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-Pi...
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