Dear all, As discussed with Peng Hwa, I’d like to share the discussions on the participation for APSIG (see discussion thread below), as some on this APILP planning list might not be in the APSIG discuss list. APSIG has shared earlier this week that there were 150 applicants for the upcoming APSIG in Bangkok and is expecting that this could go up to 200 by the deadline of July 15. The group is in the process of determining what is the maximum number of participants, good criteria, etc, considering both the high interest in the APSIG, and the capacity to manage. Sharing for information. Thanks! Regards, Kelvin ==========Original message below ===== more than 150 applicants for bangkok apsig (in addition to around 15 speaker registrations). how do we select participants fro bangkok apsig next month? i was told by the apsig management that 30~40 participants including speakers are the maximum. we originally designed apsig to serve internet governance leaders (organizers, speakers) whereas national/local SIGs to serve beginners. there are many questions and hope apsig community to come up with good consensus. 1. maximum number of participants at each apsig 2. how to select the participants? 3. are we maximizing the number of countries? 4. do we accept all applicants who will pay their expenses? 5. what about multistakeholders? 6. what about local participants? 7. any other good criteria for selection? good news are a. we expect two (annual) local SIGs later this year; india and pakistan. b. we expect china to hold a SIG in 2017 in addition to inida and pakistan. we hope we can give chances to all who applied and are ready to participate SIGs in 2016-2017. any comment on the issues i raised above? chon interim speaker group chair, finishing the speaker list by 2016-07-15. ================ From: Shreedeep Rayamajhi <weaker41@gmail.com> Date: Tuesday, June 28, 2016 at 10:34 PM To: zakir rehman <zakirbinrehman@yahoo.com> Cc: APSIG Discuss <apsig-discuss@googlegroups.com>, kilnam chon <chonkn@gmail.com>, Kelvin Wong <kelvin.wong@icann.org> Subject: Re: 150 applicants +1 On 28 Jun 2016 2:51 pm, "'zakir rehman' via APSIG-discuss" <apsig-discuss@googlegroups.com> wrote: +1 Kelvin. Agree, specially on the point that the inaugural version of the school should have higher number of participation and the after a post mortem assessment, the number can be decreased in the future versions, should the assessment recommends so. thanks. z Sent from my iPhone On 28 Jun 2016, at 06:46, Kelvin Wong <kelvin.wong@icann.org> wrote: Hi Prof Chon, all, On the fellowship request and specifically on the criteria that Jungbae suggested, I think it is fair, and mostly quite in line with the criteria used for the Fellowship in APrIGF 2016 – see below. This set of APrIGF criteria can also be found here: https://2016.aprigf.asia/fellowship/, many might have seen this. Of course, the scale and objectives of APrIGF are different from APSIG. APrIGF 2016 fellowship criteria: Nationality & City of Residence – Are the applicant coming from developing or least developed countries? – Existing number of participation from each country in the past meetings or other fellows Engagement – Are the applicant a speaker or organiser of any selected workshop proposals? – Whether the applicant has engaged in any APrIGFs, global or local IGF initiatives before? – Is the applicant a potential panelist for any selected workshop? – Does applicant have a clear plan/vision for community engagement or other contribution to APrIGF, after the conference? Contribution to Diversity – Whether it helps promote gender balance? – Whether it helps to enhance the multistakeholderism concept? On the total number of participants, agree that we should balance participation (making sure there is diversity, and allowing more interested people to join, other than lecturers), with effectiveness/management (taking into account class size, and role play management etc). Given the high numbers of application, and since it is the first run, I am personally leaning more towards having greater participation. After the event, we could do a post mortem assessment and determine if we wish to cut the numbers in future runs (or increase!). Regards, Kelvin From: <apsig-discuss@googlegroups.com> on behalf of kilnam chon <chonkn@gmail.com> Date: Tuesday, June 28, 2016 at 8:03 AM To: APSIG Discuss <apsig-discuss@googlegroups.com> Subject: Re: 150 applicants many good comments. do we have consensus on the following major issue; 1. applicants with self-funding and with fellowship request shall we evaluate participation first, regardless of funding status like MEAC-SIG? this would make the selection process simpler; first on participation, followed by fellowship selection. is there any other scheme like jungbae and others are suggesting? one question i have is "why do we turn down applications with self-funding?" as long as we have space. IGF and its regional and local versions do not turn down applications. 2. number of total participants bangkok apsig may be setting the number to 35, and meac-sig is setting to around 45. what would be the limit we would like to set in general? if we set to 35, it would take around 10 years to serve all applicants (~200)! on the other hand, we have to consider the management capability and effectiveness of education. there are many more issues, but let's start with the above two fundamental issues. chon On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 7:22 AM, Jungbae An <anjungbae1@gmail.com> wrote: all, thank you all for your very helpful discussion on participant selection. hoping we reach good (rough) consensus, would like to add my input/comment below: 1. upper limit of total participants above all things, for interactive discussion among advanced participants/leaders, my suggestion is 35 max. including ~15 speakers. 2. suggested criteria: in the order of priority of selection 1) organizer of SIG, IGF, or similar initiative : i suggest this be primary criterion as per APSIG objective. 2) local participation: suggest ~10% of total number of participants. 3) partners: one by each sponsor if they are interested in 4) geography: one by each country 5) stakeholder: minority stakeholder gets advantage 6) gender: female gets advantage 7) without fellowship: up to 50% among non-speaker seats best, jungbae On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 3:50 PM, Satish Babu <sbabu@ieee.org> wrote: Hi Prof. Chon I agree that the number may rise even further by the time the deadline expires. To your questions, my answers would be (a) Yes, we have to choose from the list to whatever number of seats we have; and (b) we need to have some criteria on the basis of which we can select candidates. While any process that we choose may have an element of arbitrariness, I feel we still need some guidelines. Here are some suggestions: 1. Consider priority categories such as areas of expertise, geographical sub-regions and gender 2. Have a recommended per-country norm (such as one participant per country) for non-speaker candidates
From a process perspective, I'd suggest a two-tier approach:
a. Do an initial screening to identify good candidates (even if they exceed the number of possible participants for Bangkok) b. From these, apply the short-list guidelines to identify the 30 for the First APSIG. c. Keep the remaining candidates for consideration for the next APSIG, together with new candidates at the time. Perhaps this pool of candidates may be retained over a period of time, based on which we may plan multiple APSIG batches per year. satish On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 9:54 AM, kilnam chon <chonkn@gmail.com> wrote: gihan and all, we may end up having over 200 applicants by the deadline, july 15. this means that only one out of ten applicants would be accepted. my questions are - "is it ok to accept only one out of ten?" and - "how do we select one out of ten?" as i raised the issues in the previous message. the funding is not so much of the issues this time, or you may ask the apsig management. chon On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 10:36 AM, Gihan Dias <gihan@cse.mrt.ac.lk> wrote: On 27/06/2016 05:09, kilnam chon wrote: how do we select participants fro bangkok apsig next month? i was told by the apsig management that 30~40 participants including speakers are the maximum. there are many questions and hope apsig community to come up with good consensus. Do we have any funding for participants, or will all participants pay for travel and accommodation? I suspect many of the 150 participants expect there to be some travel funding. Gihan -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "APSIG-discuss" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to apsig-discuss+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to apsig-discuss@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/apsig-discuss/7f6cc386-7350-6e0a-8100-e6f8.... For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "APSIG-discuss" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to apsig-discuss+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to apsig-discuss@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/apsig-discuss/CAJBN%3D-JHv48301sjG8NGQ3BO7.... For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "APSIG-discuss" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to apsig-discuss+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to apsig-discuss@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/apsig-discuss/CAA8UJvARHp%3D9hY5_WTt6ExhPK.... For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "APSIG-discuss" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to apsig-discuss+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to apsig-discuss@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/apsig-discuss/0C8B89D0-8673-42F4-AF00-9510.... For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "APSIG-discuss" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to apsig-discuss+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to apsig-discuss@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/apsig-discuss/CAJBN%3D-%2BXLGh873k5KRKSaFJ.... For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "APSIG-discuss" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to apsig-discuss+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to apsig-discuss@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/apsig-discuss/2BC49AEA-2656-493D-A63A-A955.... For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "APSIG-discuss" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to apsig-discuss+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to apsig-discuss@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/apsig-discuss/D4D743BF-F6BB-4F4D-9760-53C4.... For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.