- Comments-draft-proposal-nextgen-11feb20

Ratified: ALAC Statement on Draft Proposal for NextGen@ICANN Program Improvements
by ICANN At-Large Staff April 6, 2020

April 6, 2020

Dear All, Please find attached the ALAC statement regarding Draft Proposal for NextGen@ICANN Program Improvements<https://community.icann.org/x/iheJBw>. Content of the statement remains unchanged. Ratification information is included on the cover page. Kind Regards, ICANN Policy Staff in support of the At-Large Community Website: atlarge.icann.org<https://atlarge.icann.org/> Facebook: facebook.com/icann<https://www.facebook.com/icannatlarge>atlarge<https://www.facebook.com/icannatlarge> Twitter: @<https://twitter.com/ICANNAtLarge>ICANNAtLarge<https://twitter.com/ICANNAtLarge>

1 0

IPC Comments re Draft Proposal for NextGen@ICANN Program Improvements
by Brian Scarpelli April 3, 2020

April 3, 2020

On behalf of the GNSO Intellectual Property Constituency, please find attached the IPC's comments re the ICANN Draft Proposal for NextGen@ICANN Program Improvements. Brian Scarpelli IPC Participation Coordinator

1 0

RrSG response to Draft Proposal for NextGen@ICANN Program Improvements
by Zoe Bonython April 1, 2020

April 1, 2020

Hello, On behalf of the Registrar Stakeholder Group (RrSG), I’d like to submit the attached response to the Draft Proposal for NextGen@ICANN Program Improvements. Kind regards, Zoe Bonython RrSG Secretariat

1 0

NCSG comment
by Rafik Dammak April 1, 2020

April 1, 2020

Hi, please find attached NCSG comment. Best, Rafik

1 0

Pending Ratification: ALAC Statement on Draft Proposal for NextGen@ICANN Program Improvements
by ICANN At-Large Staff March 31, 2020

March 31, 2020

Dear All, Please find attached the ALAC statement regarding Draft Proposal for NextGen@ICANN Program Improvements<https://community.icann.org/x/iheJBw>. In the interest of time, the ALAC Chair requested that the statement be transmitted to the ICANN public comment process with a note that the statement is pending ALAC ratification. Kind Regards, ICANN Policy Staff in support of the At-Large Community Website: atlarge.icann.org<https://atlarge.icann.org/> Facebook: facebook.com/icann<https://www.facebook.com/icannatlarge>atlarge<https://www.facebook.com/icannatlarge> Twitter: @<https://twitter.com/ICANNAtLarge>ICANNAtLarge<https://twitter.com/ICANNAtLarge>

1 0

RySG Comments on the Draft Proposal for NextGen@ICANN Program Improvements
by Demetriou, Samantha March 31, 2020

March 31, 2020

Hello, On behalf of the gTLD Registries Stakeholder Group (RySG), please find attached our comments on the Draft Proposal for NextGen@ICANN Program Improvements. In the interest of time, we did not conduct a vote on these comments. We did discuss them on our mailing list and during a biweekly conference call, and no member opposed their submission. Please feel free to contact me with any questions or concerns. Best, Samantha Demetriou RySG Vice Chair, Policy

1 0

Draft Proposal for NextGen@ICANN Program Improvements
by Steve DelBianco March 31, 2020

March 31, 2020

Attached is the comment of ICANN’s Business Constituency (BC) regarding the Draft Proposal for NextGen@ICANN Program Improvements. This comment was drafted by Mark Datysgeld. It was approved in accord with our Charter. -- Steve DelBianco Vice Chair for Policy Coordination ICANN Business Constituency (BC)

1 0

Submission of Public comment- NextGen@ICANN
by Youth M March 31, 2020

March 31, 2020

Hi, Kindly accept our Public Comment for the Draft proposal of NextGen@ICANN Kindly get in touch if anything. -- More power to youth[image: ] -- Mili Semlani | Founder e: youth4ig(a)gmail.com w: youth4ig.asia <http://youth4ig.asia/> [image: facebook icon] <https://www.facebook.com/youth4ig> [image: twitter icon] <https://twitter.com/youth4ig> [image: linkedin icon] <https://www.linkedin.com/company/13412895/admin/>

1 0

NextGen@ICANN Program Improvements
by Elliott Mann March 31, 2020

March 31, 2020

Hi, I was a NextGen participant at the ICANN64 Meeting in Kobe, Japan last year. Being a NextGenner was my first experience in Internet Governance, and I’m happy to say that the program pretty much singlehandedly inspired me to get further involved in IG. As a result, I’m happy to have to opportunity to make public comment on the proposed improvements to the program and give back to a program which has given so much to me. Purpose & Targeted outreach The role of the NextGen program as one targeted at university students is, I think, right on the money. It creates a clear delineation between the NextGen and Fellowship programs, and gets ICANN engaged at a university level – which I think has been a weakness in the past. My suggestion here would be to be careful with the terminology used here. I would suggest focusing on students studying at ‘tertiary’ or ‘further education’ institutions rather than focusing on ‘universities’. It’s perhaps a keen distinction, but at least in Australia (where I hail from), there is a difference. Referring to universities excludes technical colleges and other vocational schools, which I think would be to the detriment of the NextGen program. At least here, courses outside of universities still include plenty of people who would be great NextGen candidates – so I think some refinement is needed. I would propose changing the wording from ‘universities’ to ‘tertiary institutions'. The targeted outreach to post-graduate students is reasonable, and it’s good to see a broad range of academic fields will be encouraged. Application I don’t support allowing applicants to upload a letter of endorsement or recommendation from a community group. In my mind, the NextGen program should be as open as possible for those who are not already involved in the ICANN ecosystem. With that in mind, allowing applicants to show that they are supported by a community group – particularly where community groups are represented on the panel choosing applications – makes me fear the process will be self-selecting and unbalanced towards those known applicants. Within the current application questions, there is plenty of scope for applicants to show any involvement with ICANN community groups, and to include a letter of recommendation is unnecessary. I myself, had no connections in the ICANN community prior to being a NextGenner – and I would not like to think applicants in a similar position would be disadvantaged against someone with prior connections. While I would prefer the removal of this option, as an alternative I would encourage ensuring no applicant is disadvantaged because they do not provide such a letter. Thanks for providing this opportunity to make public comment, and I hope the NextGen program has a successful future ahead of it! Kind regards, Elliott Mann (speaking personally)

1 0

Report submission and certificate issuance
by Moriam Omowunmi Sulaimon March 29, 2020

March 29, 2020

Each nextgenner should submit a report that includes what they have learnt during the onsite meeting and how they plan to continually participate in the community. A certificate of completion can be issued after the report submission.

1 2

Application- Selection criteria - age limit, application format
by Oluwaseun Ajani Feb. 20, 2020

Feb. 20, 2020

The program age limit of 30 years old should be reviewed to make room for graduate students that are above 30 years old owing to the fact that the program is open to graduate students. Limiting the age to 30 years old will deprive professionals above the age who have a diverse experience they can bring to the program the opportunity for participation. Being professionals they must have spent some years before enrolling for their graduate programs and as such are above 30 years old. It should, therefore, be reconsidered. The application format should follow best practices around data minimization. Students applying to the NextGen program must be good at writing, ICANN being a multi-stakeholder organization must ensure that different fields of study are carried along because the internet is everybody's business. Graduate students who are applicants must be able to articulate themselves by writing good applications. Technically-minded students must be able to pitch their projects in writing their applications. The idea of a short video presentation should not be considered because any graduate student should be deemed fit to speak and present well, the written application should be sufficient to select the candidates for the program. Secondly, there is a pool of applicants from underserved communities in terms of internet connectivity, It might hinder their application to the NextGen program. Including short video should, therefore, be made optional as the case may be owing to the peculiarities of the applicants, and video quality vis-a-vis internet connectivity. Oluwaseun Ajani

1 0

(no subject)
by sie yi syun Feb. 18, 2020

Feb. 18, 2020

1 0

Next Gen Participation
by David Marglin Feb. 12, 2020

Feb. 12, 2020

I believe there should be more mentoring by actual members of the ORG and Staff (including having each Next Gen paired with someone to whom they can run their presentation prior to presenting at the meeting on video in front of their peers). I also believe that the NextGenners should be allowed the opportunity to ask the first question at the final Public Forum of each Meeting (which can be done by having the Nextgenners get together and nominate one NextGenner to ask a good, relevant question). Dave Marglin

1 0