Re: [council] Preliminary planning for ICANN58

[Michele Neylon - Blacknight <michele@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

James

Thanks for sharing this.

My personal thoughts:

1 – Single is easier. Rationale: some of the RrSG members plan their attendance 
around the SG meeting with some only coming to meetings in Europe to attend it.
2 / 3/ 4 – I think the entire HIT thing needs to be revisited.
What is the rationale behind this?
What exactly constitutes “high interest”? For whom? ICANN staff? Community? The 
GAC?
I’m not opposed to the concept of these plenary sessions, but if they are to be 
truly plenary then the number of them needs to be reduced and that would also 
mean the number of conflicts would be more manageable. In Hyderabad there were 
too many of these sessions and the conflicts were a mess.

How topics are chosen will always be a difficult point, but other organisations 
manage to schedule these things without it being such a big deal and headache
Why not adopt a “sane” process like others have? Ie. “call for topics / papers” 
which generates the intitial list and then some kind of simple polling / 
ranking system to choose the two or three that should take place?
The way it was handled for India seems to have been completely random

Regards

Michele


--
Mr Michele Neylon
Blacknight Solutions
Hosting, Colocation & Domains
http://www.blacknight.host/
http://blacknight.blog/
http://www.blacknight.press - get our latest news & media coverage
http://www.technology.ie
Intl. +353 (0) 59  9183072
Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090
Social: http://mneylon.social
Random Stuff: http://michele.irish
-------------------------------
Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty
Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland  Company No.: 370845

From: <owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> on behalf of James Bladel 
<jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wednesday 23 November 2016 at 05:57
To: GNSO Council List <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
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.