On Apr 16, 2020, at 7:07 PM, David Olive <david.olive@icann.org> wrote: *-------* *ICANN68 Meeting Framework:* - Sessions listed on the formal meeting schedule will receive technical, language and meetings support as outlined by Nick on the call (i.e. ICANN Virtual Policy Forum support). - The formal meeting schedule will focus on “hot topics” (i.e. high interest plenary sessions), a Public Forum, Executive Q&A and other priority sessions identified by the community (e.g. policy topics meriting cross-community dialogue; individual or bilateral working sessions to progress important work). - Other sessions can be organized that do not appear on the formal meeting schedule – however, *only sessions that are published on the formal schedule will receive full ICANN Virtual Policy Forum support*. - These “other sessions” will be considered “regular” (normal inter-sessional) meetings and be supported by the staff teams that normally manage these sessions (e.g. Policy). - They can either be scheduled during the meeting dates (with the caveats as noted) or around the meeting (e.g. before or after the official meeting dates). - The formal meeting schedule will be supplemented by Prep Week, other sessions such as working group meetings that do not need to take place during the meeting period and post-meeting readouts and follow up webinars – as befitting a flexible, deconstructed Virtual Policy Forum. *Action Items:* 1. By next week (suggested date: *Thursday 23 April*), each community group to provide its input as to *what sessions and topics it believes should be on the official meeting schedule* (and hence receive full ICANN Virtual Policy Forum meeting support). 1. Input to include (if possible) feedback as to whether additional plenary sessions are needed (in addition to one on DNS abuse) and, if so, which (if any) of the topic(s) noted in the survey should be the subject of additional session(s). 2. For planning purposes, *community groups to take as a starting point the proposal that priority sessions be scheduled, as much as possible, during a 4-hour block between 0400-0800 UTC.* *As noted above, this does not prevent other sessions from being scheduled during the 4 days of the meeting, but full support will not be available for all such sessions.* 3. Fulfillment of requests for live interpretation and/or ICANN org’s Meetings Technical Services (MTS) support for individual community sessions outside the 4-hour block will depend on the availability of the requested service at that time. 2. By next week (suggested date: *Thursday 23 April*), each community group to provide its feedback as to whether or not to announce the recipient of the *2020 Community Excellence Award* during the Virtual Policy Forum, with the actual ceremony to take place at the next face-to-face ICANN Public Meeting. 3. By end-April, Tanzanica King to prepare *preliminary ICANN68 meeting schedule* based on community group input, taking into account availability of requested technical and language services, meeting room capacity and availability, need to ensure breaks between sessions, etc. *Next Planning Call: * - 30 April 2020 – Notice and calendar invites being sent shortly --------- David A. Olive Senior Vice President Policy Development Support Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Washington, D.C. _______________________________________________ Drazek, Keith via SOAC-Leaders-ICANNMeeting-Planning 1:32 PM (2 minutes ago) to David, SOAC-Leaders-ICANNMeeting-Planning Thank you, David. Following up the good discussion of this group on Wednesday, I’d like to underscore a couple of points for everyone’s consideration as we engage our respective communities. 1. Under these challenging circumstances, which could worsen in some places as we approach June/July, we should be focused on only what’s necessary, time-sensitive, and mission-critical. As such, we need to avoid adding extra plenary sessions just to fill time and slots. 2. ICANN 68 is our annual Policy Forum. As such, we should keep the focus of our meeting slot allocation on the actual work of policy development and associated implementation work. In the Policy Forum construct, we do not typically have a Public Forum or Q&A with ICANN Execs. As such, we should avoid adding those kinds of sessions and stick to plenary sessions that support or enhance policy development/implementation. 3. There is clear cross-community interest in the topic of DNS Abuse, and it is relevant to the current circumstances of COVID-19. I would support a plenary session on DNS Abuse, but I’m having difficulty identifying other similar topics that would warrant scarce time and support resources at a challenging hour for much of the community. Let’s be judicious in our selection of such plenary sessions and ensure we leave sufficient slots available for the policy work. That’s my initial feedback and thinking from a GNSO Council perspective. I’ll provide additional input after the GNSO community has had a chance to consider further. Best regards to all! Stay safe. Keith