Thanks Adeel for this.

So for reference the WGs can be found at https://atlarge.icann.org/
and the https://atlarge.icann.org/get-involved page has the ability to
sort WGs by Policy, Process and Outreach and Engagement

You mentioned the following categories of persons in Nextgen :
technical, law, policy and civil society

What's the difference between law and policy persons?

Some possible mappings:

Technical mapping to
Technical Issues https://atlarge.icann.org/working_groups/technical-issues
Accessibilty https://atlarge.icann.org/working_groups/accessibility
Technology https://atlarge.icann.org/working_groups/technology

Policy (and Law) mapping to
ICANN Evolution   https://atlarge.icann.org/working_groups/icann-evolution
IDN Policy https://atlarge.icann.org/working_groups/idn-policy
New gTLDs https://atlarge.icann.org/working_groups/new-gtlds
Registration Issues https://atlarge.icann.org/working_groups/registration-issues
Public Interest https://atlarge.icann.org/working_groups/registration-issues

Civil Society mapping to
Capacity Building https://atlarge.icann.org/working_groups/capacity-building
Outreach and Engagement :
https://atlarge.icann.org/working_groups/outreach-engagement
Social Media https://atlarge.icann.org/working_groups/outreach-engagement

and not showing the process WGs (in which there are many)

But are these mappings accurate ?
Wouldn't we want all persons that care about end user issues be
involved in one or more policy WGs?


Kind Regards,

Dev Anand




















Can someone attempt to put on the Google Presentations such a table

On Sat, Oct 22, 2016 at 4:33 PM, Adeel Sadiq <11beeasadiq@seecs.edu.pk> wrote:
> Dear Dev
>
> Greetings from Pakistan. Just a quick comment. Being a part of NextGen
> myself, I feel the portion of How to Engage needs a little more work,
> because in the end that's what we all want from NextGen right?
>
> To give you an example, thankfully you'll find people from technical, law,
> policy, civil society background in NextGen. So I think, we need to include
> one more slide that has 2 columns, 1 for the name of the stakeholder group
> and next to it the WGs that fall into that category, not all but maybe some.
> It will be a lot convenient. I can see the link to WGs on slide, but trust
> me when I say this, a lot of youth today wont bother going to the website
> and then surf and search and read mission statements and purpose of WGs to
> find a suitable place (unless you are an ICANN addict like myself), compared
> to when they already know which WGs fall under their stakeholder affiliation
> which they can quickly jot down without having to download the whole
> presentation. The sole purpose of 'Engagement' won't be as effective as we
> would want it to be.
>
> I hope you get my point and will consider it in your final version.
>
> Thanking in anticipation.
>
> Adeel Sadiq
> Pakistan
>
> On Sun, Oct 23, 2016 at 1:09 AM, Dev Anand Teelucksingh <devtee@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> Dear All,
>>
>> A preliminary draft of the At-Large presentation for the At-Large
>> meeting with the Nextgen students at ICANN57 can be found at
>>
>>
>> https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1zFhDZ3m3mFyubb1crnVdqwmfBXU7_Vrdx-PiU1zEEW4/edit?usp=sharing
>>
>> Its based on the presentation done for the At-Large-Nextgen meeting at
>> ICANN56
>> I've put some comments for possible improvements but wanted to share
>> now to get additional suggestions from you all.
>>
>> Dev Anand
>> _______________________________________________
>> Alac-sc-outreach mailing list
>> Alac-sc-outreach@atlarge-lists.icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac-sc-outreach
>
>