No mention of strategy, even though the proposed activity would contribute to research and monitoring. However, the fact that the applicant makes no reference to the strategy implies that they may have not taken time to evaluate how they can actually contribute to the Coalitions impact.

Applicant clear on two ares of focus

Simple and activities are linkaged to each other, which is good for overall impact

Clearly outlined and demonstrated well in context.

Good multistakeholder intervention

Well planned

Nothing innovative unless social media will have a mix of

Not clear which IGF(D1) on Travel is refering to (Regional or Global) and how does it relate to the other activities?

Have conducted a number of researches and hosted successfully hosted their Multistakeholder meeting

With review of budget line allocations.

This is clearly defined, albeit in C% that speakes to participants/stakeholders

Fair attempt in section C1. Though too many areas of focus.

Moderately defined. Need to be streamlined and a lot morefoucus on realistic

Poor analysis of problem and, but can be found throughout proposal

Clear . Has both primary and secondary

Main activities in said time is reasonable.

fair attempt with social media, but needs to be explored further especially.

Needs revisiting. Coordinations fees rather high – Take up 18% of budget

Stated well and applicant seems very influential

Maybe, with review of budget.

Clearly states the 3 strategic areas of Coalition building, Capacity building ad awareness raising however the activities are not convincing, especially the website one

Clear

Outputs are realistic – Journos and motivating public debate through coverage of issues, reference and use of the Declaration and Comitment of huma rights oganisations. However the activities are unclear especially Coalition website. More can be done on the existing AfDec website

Is logical and in line with the objectives

Clear

Realistic – although there should be a more defined timeframe and activities around the awareness activities, considering that the activity happens over 3 months.

There is an attempt to be innovative, but very little evidence of how the activities link to each other

Budget needs to be reworked. Too much budgetted for website, and yet little demonstration of activities to support the site.

Clear track record of the organisations work and impact through its by the applicants membership in other bodies and partnerships with strategic groups like the media that it plans to work with in this project

With a review of the budget

It is clear that this falls under legal advocacy

Applicant clearly states that the projects it will challenge laws, regulation, practices and action impinge on digital rights. However what is not clear is which practices and actions will be challenged. By who/ (Authorities or will it also involve cases where citizens violate each others rights?)

Only the objective that seeks to put an end to internet shutdowns seems rather ‘high end’ . This could have been made more realistic outputs like statements, citing of the case

Clear – Internet shutsowns and their overall impact

Good that applicant partners with AFEX members

Realistic

However, weak on that there seems no publicity/awareness (Hype) around the issues. It just focusses on litigating

Budget needs to be worked on. The allocation of 6000 for travel in 4 areas seems much, and it is not clear where and how far the areas are from where the projected will be centred.

Apart from stating that its lawyers will be the primary implementors, no demonstration of past work.

But only with a review of the budget

This proposal largely contributes to awareness raising, but it cites all the strategic areas, presenting a challenge of focus. Although there is an attempt at parntership with the National Youth Council, the applicant does not demonstrate how it goes beyond just the planning of the intervention.

Fair although the proposal does not outline the principles as they are stated in the Declaration it descrices them

There are no outputs outlined. It is not clear what they expect to see after the training interventions? There is mention of the national Human Rights Commission and the ACHPR, but no articulation of how the youth will interact with them

Because the problem is not clearly articultated – ie. What has the effect of a lack of digital rights awareness translated to in the country, the related objectives are not defined.

With a better focus on the overall impact of the project, this proposal could have identified and targetted other secondary stakeholders such as the authorities related to the laws that the proposal mentions

6 regions over 6 months, with 2 trainings being conducted per region is reasonale. However training 100 people per workshop seems overly ambitious. This should be reviewed.

Not a very exciting proposal, as we don’t see beyond the training.

Questionable on the consultants/resource persons. How many will be engaged because not only the Gambia Human Rights Council can address all the issues they highlight in project description.

Does not demonstrate the impact and extent of their previous training interventions

Not a strong application as it fails to clearly define its problem, have focus on a specific or indivual strategic area and has limited target audience. Outputs of the project not outlined.

Good match - focused on media

Good match

Good.

Good analysis of the media context and actors.

Clearly defined

We and they have to move fast.

Good to focus on one stakeholder group and speak their issues.

Seems ok

Don't know

Seems a good opportunity. Would like them to draw on AfDec members in Nigeria.

National policy impact.

Clear match for national implementation.

Very clear

Clear

Good. Would like a bit more detail.

Feasible if they start soon.

Building on previous work

Clear budget.

Excellent track record.

Good project.

By creating broader awareness.

Good overall match.

Seems a bit unfocused.

Objectives not so clear.

good.. but not specific enough.

Not sure how long it takes to organise a TV show. Might need more time.

Good to use mainstream media.

Seems good.

Been around. Part of APAI

They don't seem to pay much attention to the existence of digital rights work in Uganda that has been going on for a long time. I would like to see how they will work with other AfDEc members in the country before agreeing to fund.

Not so clear what they would like to see happen after the meeting.

Clear match.

Our form needs to change to make this clearer. Output is a meeting. Is that enough?

Good.

I would like to know more.

An event, so fine. But would be good to know what the output is.

Nothing very new. But not necessary.

Good budget. Airfares seem high.

FOunding member of AfDec

Yes, but I would like to know more about what the plan is after the event.

The mapping data will be useful for advocacy.

Good to have a focus on data protection.

Good. How they will go about it could be clearer.

Good overall.

A bit general.

Seems OK.

But not essential

Clear budget even if for more than what we can support.

They are very reliable.

Good implementer. Reliable. Relevant project.