Re: [council] Preliminary planning for ICANN58

[Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hi,

please find my comments below:

2016-11-23 14:57 GMT+09:00 James M. Bladel <jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx>:

> 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

>