ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives

[council]

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Re: [council] Preliminary planning for ICANN58

  • To: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Re: [council] Preliminary planning for ICANN58
  • From: Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@xxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2016 07:32:20 -0200
  • Authentication-results: mail.nic.br (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=nic.br
  • Cc: GNSO Council List <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=nic.br; s=dkim; t=1479893541; bh=uLi4lwuDVlK4nglD+hIa5I256RP1bJXaI/SbWnyS8DI=; h=Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:References:To:From; b=t59jjPHBeiDrVZ3pNXML3NCGOZbbPkuPxTyfEU2ZJj+KJnR+TbOAJnAi2MrrZRQvI UDykSzjL4dPT0gFLv5DY7JclxXjfyqCcFd35nqul5Oe1eGWAz4Md7R+h87/eE/Tnne ORRKjCxWfA3AiQQJ8vDcY26OVjNLF0mQmZb8bhso=
  • Dmarc-filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.1 mail.nic.br 63F5E248DC1
  • In-reply-to: <300EB0E4-FA51-4FA7-9717-4BCB785B2E99@godaddy.com>
  • List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • References: <300EB0E4-FA51-4FA7-9717-4BCB785B2E99@godaddy.com>
  • Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> On Nov 23, 2016, at 3:57 AM, James M. Bladel <jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx> 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
<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>