Re: [council] Preliminary planning for ICANN58

["Edward Morris" <egmorris1@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hi James,

Thanks for this. Remarks in line.

> 
> (1) Do we prefer a Single or Split Constituency Day?

No preference. I would like to highlight a problem for NCSG Councillors though.

We represent the members of two constituencies - NPOC and NCUC - on Council. 
Meetings of these constituencies are held at the same time making it impossible 
for us to attend both meetings of the constituencies whose members we represent 
on Council. 

If consideration could be given to somehow scheduling Constituency meetings so 
these two groups do not completely overlap I would be grateful.  It would make 
it easier at least for this Councillor to feel he is adequately representing 
all those he is charged to represent on Council.


> (2) What is the right number of High Interest Topics (HIT)?  The current 
> Block Schedule drafts contain five HIT sessions.

One. At most.

HIT's belong at the IGF and other fora. If there are burning issues directly 
involving ICANN and ICANN policy that masses of ICANN meeting attendees are 
interested in learning about and discussing fine. I just don't think this 
happens very often.

The A and C meetings are too long. Events that are not directly tied to policy 
making and the functioning of our California based public benefits corporation 
should be reduced with an eye towards elimination. 


> (3) Any thoughts on the best way to solicit topics for HIT sessions, and how 
> to choose the top 5?

Open call with attention paid to the number of requests for certain topics. 
High interest should, well, mean that there is high interest in a topic by a 
large number of community members.



> (4) Similarly, any thoughts on how to address the inevitable conflicts 
> between working sessions and HITs?

If HIT's are to continue then I would suggest they should be of sufficient 
interest that attendees would want to attend the sessions in lieu of other 
nonessential activities. I would thus schedule HIT's, based upon the Hyberabad 
meeting, in the 18:30 and beyond time slots. Competition would largely, 
although not exclusively, be cocktail receptions and other optional activities 
rather than sessions directly related to the functioning of the corporation.


> (5) Any other specific feedback you’d like us to bring to the SO/AC meeting

I am concerned that private trade associations such as the Domain Name 
Association were able to schedule sessions under the auspices of ICANN SG's. I 
would suggest this practice be prohibited before it proliferates.  I have 
already had inquiries from NCSG institutional members concerning  their desire 
and ability to hold similar meetings at ICANN using ICANN hosted facilities and 
resources. We need to stop this practice now before it wreaks havoc on our 
meeting schedules.

I would also like to echo a comment made earlier by Ruebens: when in doubt 
please make meeting A a
more like meeting B than like meeting C. I would go so far as to suggest we 
actually make meeting A exactly like meeting B and have only have one large non 
policy focused (the AGM) meeting a year.

Ed



> Please respond by next week with your ideas, and we’ll take them back to the 
> planning group.
> Thanks—
>  
> J.
> <ICANN58 Block Schedule_ProdTimeline_Nov16[3].pdf>