The Cyber 9/12 Strategy Challenge is designed to offer students, across a wide range of academic disciplines, a better understanding of the policy challenges associated with cyber conflict. Part interactive learning experience and part competitive scenario exercise, the Cyber 9/12 Strategy Challenge gives students interested in cyber conflict and policy an opportunity to interact with expert mentors, judges, and cyber professionals while developing valuable skills in policy analysis and presentation.
Student teams will be challenged to respond to an evolving scenario involving a major cyber-attack and analyze the threat it poses to state, military, and private sector interests. Teams will be judged based on the quality of their policy responses, their decision-making processes, and their oral presentation to a panel of judges. Along the way, teams will work with coaches at their home institution to develop their policy skills and feedback from expert panels of judges will ensure that all participants have an opportunity to improve their skills, as well as networking opportunities during the competition.
All participants must be familiar with the rules before participating in the event. Because teams will be evaluated based on a combination of written and oral tasks, a thorough understanding of the rules is important to success.
For any questions about the competition, please contact the Columbia SIPA organizers at cyber912@columbia.edu.
Venesa Rugova, Student Director - Cyber 9/12, Digital and Cyber Group at Columbia SIPA
Hamna Tariq, Student Director - Cyber 9/12, Digital and Cyber Group at Columbia SIPA
Morgan McMurray, President, Digital and Cyber Group at Columbia SIPA
Virpratap Vikram Singh, Cyber 9/12 Competition Director & Research & Program Coordinator, SIPA Cybersecurity Program at Columbia SIPA vv2295@columbia.edu
The Cyber 9/12 Strategy Challenge consists of a fictional cyber-attack scenario that evolves over the course of the exercise, prompting teams to modify their policy priorities and recommendations as part of successive oral presentations.
Qualifying Round: REPORT
Before the competition, teams will write a brief exploring and analyzing the key issues and implications related to the cyber incident described in the scenario materials. Further detailed instructions, including page length and word count limits can be found in the instructions accompanying Intelligence Report I.
Submission link: (To be updated in October 2022)
The qualifying round, held on day one, consists of 10-minute oral presentations, followed by 10 minutes to answer direct questions from a panel of judges. At the conclusion of the round, teams will receive feedback from the judges who will score students based on their oral presentations. The judges' score on the oral presentation will be combined with the team score from the written brief submitted in advance of the competition (see Rule 7 below). Scores from the Qualifying Round will not carry over to the Semi-Final Round.
Semi-Final Round: RESPOND
The Semi-Final round, held in the morning on day two, will give advancing teams the opportunity to respond to a new intelligence report that alters the original scenario. Teams will receive the new intelligence report when advancing teams are announced at the conclusion of day one. The semi-final round consists of one 10-minute oral presentation, followed by 10 minutes to answer direct questions from a panel of judges. Teams will have little time to prepare and modify their policy priorities and recommendations. Advancing teams will be decided based on the judges' score on the oral presentation. Further detailed instructions can be found in the instructions accompanying Intelligence Report II.
Submission link: (To be updated in October 2022)
Final Round: REACT
The final round, held in the afternoon on day two, will involve a spontaneous reaction to an intelligence report that further alters the original scenario. Teams will have to respond to questions from the panel of judges with little preparation, testing their ability to analyze information as a team and synthesize a response on the spot. Judges will deliver a final evaluation, and winners will be selected based on the final round scores. No written brief will be required by teams competing in the final round.
To be considered for the competition, interested teams must submit all registration materials, including CVs and all team information, by the registration deadline. After all registration materials have been received, teams selected to compete will receive invitations and competition materials. Teams registering late may be considered at the discretion of the Competition Director, space permitting.
Teams may modify their team roster and coaches prior to receiving Intelligence Report I. After that date, any team changes including substitution or adding/removing members or coaches must be communicated to organizers and will be considered on a case-by-case basis.
Registration Link: https://cglink.me/2e9/r1653460
Deadline: September 26, 2022
All students currently enrolled in an undergraduate, graduate, doctoral, professional, or law program on the date of the registration deadline are eligible to compete. There is no explicit major, coursework, or prior experience in cyber conflict necessary to compete, but successful participants will have a strong link between cyber conflict policy and their current academic interest.
Students with an interest in cyber conflict and policy from around the world are invited to apply to compete. However, the NYC Cyber 9/12 Strategy Challenge cannot guarantee any travel funds or accommodation to support teams. Applicants are encouraged to inquire about funding from their home institutions.
Teams: Teams may be composed of three or four competitors. There are no requirements for team composition based on the majors or education level of team members. At least three competitors must be present in each round. Teams are required to notify organizers of any changes to their team's composition – including scheduling conflicts, withdrawals, substitutions, and removals.
Coaches: Each team is encouraged to recruit a faculty member, competition alumni, or industry professional to act as their team coach and mentor. Coaches are not required to take part in the actual competition, but should provide their competitors assistance in crafting their responses to ensure all teams have necessary support. Co-coaching is permitted and must be disclosed to the organizers. Coaches can be tasked to multiple teams.
A maximum of 28 teams will be selected to participate in the competition. Selected teams will be notified via e-mail of their invitation to the competition after their registration has been reviewed.
Team applications will be received on a rolling basis. In the event that more than 28 teams register for the competition, organizers reserve the right to evaluate individual teams based on:
1. Each teams submitted application, including their response to open questions around cyber issues;
2. A desire to maintain a strong competition by promoting diverse backgrounds, professional experiences, and educational institutions;
3. The number of teams participating from an individual school and institution;
.
Selected teams will be asked to complete a supplementary information packet (dietary restrictions, scheduling, vaccination status, etc) in advance of the competition. Selected teams will receive Intelligence Report I in advance of the competition to begin their preparations.
Upon being selected, teams may begin working with their coaches to prepare for the competition. Background information on the scenario will be distributed before the competition and within Intelligence Report I. In preparing for the Qualifying Round, teams are permitted to consult with their coaches and external experts to improve their policy recommendations.
Once the competition has begun, teams may no longer consult external experts. In preparing for the Semi-Final Round, teams are permitted to consult with their coaches. For the Final Round, teams will not be allowed any consultation with coaches.
The competition will focus on a fictional cyber-attack scenario described through various intelligence reports. The exercise encompasses tasks, both written and oral, which challenge students to respond to the political, economic, and security challenges created by the evolving cyberattack scenario. At all stages of the competition, scenario information and tasks will be distributed in a manner that ensures all teams have an equal chance to prepare.
The competition will focus on a fictional cyber-attack scenario described through various intelligence reports. The exercise encompasses tasks, both written and oral, that challenge students to respond to the political, economic, and security problems. Further detailed instructions can be found accompanying Intelligence Report I and II.
Teams will be provided with a detailed scenario packet that provides background information and sets the scene for the fictional cyber-attack. Teams will receive three tasks to prepare before the competition event.
Submitted Before the Competition:
● Written Cyber Policy Brief
Teams will write a policy brief exploring the challenges faced by state, military, and industry actors related to the cyber incident described in the scenario materials. The brief must also recommend appropriate actions and policy responses for the actors involved. The page length and word count limits of the brief can be found in the "Written Brief Instructions" accompanying Intelligence Report I.
This policy brief will be graded according to a rubric developed by competition organizers and will factor into the final score for the Qualifying Round.
Submitted Before Qualifying Round:
● Decision Document
Teams will also be required to submit a "decision document" accompanying their oral presentation at the beginning of the competition round.
The "decision document" will be a prepared document, a maximum of one single-sided 8.5" by 11" page in length, outlining the team's policy response alternatives, decision process, and recommendations.
Delivered During the Qualifying Round:
● Oral Cyber Policy Brief:
Teams will be given 10 minutes to present their response to judges, followed by 10 minutes to answer direct questions from a panel of judges.
This oral response will be graded according to a graded rubric by judges and will factor into the final score of the Qualifying Round.
Advancing teams will be announced at the end of Day 1 of the competition. Advancing teams will receive Intelligence Report II, which will describe some change in, or escalation of, the original scenario and entail a new problem for the parties involved.
Submitted Before Semi-Final Round:
● Decision Document
Teams will also be required to submit a "decision document" accompanying their oral presentation at the beginning of the semi-final competition round.
The "decision document" will be a prepared document, a maximum of one single-sided 8.5" by 11" page in length, outlining the team's policy response alternatives, decision process, and recommendations.
Delivered During Semi-Final Round:
● Oral Cyber Policy Brief
Teams will be given 10 minutes to present their response to judges, followed by 10 minutes to answer direct questions from a panel of judges.
This oral response will be graded according to a graded rubric by judges and will factor into the final score of the Semi-Final Round.
After the finalists are announced, participants will be placed in a holding room where they will receive Intelligence Report III - the final intelligence report - detailing further changes to the scenario. Finalists will be provided with 15 minutes to use the new information to revise their policy responses.
● Oral Policy Brief
Each team will individually meet with a panel of judges. The teams will present a 10-minute presentation of their reaction regarding further changes to the scenario and their policy recommendations, followed by 10 minutes of questions from the judges.
This oral response will be graded according to a graded rubric by judges and will factor into the final score of the Final Round.
○ 28 teams will compete in the Qualifying Round on Day 1
○ The top 50% of teams will advance to the Semi-Final Round on Day 2.
○ Qualifying Round scores will be determined by averaging teams' Written Cyber Policy Brief and their Oral Cyber Policy Brief score.
○ Written Cyber Policy Briefs will be graded by competition organizers according to a grading rubric
○ Oral Cyber Policy Briefs will be graded by competition judges according to a grading rubric.
Ôûá Decision Documents will be reviewed by judges and will factor into this score.
● 14 teams will compete head-to-head with only the four highest-scoring teams advancing to the Final Round.
● A randomizer will be used to pair teams for the head-to-head
● Semi-Final Round scores will be determined by the Oral Cyber Policy Brief
● Oral Cyber Policy Brief will be graded by competition judges according to a grading rubric - Decision Documents will be reviewed by judges and will factor into this score.
● Teams may win their head-to-head round but fail to qualify for the final round
● Teams that lose their head-to-head round, but score high, will still be unable to qualify
● Teams will be present for each other's presentations and will be present together to receive both individual and group feedback.
● Teams will compete one at a time for the highest score from the same panel of judges.
● A randomizer will be used to determine the presentation order.
● Scores will be determined by the Oral Cyber Policy Brief.
● Oral Cyber Policy Brief will be graded by competition judges according to a grading rubric.
Before the competition, teams are encouraged to seek outside help from external experts to develop their policy briefs. Teams are expected to rely on their coaches, in particular, to help develop and revise their policy ideas for the competition.
During competition events, when teams are presenting or answering judge questions, no outside assistance is allowed for teams - including consultation with external experts. However, teams may confer with their coaches during the breaks between rounds.
During the competition round, teams are not allowed to use electronic devices, apart from the device they are using for video teleconferencing (if applicable). However, teams may use electronic devices such as cellular phones and computers during breaks between rounds. Paper notes are highly encouraged at all times during the competition. No visual aids or digital devices (e.g. PowerPoint) may be used in competition rounds.
Cheating during the competition will not be tolerated and will result in the immediate disqualification of a team. All teams are expected to comply by the rigorous standards of academic honesty in place at their home institutions. Any team suspected of cheating may be subject to immediate disqualification. The home institutions of disqualified teams will also be notified of the disqualification.
Each round of the competition will be judged by a panel of three to four cyber policy experts. To standardize scoring and encourage consensus, all judges will score the teams based on a common grading scorecard in accordance with Rule 14. Judges may change between sessions and rounds subject to their availability.
A limited number of observers, such as from the Atlantic Council, may be present at the event and in competition rounds. Every effort will be taken to ensure that they do not disturb or assist any of the participating teams in the competition.
Teams, including coaches, may not observe rounds that they themselves are not competing in.
The NYC Cyber 9/12 Strategy Challenge reserves the right to partner with the media to provide live coverage of the event via broadcast or internet livestream. Additionally, members of the press may be present to cover the event in person and are required to identify themselves when interacting with participants, coaches, judges, and organizers.
By agreeing to participate in the competition, participants, judges, and guests acknowledge that they may be photographed and/or be recorded.
Unless stated otherwise, all proceedings from the event; including the scenario, keynote, panel discussion, competitor and judge statements, and networking socials are under the Chatham House Rule and are not to be shared online.
All participants and observers in the event are expected to conduct themselves in a responsible and professional manner.
Competition organizers should be contacted for any and all clarifications.
Competition staff will manage a clock to keep track of time limits for the presentations. Teams will be kept advised of the time using a "green-yellow-red" system of cards. At the five-minute mark, a staff member will display a green card to the team; at the one-minute mark a staff member will display a yellow card; and at the expiration of time, a staff member will display a red card. A penalty will be assessed for teams exceeding the time limit.
All teams will be evaluated based on five main dimensions of their responses: understanding of cyber policy; identification of key issues; policy response option – analysis and selected option; structure and communication; and originality and creativity. These dimensions will be scored based on a common grading scorecard and instructions shared by all the judges. The resulting numerical scores will be used to determine the winners of each round.
At the conclusion of each round, teams will be provided specific, detailed feedback on strengths and areas of improvement for their policy and presentation skills.
Grading scorecards and guidelines will be distributed to all teams in advance of the competition.
All teams, including those which have been eliminated from the competition, are welcome and encouraged to take part in the networking functions, speeches, and other events accompanying the competition. Please note that eliminated teams are still eligible for some of the prizes and awards to be offered (see Rule 16).
In addition to the main prize of the competition, the Cyber 9/12 Strategy Challenge will, at its discretion, award additional prizes during the course of the competition. Teams will also be eligible for awards based on their final standing in the competition.
Judges will be allowed to nominate teams for each of the team awards listed below. Team awards will be decided by the total number of judges that nominate a single team for an award. In the event of a tie for a team award, the competition organizers will use a coin-toss to determine the winner. This coin-toss will be held at the organizers convenience and may not be visible to competitors.
● Semi-Final Awards - All teams that win their Semi-Final Round will be presented with an award.
● Best Oral Presentation – Judges should nominate teams who show an advanced mastery of the oral briefing. Judges are free to nominate multiple teams
● Best Decision Document – Judges should nominate teams who submit a precise and professional decision document that clearly presents the team's recommendations and justifications. Judges are free to nominate multiple teams.
● Most Creative Policy Response – Judges should nominate teams who show nuanced and plausible policy response alternatives that also show a high degree of creativity and originality. Judges are free to nominate multiple teams.
● Best Teamwork – Judges should nominate teams who show exceptional teamwork in their presentations.
The above rules are provided for planning purposes only. The New York City Cyber 9/12 Strategy Challenge reserves the right to alter the rules based on logistical and technical considerations. In the event of changes to the competition rules, a new version of this document will be posted and distributed to teams before the start of the competition. All participants must be familiar with the rules before participating in the competition. As teams will be evaluated based on a combination of written and oral tasks, a thorough understanding of the rules is important to success.
Competition judges are experts in their field and will render scores based upon content and delivery as pursuant to the specifics as outlined in the foregoing Competition Rules. Once scores are issued for each team, they will be passed to a representative of The Atlantic Council who will be attending this competition as an impartial enumerator. At no time during the competition will Columbia University students have authority or control over competition scoring.
Understanding of Cyber Policy *
● [4 points] The team demonstrated a comprehensive knowledge of cyber policy issues, accurately identified key stakeholders and applicable instruments / levers
● [3 points] The team demonstrated a good knowledge of cyber policy issues, identified appropriate stakeholders, instruments/levers
● [2 points] The team demonstrated a general understanding of cyber policy but mis-identified some appropriate stakeholders, instruments/levers
● [1 point] The team demonstrated a limited knowledge of cyber policy, stakeholders and instruments levers
Identification of Key Issues *
● [4 points] The team successfully identified and fully responded to all the issues posed by the scenario
● [3 points] The team identified and responded to the main issues posed by the scenario
● [2 points] The team identified some relevant issues posed by the scenario or partially responded to main issues identified
● [1 point] The team referenced general cyber issues not relevant to the scenario or overly focused on a single issue
Policy Response Option – Analysis and Selected Option *
● [4 points] The team's policy response options fully addressed the scenario and clearly articulated trade-offs. The optimal solution was proposed
● [3 points] The team's policy response options addressed the main elements of the scenario and articulated some trade-offs. A good solution was proposed
● [2 point] The team's policy response options addressed some elements of the scenario and / or there was limited articulation of trade-offs. A solution that had some value was proposed
● [1 point] The team's suggested responses were overly narrow or only focused on one element of the scenario. The proposed solution was unlikely to be successful
Structure and Communication *
● [4 points] The team presented with a very clear, logical structure to their analysis and options, clearly communicated with the audience and were exemplary(brevity & accuracy) in their responses to questions
● [3 points] The team presented with a structure to their analysis and options, communicated relatively well with the audience and gave good answers in response to questions
● [2 points] The team presented with an occasionally unclear structure to their analysis and options, occasionally struggled to clearly communicate with the audience and / or occasionally gave unclear answers in response to questions
Originality and Creativity *
● [4 points] The team offered highly effective and innovative solutions to the scenario that go beyond existing canonical literature or best practices
● [3 points] The team offered effective, creative solutions to the scenario, grounded in current best practices and literature
● [2 points] The team offered partially effective solutions to the scenario with a degree of creativity, drawing upon some superseded best practice
● [1 point] The team offered potentially ineffective solutions to the scenario, without creativity drawing upon superseded best practice
