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.
On Nov 23, 2016, at 3:57 AM, James M. Bladel <jbladel@godaddy.com> wrote:
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?
Single Constituency Day.
(2) What is the right number of High Interest Topics (HIT)? The current Block Schedule drafts contain five HIT sessions.
1. If we can't pick just 1, 2 max... but I think it's easier to pick 1 than 2 to 5. Usually there is something that stands out. For all other HIT slots: PDP WGs and IRTs from the 3 SOs. (3) Any thoughts on the best way to solicit topics for HIT sessions, and how to choose the top 5? SO/AC Leadership.
(4) Similarly, any thoughts on how to address the inevitable conflicts between working sessions and HITs?
Having less so-called HITs. Avoid conflicts with PDP WGs and IRTs.
(5) Any other specific feedback you’d like us to bring to the SO/AC meeting
When in doubt, make meeting A more like meeting B than meeting C. Rubens
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.
Hi, please find my comments below: 2016-11-23 14:57 GMT+09:00 James M. Bladel <jbladel@godaddy.com>:
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?
yes we need a Single Constituency day.
(2) What is the right number of High Interest Topics (HIT)? The current Block Schedule drafts contain five HIT sessions.
I think even less would be ok i.e. 3 HITs (3) Any thoughts on the best way to solicit topics for HIT sessions, and
how to choose the top 5?
another point to have in mind is those session proposed by GDD which we don't have any input. no reason to limit the number of community HIT while keeping the same number of GDD sessions. an open call for proposals is ok. however, putting some limit is needed. I noticed that GAC/PSWG submitted several proposals. we should also encourage cross-community submissions or at least those planning to include diverse point of views. the HITs are not supposed to be showcases but designed for debate. we need to raise the point about selections and criteria for HIT. also how they are organized. some HITs organizers seemed excluding other groups or not keen to be inclusive. (4) Similarly, any thoughts on how to address the inevitable conflicts
between working sessions and HITs?
spreading the HITs in several days will led inevitably to clashes. restricting them to 1 day may help e.g the official first day of the meeting with 3 HITs. as other comment: - the meeting B is supposed to have a day for outreach, GNSO should avoid organizing sessions clashing with allocated timeslot for outreach. - can we agree on timeslots for GNSO inter-groups sessions? my understanding is that the venue for Copenhagen is not close to the hotels, so wondering if breakfast sessions are convenient or not. Best, Rafik
participants (4)
-
Austin, Donna -
James M. Bladel -
Rafik Dammak -
Rubens Kuhl