James I understand ICANN is working to a formula to develop their schedule and it makes sense to do so, but I have a few more questions that I’d like to pose to the Council and their respective groups. What are our priorities, as a Council, for Copenhagen? What are the priorities for the ALAC, ccNSO, the GAC, the SSAC, the Board? Is there overlap in the priorities? Can we manage any overlapping priorities collectively rather than individually? How much time should we be allocating for PDP WG efforts? (Chuck Gomes suggested blocks of 3 hours is optimal. During a CPH joint discussion in Hyderabad we felt more time should be made during ICANN meetings to progress PDP WG efforts.) If the HIT sessions are just discussions, and don’t result in any substantive conclusions, could those sessions be conducted during the time allocated for lunch? Or should HITs have some tangible outcome? Avri and Jeff as the Co-Chairs of the new gTLD Subsequent Procedures WG, gave the same update to a number of groups during Hyderabad. Can the HITs be repurposed for these types of updates? I don’t think there is any magic number to HITs, but if the GAC, the ccNSO, the ALAC and others are receiving the same update individually, wouldn’t it be a better use of the HIT slots and peoples time, that those individual updates be provided once. Because of the structure of Constituency Day, it is not possible to attend the Board sessions with groups other than the CPH. I expect it would be helpful to understanding the issues of the other groups if it were possible to attend and I expect that there is a lot of overlap/duplication in the subjects being raised with the Board across our various groups. For example, I think the Board heard from most groups in Hyderabad that the schedule was not optimal. We all have to provide our topics for discussion with the Board prior to Constituency Day – I wonder if there is a way that we could have a collective discussion with the Board on topics that overlap, or is that what the Public Forum is for? We have a tendency to consider issues in our respective silos and as a result we’re not aware of areas of common interest. I think it would be great if we could think outside the box and try to be more creative with our management of the meeting schedule and not be restricted by what we’ve done before. Donna From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of James M. Bladel Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2016 9:57 PM To: GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: [council] Preliminary planning for ICANN58 Councilors – As discussed in Hyderabad, the SO/ACs are pushing ICANN Staff to get an early start on planning for ICANN58, in an effort to avoid/mitigate some of the pain points experienced at ICANN57. To this end, Staff has prepared the attached document (PDF), outlining the timeline for finalizing the ICANN58 schedule, along with two draft “Block Schedules”: one with a single Constituency Day, the other with a split Constituency Day(s). Finally, the PDF displays results and feedback gathered from the meeting survey. SO/AC leaders (including Donna, Heather and myself) are planning to meet with ICANN Meeting Staff in early December to discuss the Block Schedule. Questions for the GNSO Council: (1) Do we prefer a Single or Split Constituency Day? (2) What is the right number of High Interest Topics (HIT)? The current Block Schedule drafts contain five HIT sessions. (3) Any thoughts on the best way to solicit topics for HIT sessions, and how to choose the top 5? (4) Similarly, any thoughts on how to address the inevitable conflicts between working sessions and HITs? (5) Any other specific feedback you’d like us to bring to the SO/AC meeting Please respond by next week with your ideas, and we’ll take them back to the planning group. Thanks— J.