant fields or, if possible and to avoid compromising the proposal’s content, will replace the identifying words with “HIDDEN FOR ANONYMITY.”

Proposals that do not meet the following criteria will be discarded:

  • The proposal form must be fully completed.
  • The relevant types of proposals must include an in-person moderator.
  • The proposal must include a rapporteur.
  • The proposal must have at least one participant or facilitator.
  • At least two (2) participants will attend the event in person (Moderator and a facilitator or speaker).

B – Initial Evaluation by the CST

Once the proposals are distributed to the CST, they will be evaluated considering the following criteria:

  • Relevance: The relevance of the proposal to Internet Governance in the region and the themes defined for this year.
  • Quality and Content: The proposal’s approach and the points of interest it covers. Clarity regarding the main internet governance topic addressed.
  • Public Policy Impact: The proposals must identify up to three public policy issues that are timely, interesting, and relevant to be addressed during the session, which should be related to the expected outcomes of the proposal. These issues are about the public policy linked to the theme that the session intends to address in its development.
  • Diversity: in composition of participants. This criterion includes several dimensions and will evaluate diversity in the list of participants in terms of (i) gender, (ii) geography, (iii) ethnicity, (iv) sector or stakeholder group, (v) political perspective, and/or people with disabilities, youth, marginalized or underrepresented groups; and their qualification to address the topic. The highest diversity rate will be better evaluated but is not an elimination criterion for the proposal. Gender parity is desirable. The inclusion of historically excluded and vulnerable communities will be valued. It is recommended that participants come from two or more sectors. Note: The evaluation team may suggest expanding the diversity of participants in some proposals during the evaluation phase.
  • Format and Participation Strategy: Coherence of the session description concerning the type of session in terms of time, participants, methodology. Effectiveness of the strategy for interacting with participants.

For each of these criteria, the evaluators will assign a score from 1 to 5, with 5 being the highest rating. These scores will be totaled considering the relative weighting of the proposed session type, as indicated in the call, to obtain a final score for each evaluator.

Evaluators may also record a conceptual note if deemed appropriate. These notes may be shared with the proposers once the evaluation period ends.

After the evaluation period, the Secretariat will average the results of all the evaluators to obtain the final score for each proposal and will perform an initial classification considering the scores as follows:

  • Green: Proposals with high rating
  • Yellow: Proposals with medium rating
  • Red: low rated proposals

These results will be shared with the CST, eliminating the anonymization of the proposals, for their review.

C – Initial Review of Proposal Evaluations

The CST will meet and, considering the initial traffic light evaluation, will review proposals in red or yellow that, due to their quality, could be improved for a higher rating.

Next, a second traffic light evaluation will be conducted as follows:

  • Green: Proposals that they definitely want to pre-select
  • Yellow: Proposals that may be pre-selected
  • Red: Proposals discarded

For this classification, the following must be considered:

  • Gender diversity of participants and proposers of the various pre-selected sessions.
  • Country diversity of the various pre-selected sessions to ensure geographical representation from different LAC countries.
  • Ethnic diversity and participation of vulnerable communities. It is important to promote the applications of vulnerable groups, indigenous communities, Afro communities, being flexible and requesting adjustments to improve proposals if deemed appropriate.
  • Sector diversity. To ensure participation from all sectors in the various sessions.
  • Diversity of participants and organizations. A participant can be in a maximum of two (2) pre-selected sessions. If a participant is in more sessions, changes of participants can be suggested based on the scoring given to the sessions. Up to a maximum of two (2) proposals from the same proposer (individual or organization) may be selected.
  • Thematic diversity of selected proposals. To avoid a higher concentration in a few themes.
  • Are the proposals submitted by an Inter-sessional Working Group, a national, local, or thematic IGF (NRIs), or another initiative from the IGF ecosystem?

Diversity is considered both in proposers and participants of the various pre-selected proposals.

Special consideration will be given if the proposal originates from the IGF ecosystem, i.e. if it comes from an Intersessional Working Group (IWG) or a National or Thematic Internet Governance Initiative (NRIs) or other processes connected to the LACIGF.

In this meeting, the CST may decide to recommend adjustments for some proposals, both in their participant composition and orientation, considering the criterion of diversity in its various dimensions. The CST may also request the merging of some proposals with similarities in the themes addressed.

The Secretariat will be responsible for requesting the necessary adjustments from the proposers through the contact emails and/or phone numbers provided in the form.

A one-week period will be given to receive responses to the requested adjustments. Once these adjustments are received from the proposers, the evaluators will assign a new score. The Secretariat will average the results of all evaluators and share the results with the CST.

The CMPI will review the pre-selected proposals (green and yellow) and the adjustment recommendations made by the CST.

D – Second Review of Pre-selected Proposals

Once the new scoring is done, the CST will meet again to review the pre-selected sessions.

The traffic light technique will be used again (third traffic light evaluation), considering the following factors:

  • Gender diversity of participants and proposers of the various pre-selected sessions.
  • Country diversity of the various pre-selected sessions to ensure geographical representation from different LAC countries.
  • Ethnic diversity and participation of vulnerable communities. It is important to promote the applications of vulnerable groups, indigenous communities, Afro communities, being flexible and requesting adjustments to improve proposals if deemed appropriate.
  • Sector diversity. To ensure participation from all sectors in the sessions.
  • Participant and organization diversity.Each participant may be in a maximum of two (2) selected sessions. Up to two (2) proposals from the same proposer (individual or organization) may be selected.
  • Thematic diversity of selected proposals: To avoid excessive concentration on a few themes.
  • Are the proposals submitted by an Intersessional Working Group, a national, local, or thematic IGF (NRIs), or another initiative from the IGF ecosystem?

Up to two (2) proposals submitted by the same proposer (individual or organization) may be selected.

The recommendations made by CMPI will be taken into consideration.

With this third round of evaluation, the final selection of proposals is established, which will be reviewed and endorsed by LACIGF’s CMPI as follows:

  • Green: Selected proposals, for which confirmation of participation will be requested. 
  • Yellow: Pre-selected proposals; if any selected proposal does not confirm acceptance, these will be notified to confirm their participation. 
  • Red: Discarded proposals.

E – Notification of Selection

Next, the Secretariat will contact the proposers of the selected sessions, requesting confirmation of their participation in LACIGF 17.

Selected individuals must respond by September 20, 2024, confirming their participation. In the absence of confirmation, one of the pre-selected proposals will be contacted to confirm their participation.

During the same period, the Secretariat will contact participants of the selected sessions to confirm their in-person or virtual participation. If at least 60% of participants do not confirm, the session will be discarded.

Confirmed and selected sessions will be published on the LACIGF portal.

There will be no appeal against the final decision containing the list of selected/approved sessions.

Scholarship Program

The LACIGF scholarship program will prioritize applications from individuals who are proposers or participants of selected sessions.

Criteria and conditions for the scholarship program will be published on the LACIGF website in September. Applicants for a scholarship must complete the corresponding form and undergo the evaluation process.

Back to Call for Proposals