By adeboyeadegoke , 13 August, 2019

Eval: [node:field-sg-proposal:field-project-title]

1. Match with the goals and principles of the African Declaration on Internet Rights and Freedoms (AfDec).
3
Explanation for rating:
The main activity proposed in Research and this fits into the AFDEC strategy plan
Explanation for rating:
Matches with at least 2 principles in the declaration
2. Extent to which the proposed activities will (if implemented effectively) contribute to implementation of the AfDec 2019-22
3
3. Extent to which the planned activities are well defined and outputs for each activity are clearly identified
1
Explanation for rating:
Not impressive. The proposal failed to do clearly identify the outputs for the activities proposed
4.Analysis of the problem and clarity of objectives
2
Explanation for rating:
The proposal did well to identify the problems which revolve around problematic laws but failed to link the objective to the problems
5. Extent to which target audiences or participants are clearly defined and are appropriate
3
Explanation for rating:
The proposal used general terms in identifying its target audience. Terms such as "members of the general public", "policymakers", "CSOs", The applicants could have defined the target audience better with more specificity.
6. Extent to which planned activities are feasible/realistic within the given time-frame
3
Explanation for rating:
The proposed project timeline is quite short(3 months) and may affect the quality of delivery
7. Extent to which the project plan includes innovative and exciting activities
2
Explanation for rating:
This is not a very exciting application
8. Budget - Refer to project budget.
2
Explanation for rating:
Not well thought through. For example, B18 mentioned 'social media monitoring' but nowhere in the proposal was that mentioned. Also, 5 team members will draw from the budget, 2 consultants will be engaged for the research and an additional consultant for 'social media monitoring', this doesn't reflect effective use of the fund
9. Track record and experience of the organisation
4

adeboyeadegoke

6 years 8 months ago

If this application will be considered at all, the applicants must clearly identify activities it wants to carry out and link the same with anticipated outputs. In addition, the budget must clearly be thought out with cost allocated to activities proposed and more details provided on proposed workshop and social media monitoring. 3 consultants for the project is bogus and needs to be reviewed. The applicants don't need to fly the consultants to Berlin to present the outcome of the research, the funds need to be better allocated to serve the AFDEC objectives

Explanation for rating:
The organization has a strong history and experience.
10. Overall Recommendation | Do you recommend this application for funding?
No
Please explain why:
This is clearly not a strong proposal. The proposal is not well thought through. The main activity proposed in the application is research, the budget, however, reveals other activities such as workshops- Also, there is no justification for having 5 members of the team drawing from the fund given that the primary activity proposed is 'Research' that would require engaging 2 consultants. Although the budget reflects a plan to host a workshop, the applicant failed to reflect this in their proposal. Also, the applicant failed to provide answers to C2. requiring the main research question if the proposed activity is 'research', I feel strongly that the applicant was too casual with their application. The organization has a strong history and experience. It definitely didn't put its best foot forward in the application.
By adeboyeadegoke , 12 August, 2019

Eval: [node:field-sg-proposal:field-project-title]

1. Match with the goals and principles of the African Declaration on Internet Rights and Freedoms (AfDec).
5
Explanation for rating:
The application demonstrated an understanding of the AFDEC strategy 2019-2022 and leveraged it in putting together the proposal
Explanation for rating:
There is a strong match with the principles of the declaration on many levels
2. Extent to which the proposed activities will (if implemented effectively) contribute to implementation of the AfDec 2019-22
4
3. Extent to which the planned activities are well defined and outputs for each activity are clearly identified
3
Explanation for rating:
The proposal didn't strongly demonstrate the linkage between the activities but didn't fail to mention that proposed activities will promote the effective coordination and adoption of the declaration principles into the national policy frameworks to promote and respect human rights by organizing policy dialogues and decision-making forums and that the initiative will further build the capacity of women and women rights organization to access and use the internet for sustainable development.
4.Analysis of the problem and clarity of objectives
4
Explanation for rating:
The proposal did a good analysis of the problem and linked the objectives to the problems
5. Extent to which target audiences or participants are clearly defined and are appropriate
5
Explanation for rating:
There is clarity the identification of the target groups
6. Extent to which planned activities are feasible/realistic within the given time-frame
3
Explanation for rating:
The project is feasible within the proposed timeframe given there is an existing structure for implementation
7. Extent to which the project plan includes innovative and exciting activities
3
Explanation for rating:
The plan is exciting looking at the prospects of engaging 78 member organizations that have on average 20 member organizations to promote AFDEC principles.
8. Budget - Refer to project budget.
2
Explanation for rating:
The budget needs more details. For example, $3000 is budgeted for 'Publication' while no reference was made to this in the proposal and what will be the content of the publications, the declaration? more details would be required
9. Track record and experience of the organisation
4

adeboyeadegoke

6 years 8 months ago

The budget needs to be further clarified, specificall B25 'Publications' and it should be linked back to the proposal

Explanation for rating:
The organization is experienced and has a decent track record
10. Overall Recommendation | Do you recommend this application for funding?
Yes
Please explain why:
Clearly, one of the best applications that identified the AFDEC principles, leverages AFDEC strategy document and will ride on existing networks for implementation
By paulkimumw , 12 August, 2019

Eval: [node:field-sg-proposal:field-project-title]

1. Match with the goals and principles of the African Declaration on Internet Rights and Freedoms (AfDec).
1
Explanation for rating:
None of the proposed activities really contribute to the implementation of the the AfDec strategy
Explanation for rating:
The proposed interventions doesn't really match with the goals and principles of the AfDec.
2. Extent to which the proposed activities will (if implemented effectively) contribute to implementation of the AfDec 2019-22
1
3. Extent to which the planned activities are well defined and outputs for each activity are clearly identified
1
Explanation for rating:
They are not
4.Analysis of the problem and clarity of objectives
1
Explanation for rating:
Poor analysis and thus very ambitious objectives set
5. Extent to which target audiences or participants are clearly defined and are appropriate
1
Explanation for rating:
They are not defined at all.
6. Extent to which planned activities are feasible/realistic within the given time-frame
1
Explanation for rating:
The proposed activities are really simple to do, but that they are not relevant to the AfDec strategy really disqualifies them
7. Extent to which the project plan includes innovative and exciting activities
1
Explanation for rating:
Nothing innovative
8. Budget - Refer to project budget.
1
Explanation for rating:
It would really be a waste money to fund this initiative using the fund
9. Track record and experience of the organisation
2
Explanation for rating:
The applicant has some experience in digital rights, but not sure if they gave much thought to this proposal.
10. Overall Recommendation | Do you recommend this application for funding?
No
Please explain why:
The applicant doesn't seem to have understood the objective of the fund
By paulkimumw , 12 August, 2019

Eval: [node:field-sg-proposal:field-project-title]

1. Match with the goals and principles of the African Declaration on Internet Rights and Freedoms (AfDec).
3
Explanation for rating:
The link between the proposed intervention though is quite weak. These principles are a bit indivisible. Singling out one may not really deliver the desired impact, especially in an African country is still struggling to appreciate digital rights
Explanation for rating:
The intervention is within the goals and principles of the AfDec
2. Extent to which the proposed activities will (if implemented effectively) contribute to implementation of the AfDec 2019-22
2
3. Extent to which the planned activities are well defined and outputs for each activity are clearly identified
2
Explanation for rating:
May be not much. The applicant has done similar research. You would expect that they would be building from lessons and experience of the previous studies they have done in conceptualising this one. That link is also not so clear. Also, there is no indication that there are any national laws that are under review where the outputs of the project would be feeding into directly.
4.Analysis of the problem and clarity of objectives
2
Explanation for rating:
The analysis as presented doesn't bring out the urgency of having the proposed intervention. May be challenging the constitutionality of the law No 90/053 of 19th December 1990 would have been more appropriated.
5. Extent to which target audiences or participants are clearly defined and are appropriate
2
Explanation for rating:
The participants and target audience seem to have been lumped together. No justification for any of them.
6. Extent to which planned activities are feasible/realistic within the given time-frame
3
Explanation for rating:
The activities can be executed within the proposed time-frame
7. Extent to which the project plan includes innovative and exciting activities
2
Explanation for rating:
It is quite a basic proposal.
8. Budget - Refer to project budget.
3
Explanation for rating:
Its is a realistic budget
9. Track record and experience of the organisation
3

paulkimumw

6 years 8 months ago

Further discussions can be held with the applicant to give some more justification for their proposed interventions. Based on lessons from their previous studies.

Explanation for rating:
The applicant has considerable experience, but may be that is also frustrating innovative approaches.
10. Overall Recommendation | Do you recommend this application for funding?
Maybe
Please explain why:
Applicant hasn't demonstrated the actual impact of the proposed interventions. They sound good, but they can be tightened.
By paulkimumw , 12 August, 2019

Eval: [node:field-sg-proposal:field-project-title]

1. Match with the goals and principles of the African Declaration on Internet Rights and Freedoms (AfDec).
3
Explanation for rating:
If well executed, they will contribute. If the could identify the policy issues they want to engage the regulators and other government departments on before funding is released. This would reduce on time they would spend thinking through. Also, what kind of policy paper are they thinking of doing?
Explanation for rating:
The proposed interventions is within and matches the goals and principles of the AfDec
2. Extent to which the proposed activities will (if implemented effectively) contribute to implementation of the AfDec 2019-22
3
3. Extent to which the planned activities are well defined and outputs for each activity are clearly identified
3
Explanation for rating:
There was some thought, but the applicants need to provide the exact output of the dialogues, and policy brief. To what end? This is not so clear in the write.
4.Analysis of the problem and clarity of objectives
3
Explanation for rating:
There is some clarity on the problem analysis but object number 2 is not achievable. It is not within the applicants mandate. They should stick to the two (no.1 and no.3)
5. Extent to which target audiences or participants are clearly defined and are appropriate
3
Explanation for rating:
The target audience are well defined.
6. Extent to which planned activities are feasible/realistic within the given time-frame
4
Explanation for rating:
The activities are realistic enough to be executed. But they seem too many.
7. Extent to which the project plan includes innovative and exciting activities
2
Explanation for rating:
The innovation is not so clear. May be media engagement. Although this could involve capacity building as opposed to just buying airtime.
8. Budget - Refer to project budget.
4
Explanation for rating:
The budget is realistic enough
9. Track record and experience of the organisation
3
Explanation for rating:
AFIC has experience in access to information advocacy work and they are still building their capacity to do digital rights work
10. Overall Recommendation | Do you recommend this application for funding?
Yes
Please explain why:
The application can be considered.
By paulkimumw , 12 August, 2019

Eval: [node:field-sg-proposal:field-project-title]

1. Match with the goals and principles of the African Declaration on Internet Rights and Freedoms (AfDec).
3
Explanation for rating:
To a large extent yes. Creating awareness and building coalitions is a key component of the strategy
Explanation for rating:
The proposed interventions are in line with the goals and principles of the AfDec as well as the strategy
2. Extent to which the proposed activities will (if implemented effectively) contribute to implementation of the AfDec 2019-22
3
3. Extent to which the planned activities are well defined and outputs for each activity are clearly identified
4
Explanation for rating:
To a large extent the activities and outputs were well defined.
4.Analysis of the problem and clarity of objectives
4
Explanation for rating:
The applicant understands the issues at hand and the need for an intervention such as he has proposed.
5. Extent to which target audiences or participants are clearly defined and are appropriate
3
Explanation for rating:
There is a discrepancy in the numbers. At some point, they talk about 70 people, but at another, they are indicating 7 participants. Those budgeted for travel, accommodation and per diem. This needs to be clarified
6. Extent to which planned activities are feasible/realistic within the given time-frame
4
Explanation for rating:
The activities are feasible since it is mostly a single even. Although somewhere, they mention developing advocacy strategies. Can these be done within the two days?
7. Extent to which the project plan includes innovative and exciting activities
4
Explanation for rating:
The project is proposing to adapt and scale-down the advocacy strategies at national level. This can be quite exciting as it promotes ownership of the intervention by the grassroots organisation
8. Budget - Refer to project budget.
3
Explanation for rating:
But is a bit over stretched. $1000 for a single return ticket? Could they consider holding in-country meetings to reduce on the cost of travel but reach more people? The team of 1 or 2 people from MFA could travel to these countries and hold non-residential meetings
9. Track record and experience of the organisation
5
Explanation for rating:
The applicant is very experienced
10. Overall Recommendation | Do you recommend this application for funding?
Yes
Please explain why:
The interventions promises to yield value for money. Although there may be need to discuss with them the possibility of doing in-country meetings as opposed to flying just a few individuals to one place.
By adeboyeadegoke , 12 August, 2019

Eval: [node:field-sg-proposal:field-project-title]

1. Match with the goals and principles of the African Declaration on Internet Rights and Freedoms (AfDec).
4
Explanation for rating:
The coalition can galvanize and create a multiplier effect for AFDEC objectives if effectively carried out. However, AFDEC strategy recognizes that government, businesses, and the technical and academic communities add value and help coalitions build sustainability - This proposal leaves out this stakeholder group in its target membership of the coalition
Explanation for rating:
The proposal focuses on using coalition building to promote AFDEC objectives
2. Extent to which the proposed activities will (if implemented effectively) contribute to implementation of the AfDec 2019-22
4
3. Extent to which the planned activities are well defined and outputs for each activity are clearly identified
2
Explanation for rating:
Three activities were listed but weren't clearly defined. The anticipated outcome were also listed but not in measurable terms. For example, under "Awareness Raising", the outcome could have been better defined by the 'number' of people the 'awareness raising' activities are estimated to reach
4.Analysis of the problem and clarity of objectives
3
Explanation for rating:
The objectives are clearly stated and the problems are broadly defined. The logical link between the two aren't very strong but the linkage can be seen in the proposal
5. Extent to which target audiences or participants are clearly defined and are appropriate
3
Explanation for rating:
The target audience were clearly identified but in terms appropiateness; the proposed coalition leaves out important stakeholder group that can strenghten the coalition and help to achieve its resuults
6. Extent to which planned activities are feasible/realistic within the given time-frame
3
Explanation for rating:
All listed activities are achievable within the stated period. The proposed window for 'Awareness raising' activities is however too short, December 2019- February 2020. 'Awareness' raising should typically happen throughout project lifetime
7. Extent to which the project plan includes innovative and exciting activities
2
Explanation for rating:
Proposed activities aren't novel
8. Budget - Refer to project budget.
2
Explanation for rating:
60% of the budget is aimed at creating a website. creating a website for a 6 months project isn't the best use of funds
9. Track record and experience of the organisation
3

adeboyeadegoke

6 years 8 months ago

The grant budget should be reworked. The applicants apparently tampered with the formula and got things mixed up. I did a manual calculation and could reconcile the numbers but the numbers aren't adding up on the budget document as submitted by the applicant

Explanation for rating:
The organization is strategic given that it is known to be leading digital rights conversation in Senegal. It is new to the coalition but is positioned to provide leadership on the principle of AFDEC in Senegal and the sub region
10. Overall Recommendation | Do you recommend this application for funding?
Yes
Please explain why:
It is a growing organisation in the space and the investment will greatly advance the objectives of AFDEC in Senegal. Senegal is one of those countries on the continent where not a lot is happening around advocacy for human rights online
By paulkimumw , 12 August, 2019

Eval: [node:field-sg-proposal:field-project-title]

1. Match with the goals and principles of the African Declaration on Internet Rights and Freedoms (AfDec).
1
Explanation for rating:
It seems the applicant never had a chance to read the AfDec strategy. The strategy is quite generous with potential activities that can be implemented. The proposed activities is not exactly relevant to the strategy
Explanation for rating:
There is no clear match.
2. Extent to which the proposed activities will (if implemented effectively) contribute to implementation of the AfDec 2019-22
1
3. Extent to which the planned activities are well defined and outputs for each activity are clearly identified
1
Explanation for rating:
The activity doesn't seem to have been thought through. It goes beyond just designing and uploading laws and bills.
4.Analysis of the problem and clarity of objectives
1
Explanation for rating:
The issues around privacy and data protection go beyond absence of availability of data protection laws. The applicant hasn't been able to connect how the creation of the platform will deal with this. Various reports from PI and CIPESA have dealt with this issue.
5. Extent to which target audiences or participants are clearly defined and are appropriate
1
Explanation for rating:
Again, the target audiences haven't been clearly defined and how they stand to benefit from this platform.
6. Extent to which planned activities are feasible/realistic within the given time-frame
1
Explanation for rating:
The project may require more resources to pull off, including getting translators for documents in different languages.
7. Extent to which the project plan includes innovative and exciting activities
1
Explanation for rating:
Not so exciting
8. Budget - Refer to project budget.
1
Explanation for rating:
Budget is not realistic. Bulk of the money spent on designing the web portal and oversight. Not sure the applicant understands the intervention he is proposing
9. Track record and experience of the organisation
3
Explanation for rating:
The applicant has the necessary experience in privacy and legislation but
10. Overall Recommendation | Do you recommend this application for funding?
No
Please explain why:
This may not be the best use of the funds.
By paulkimumw , 12 August, 2019

Eval: [node:field-sg-proposal:field-project-title]

1. Match with the goals and principles of the African Declaration on Internet Rights and Freedoms (AfDec).
2
Explanation for rating:
Not much really.
Explanation for rating:
The proposal is quite limited. The applicant can be advised to link the intervention to other principles, especially openness, gender equality, persons with disability. Other than just FoE and FoI
2. Extent to which the proposed activities will (if implemented effectively) contribute to implementation of the AfDec 2019-22
2
3. Extent to which the planned activities are well defined and outputs for each activity are clearly identified
2
Explanation for rating:
The two main activities, that have been fronted don't seem to have been well thought out. More effort could be spent on the IGF, providing more opportunities, in terms of scheduling with opportunities for the participants to discuss digital rights related topics that are relevant to the AfDec. As opposed to money spent on two research papers.
4.Analysis of the problem and clarity of objectives
2
Explanation for rating:
The analysis is not well articulated and linked to the objectives. A policy analysis of the two pieces of laws in relation to the AfDec principles and other international instruments, would be a good starting point. Then from these, advocacy materials/content would be developed to engage relevant stakeholders.
5. Extent to which target audiences or participants are clearly defined and are appropriate
2
Explanation for rating:
Section not well articulated.
6. Extent to which planned activities are feasible/realistic within the given time-frame
2
Explanation for rating:
The activities are feasible, but the issue is their relevancy in advancing the goals and principles of the AfDec
7. Extent to which the project plan includes innovative and exciting activities
2
Explanation for rating:
The proposed research is not really exciting, but opportunities like the IGF provide platforms to discuss and advocate for digital rights
8. Budget - Refer to project budget.
2
Explanation for rating:
The budget can be re-worked
9. Track record and experience of the organisation
2

paulkimumw

6 years 8 months ago

MISA can re-evaluate their project proposal and pitch the IGF as the main entry point, proposing insightful discussion topics.

Explanation for rating:
MISA has the experience, which they need to leverage on.
10. Overall Recommendation | Do you recommend this application for funding?
Maybe
Please explain why:
Applicant can be advised to re-think their strategy. Asking themselves the added value of their proposed intervention
By paulkimumw , 12 August, 2019

Eval: [node:field-sg-proposal:field-project-title]

1. Match with the goals and principles of the African Declaration on Internet Rights and Freedoms (AfDec).
3
Explanation for rating:
There seems to be a mix-up among the proposed activities. Those listed in B4, which are quite clear; those listed under C5 and what has been budgeted for. There is some disconnect
Explanation for rating:
The proposal to some extent seeks to match the goals and principles of the Declaration
2. Extent to which the proposed activities will (if implemented effectively) contribute to implementation of the AfDec 2019-22
2
3. Extent to which the planned activities are well defined and outputs for each activity are clearly identified
2
Explanation for rating:
The applicant needs to be clear on the specific activities they intend to implement with this grant. A lot of activities have been proposed.
4.Analysis of the problem and clarity of objectives
3
Explanation for rating:
There is some relationship, but the objectives could have been made smarter, given the analysis.
5. Extent to which target audiences or participants are clearly defined and are appropriate
3
Explanation for rating:
The targets are well defined, but again, there is need to clarify the exact activities to be implemented. They are too many and mixed up.
6. Extent to which planned activities are feasible/realistic within the given time-frame
3
Explanation for rating:
Some activities are feasible, while others are not. The applicant can be asked to limit themselves to about 3-4 impact full activities.
7. Extent to which the project plan includes innovative and exciting activities
2
Explanation for rating:
It is a bit of the usual stuff that has been proposed.
8. Budget - Refer to project budget.
3
Explanation for rating:
The budget is a bit unrealistic. Spending about 1/3 of the budget on policy paper whose use hasn't been well defined is not so realistic.
9. Track record and experience of the organisation
4
Explanation for rating:
The applicant has a wealth of experience in advancing digital rights, especially for women
10. Overall Recommendation | Do you recommend this application for funding?
Maybe
Please explain why:
I think the applicant can be asked to review their activities and propose about 3-4 clear activities that feed into each other.