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.
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 three main proposed activities (coalition building, capacity building and raising awareness) are linked and if implemented as proposed, they actually contribute to the AfDec strategy
Explanation for rating:
The proposed intervention matches and the linkages well defined
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
4
Explanation for rating:
The outputs are very clear and what they lead up to.
4.Analysis of the problem and clarity of objectives
3
Explanation for rating:
The gaps in digital rights advocacy has been well articulated by the applicant with a clear intervention proposed
5. Extent to which target audiences or participants are clearly defined and are appropriate
4
Explanation for rating:
The applicant is clear on the target audience/beneficiary for the intervention and these have been identified from the problem analysis.
6. Extent to which planned activities are feasible/realistic within the given time-frame
4
Explanation for rating:
The activities are feasible and easy to implement within the given time frame.
7. Extent to which the project plan includes innovative and exciting activities
4
Explanation for rating:
There is some innovations especially the dissemination of the declaration and other IEC materials through the social media.
8. Budget - Refer to project budget.
3
Explanation for rating:
Budget is fine, but I dont think they need to spend money on developing a new website. That money can be used to reach-out to more people through the training and coalition building. More face-to-face meetings with regulators.
9. Track record and experience of the organisation
4
Explanation for rating:
They do have the track-record in advancing digital rights.
10. Overall Recommendation | Do you recommend this application for funding?
Yes
Please explain why:
A good proposal. It will need to make some adjustments, especially the expenditure on building a new website. This may not be necessary.
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. Litigation is key and there has already been on-going litigation against internet shutdowns in a number of countries.
Explanation for rating:
The proposal to do strategic litigation is one of strategies to advance 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:
The planned activities and intended outputs are clear.
4.Analysis of the problem and clarity of objectives
3
Explanation for rating:
The analysis of the problem is quite spot on.
5. Extent to which target audiences or participants are clearly defined and are appropriate
3
Explanation for rating:
If this litigation is to succeed, especially at the African Court, MRA needs to strategically engage other players in the said countries, including Nigeria. In this case, they haven't clearly defined the participants.
6. Extent to which planned activities are feasible/realistic within the given time-frame
2
Explanation for rating:
The proposed activities are not really feasible in the scheduled time-frame. Litigating at the African Court or any regional courts, one needs to justify that he/she has exhausted the local remedies or their attempts haven't succeeded. But also, 6-months is too short a time. MRA is not in charge of the court processed. They can initiate, but cannot determine when the cases will be heard.
7. Extent to which the project plan includes innovative and exciting activities
2
Explanation for rating:
MRA hasn't demonstrated any innovation and exciting activities.
8. Budget - Refer to project budget.
3
Explanation for rating:
I think the budget is too small for the kind of cases they want to take up. Litigation, especially at the African level needs lost of resources. Research time. May be they can scale down a bit and focus on Nigeria alone.
9. Track record and experience of the organisation
3
Explanation for rating:
MRA has a good track record in digital rights advocacy
10. Overall Recommendation | Do you recommend this application for funding?
Yes
Please explain why:
I think they need to be realistic about the success of the litigation they want to undertake and scale down to one country.
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:
The link is not very clear. There is an element of capacity building, but there is no clear link between the capacity building and how this will contribute to the implementation of the AfDec 2019-22, although this is mentioned over and over again in the narrative.
Explanation for rating:
Not so well thought through. Applicants not addressing a specific goal or principle.
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:
The activities and outputs are not clearly defined. Capacity building is fine, but to what end? That is not coming out clearly.
4.Analysis of the problem and clarity of objectives
2
Explanation for rating:
The objective doesn't seem to have been derived from the problem analysis. It could have been rephrased so that it points to an action that if implemented/achieved, it would address the gaps within the context.
5. Extent to which target audiences or participants are clearly defined and are appropriate
2
Explanation for rating:
I think for this kind of impact they want to have, targeting youth leaders would have been the best from a pool of known youth led organisations.
6. Extent to which planned activities are feasible/realistic within the given time-frame
2
Explanation for rating:
The number is simply too big
7. Extent to which the project plan includes innovative and exciting activities
2
Explanation for rating:
It is the usual stuff of capacity building.
8. Budget - Refer to project budget.
3
Explanation for rating:
The budget is a bit ambitious. They could have chosen to do fewer meetings, with a less number but more days. Impact
9. Track record and experience of the organisation
3
Explanation for rating:
The applicant seems to have experience in advancing digital rights.
10. Overall Recommendation | Do you recommend this application for funding?
No
Please explain why:
There may be less value for money in achieving the purpose of the grants.
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:
Litigations have a strong capacity to set important judicial precedents. Afdec 2019-2022 clearly identified Litigation (Strategic) as a major strategy towards achieving the Afdec objectives
Explanation for rating:
The project description quite leans on the clear objective of the African Declaration
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 activities are well defined but the anticipated outputs are overly optimistic. There is no doubt that litigation is a veritable advocacy strategy but the outcome of litigation depends on variables that may not be predetermined. The proposal sounded as though the anticipated outputs are guaranteed
4.Analysis of the problem and clarity of objectives
3
Explanation for rating:
The proposal clearly identified the violations and a couple of problematic laws in ways that linked up clearly with its stated objectives. It failed however to make provision or accommodation for the possibility that the outcome of litigations may not go as envisaged
5. Extent to which target audiences or participants are clearly defined and are appropriate
4
Explanation for rating:
The proposal clearly indicated 'National Courts' 'African Commission Courts' 'Lawyers under its employment' 'volunteer lawyers on its network' It failed however to mention the 14 partner organizations it intends to work with as highlighted in the project description
6. Extent to which planned activities are feasible/realistic within the given time-frame
1
Explanation for rating:
It is almost impossible to achieve the stated objectives within the stated timeframe. The Court system, litigation requires time and the proposal failed to mention how it will sustain the project after the lifetime of this funding
7. Extent to which the project plan includes innovative and exciting activities
4
Explanation for rating:
The idea to litigate against at least 13 countries namely Ethiopia, Liberia, Sudan, Eritrea, Benin, Zimbabwe, Gabon, Chad, Democratic Republic of Congo, Cameroun, Uganda, Burundi, and Nigeria in a single complaint is very audacious and can set a very important precedent if successful
8. Budget - Refer to project budget.
2
Explanation for rating:
The budget is poor on details. Travel takes 60% of the budget but didn't show enough details. For example Items B23 'Cost of travel outside Nigeria' should be more detailed. What are the travel purposes and where are the destinations - Do they have anything to do with the litigation activities proposed at the regional courts? If yes, where is the travel budget for litigation at the national courts? That bit requires more clarity.
9. Track record and experience of the organisation
4

adeboyeadegoke

6 years 8 months ago

The applicant must/should be asked to provide sustainability plans after this funding. Also, the applicant must provide more details on the project before approvals.

Explanation for rating:
Media Rights Agenda is well known for its work in the region and for its role in AFDEC activities - I have personally worked with the organization and we are working together on a couple of litigation in Nigeria at the moment
10. Overall Recommendation | Do you recommend this application for funding?
Yes
Please explain why:
The proposal scores high in some parameters, while I have flagged a couple of issues too. However, I believe the work of the organization is strategic to AFDEC objectives and there is a lot of value-adds expected beyond this funding. This explains my decision, but I am of the opinion that the issues I flagged around the budget and timelines should be discussed with the applicants before approval is communicated if the application becomes successful
By adeboyeadegoke , 11 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:
The project description suggests that the focus will be on awareness creation and capacity building which are 2 key parts of the AFDEC goal and strategy 2019-2022.
Explanation for rating:
The project description doesn't show strong enough alignment with AFDEC overall goal and Intermediate objectives as articulated in the AFDEC strategy document 2019-2022
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:
The proposed activities are not clearly defined and outputs are barely identified. A couple of activities listed on the budget are barely articulated in the proposal
4.Analysis of the problem and clarity of objectives
4
Explanation for rating:
The proposal clearly identified the problem as a lack of awareness on the subjects of Human Rights Online and the objective is defined as creating awareness among young people and enhancing their understanding of the subject
5. Extent to which target audiences or participants are clearly defined and are appropriate
2
Explanation for rating:
The target audience is clearly defined as 'youths', the appropriateness of the target group isn't quite strong as the project description isn't clear enough to show how the target audience will help the achievement of AFDEC objectives
6. Extent to which planned activities are feasible/realistic within the given time-frame
2
Explanation for rating:
Poor articulation of the different activities and timelines in the proposal makes judgment difficult
7. Extent to which the project plan includes innovative and exciting activities
3
Explanation for rating:
Targeting young people given Gambia's demographic realities is quite 'forward-looking'
8. Budget - Refer to project budget.
3
Explanation for rating:
The budget is clear except that some line items were not clearly referenced in the proposal. Also, if the application makes the cut, further clarification should be sought on budget item B41-'Monthy Advocacy Radio Programmes'
9. Track record and experience of the organisation
4

adeboyeadegoke

6 years 8 months ago

It was difficult to make a definite recommendation because this was the first application I assessed and I didn't have the benefit of comparing the quality of application to others as at the time of scoring

Explanation for rating:
Although a new member of the coalition, the organization is well known in the space and have been engaging developments in the ICT policy space in the region for over 10 years.
10. Overall Recommendation | Do you recommend this application for funding?
Maybe
Please explain why:
This would depend on the quality of other applications and the total availability of funds for the project. I am not overly impressed by the application in terms of articulation but I could see through the prospects and I think an opportunity for feedback can help make the proposal better
By admin , 18 July, 2019

4444