Re: [council] Improvements to f2f GNSO meeting planning?

["James M. Bladel" <jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thank you, Marika.  I think it’s generally understood that Staff has done their 
best with limited guidance.

Councilors -

If there are no objections, then let’s proceed as Heather & Wolf-Ulrich have 
proposed:
*  Put out a renewed call for session requests to the leadership of the SGs and 
Cs.  Emphasize the change in due date (from 12 SEP to now 8 SEP).
* Include with this call a "template”:   really just some basic information 
that should accompany the request, such as session length, invited audience 
(open/closed), estimated attendance (room sizing), remote access/translation 
needs, etc.
*  I’l volunteer to help Donna and Heather assess the incoming requests, if 
they are open to this.  Would also be good if we could have someone from GNSO 
Staff to help liaise with the meeting team once this is complete (Glen?).

Any other thoughts?

Thanks—

J.



From: Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>>
Date: Wednesday, August 31, 2016 at 7:23
To: James Bladel <jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx>>, WUKnoben 
<wolf-ulrich.knoben@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@xxxxxxxxxxx>>, 
Heather Forrest 
<Heather.Forrest@xxxxxxxxxx<mailto:Heather.Forrest@xxxxxxxxxx>>, GNSO Council 
List <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Subject: Re: [council] Improvements to f2f GNSO meeting planning?

>From a staff perspective, we have always felt uncomfortable in this role of 
>reconciling ‘conflicting schedules and agendas with limited meeting resources’ 
>and as such we are pleased that there is now a more transparent process 
>developing in which decision-making no longer falls on us. The challenge 
>previously was also that all meeting requests would be prepared at the same 
>time and as such conflicts between GNSO and SG/C sessions could only be 
>identified at a relatively late stage in the process at which it turned out 
>difficult to move meetings around as people had already planned their schedule 
>around them. The hope is by sharing as early as possible a draft outline that 
>indicates the plans in relation to GNSO Council as well as GNSO policy 
>sessions, this will facilitate the schedule planning by SG/Cs and reduce GNSO 
>sessions competing with each other as much as possible.

Best regards,

Marika

Marika Konings
Senior Policy Director & Team Leader for the GNSO, Internet Corporation for 
Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
Email: marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>

Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO
Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive 
courses<http://learn.icann.org/courses/gnso> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer 
pages<http://gnso.icann.org/sites/gnso.icann.org/files/gnso/presentations/policy-efforts.htm#newcomers>.


From: <owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>> on 
behalf of "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx>>
Date: Tuesday 30 August 2016 at 22:05
To: WUKnoben 
<wolf-ulrich.knoben@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@xxxxxxxxxxx>>, 
Heather Forrest 
<Heather.Forrest@xxxxxxxxxx<mailto:Heather.Forrest@xxxxxxxxxx>>, 
"council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>" 
<council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Subject: Re: [council] Improvements to f2f GNSO meeting planning?

Colleagues -

Thanks for kicking off this topic, Heather, and for contributing your thoughts, 
Wolf-Ulrich. From my (somewhat limited) experience, the meeting planning 
process has never been fully clear, and that’s true of this cycle particular, 
owing to the new Meeting B and Meeting C formats. In most cases, conflicts and 
gaps are resolved by Staff. (Not to throw them under the proverbial bus; 
they’ve done their best to reconcile conflicting schedules and agendas with 
limited meeting resources.)

I agree with Heather that a higher degree of consistency and community input is 
desirable, and we should reach out to the SGs/Cs and begin this process 
immediately following our call Thursday.  And Wolf-Ulrich’s is correct that a 
degree of scoping is also necessary, as we lock down GNSO Council sessions and 
F2F PDPs, and allocate calendar space for sessions involving cross-GNSO policy 
development or implementation.  I don’t think we should constrain SGs and Cs 
from holding their own sessions, closed or otherwise, so long as they are able 
to obtain space from the Meetings Staff team.

Attached, please find the ICANN57 high-level “block schedule”, which displays 
Council sessions and blocks earmarked for other GNSO sessions, is attached.  
This was previously circulated to SGs and Cs, but let’s plan to publish an 
updated version after our meeting, along with the expedited call for meeting 
requests, with the assessment following shortly thereafter (mid-September).

Looking forward to discussing on Thursday.

Thanks,

J.



From: <owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>> on 
behalf of WUKnoben 
<wolf-ulrich.knoben@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@xxxxxxxxxxx>>
Reply-To: WUKnoben 
<wolf-ulrich.knoben@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@xxxxxxxxxxx>>
Date: Tuesday, August 30, 2016 at 4:46
To: Heather Forrest 
<Heather.Forrest@xxxxxxxxxx<mailto:Heather.Forrest@xxxxxxxxxx>>, GNSO Council 
List <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Subject: Re: [council] Improvements to f2f GNSO meeting planning?

Dear Heather,

thanks for your initiative here! I agree that a high degree of transparency is 
expected and that “somebody” has to take the driver seat in planning/organizing 
these meetings.
It must be clear what we’re talking about:

  *   meetings of the entire GNSO (like the incumbent weekend ones, public 
council meeting) or
  *   meetings of parts of the GNSO (e.g. between CSG and NCSG or – cross 
community wise – ISPs and SSAC) or
  *   agendas of those meetings or
  *   alltogether
I personally think we should just discuss the meetings and agendas of the 
entire GNSO resp. council. Planning/organization of meetings on SG/C-level 
should be left under their responsibility. What should the council here talk 
about? Rationale and ranking?
In addition, I’m not convinced that the output of a “meetings team” would be 
better than what we have at present. Even the coordination of the 2 VCs may be 
a challenge (during my term we rotated between the VCs). I saw and still see 
this job having an administrative character, and I’m very much in favor of 
putting this load to the VCs. The decision or – less formal – confirmation of 
the meeting types and agendas is up to the council on the basis of interaction 
with the resp. communities.

In practice:

  *   start early – immediately after an ICANN meeting
maybe a first planning frame could be shared at the first council meeting after 
to solicit council input
since the attendance of people with otherwise full agendas is needed for the 
various topics (e.g. Board, ICANN leaders...), nail them (and their 
secretariats) early – friendly but definitely

  *   the council should be aware at which council calls decisions re the 
meetings have to be taken; and the council members should trigger their resp. 
communities
If you miss a rationale for the VCs being charged with the (administrative) 
task, I’m sure the SCI replacement would be happy to fix this in the GNSO 
procedures [miley] .

Looking forward to the next council call

Wolf-Ulrich

From: Heather Forrest<mailto:Heather.Forrest@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2016 12:56 AM
To: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [council] Improvements to f2f GNSO meeting planning?

Dear Council colleagues,

With the meeting request notice having been sent round to the leaders of Cs and 
SGs recently, I'm wondering if now is an opportune time to raise some concerns 
raised by both Houses about the process of developing the GNSO meeting schedule.

The two main concerns I've heard are that 1) the decision-making process of 
which GNSO meetings get onto the ICANN schedule isn't very transparent and 2) 
there isn't a clear rationale for this task falling to the Council Vice Chairs, 
given the limited remit of Council under the Bylaws. I'd have to say I agree 
with both.

My understanding is that some years ago, there was a community 
volunteer-populated "meetings committee", but that this died a slow death as it 
met infrequently, was too large to be effective, and struggled to meet 
difficult deadlines. It faded into nothingness, and our GNSO support staff took 
up the task. When concerns were raised about staff making the scheduling 
decisions, staff brought the Vice Chairs into the process.

I don't think we can fully alleviate these concerns prior to Hyderabad, but we 
can try to shift our practices to introduce an opportunity for input from the 
broader GNSO community. What I'm thinking is that if SGs and Cs are willing and 
able to get their meeting requests in a few days earlier than the 12 Sept 
deadline (say, one week after the upcoming Council meeting, so Sept. 8th) then 
the Vice Chairs (sorry, Donna, I'm volunteering us for speedy action) could 
ASAP assess requests and circulate a list showing the outcome of that 
assessment to the GNSO community (via SG/C chairs or Councillors, whichever 
seems most efficient/suitable) for comment/input before the request list gets 
submitted to the ICANN scheduling team.

SGs and Cs who aren't able to get their requests in early won't benefit from 
this simply because we're to short on time for this meeting, and even the 
turnaround for comment on those that are submitted in time won't be generous. 
That said, this could be an experiment, and if we start Copenhagen planning 
immediately with this kind of process, I hope we can achieve the twin goals of 
getting the community involved and meeting our scheduling deadlines with a 
workable schedule as an outcome. In short, Council Vice Chairs would still be 
involved, but in more of an administrative capacity, with community input into 
the decision-making.

I've put this out on the list in advance of our upcoming meeting to give time 
to think about the idea in advance. Hyderabad planning will be an item on our 
upcoming agenda, and this could factor into that discussion.

Best wishes,

Heather