[council] RE: Consolidated input on ICANN58 planning

["Austin, Donna" <Donna.Austin@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks Emily, this is really helpful.

Donna


From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Emily Barabas
Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2016 12:54 AM
To: GNSO Council List <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [council] Consolidated input on ICANN58 planning

Dear Councilors,

Item 11 on the agenda of the December 1 Council meeting is a discussion on 
planning for ICANN58. On November 23, James sent an email the Council list 
requesting feedback on several questions related to meeting planning. The 
attached document provides an overview of responses to the following questions:

(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

Rubens, Michele, Donna, Rafik, Ed and Carlos provided responses to the above 
questions. Please reference the attached for full text of the comments, but 
staff notes a few common threads in the responses that may feed into further 
discussion in the Council:


-        There were several responses supporting a single constituency day. 
Rubens, Michele, and Rafik supported a single constituency day.

-        Several responses supported either reducing the number of HIT sessions 
or rethinking the HIT concept. Ed suggested having a single HIT. Rubens 
supported having 1 or 2 at most. Rafik suggested 3. Michele and Donna 
recommended taking a step back to look more broadly at goals around the HIT 
concept and then planning accordingly.

-        Rubens, Ed, and Carlos all supported the notion that when in doubt, 
make meeting A more like meeting B than meeting C.

The issue of scheduling was also raised in the Council session in Hyderabad 
(transcript here: 
http://schd.ws/hosted_files/icann572016/c8/I57%20HYD_Mon07Nov2016-GNSO%20Public%20Meeting%202-en.pdf<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__schd.ws_hosted-5Ffiles_icann572016_c8_I57-2520HYD-5FMon07Nov2016-2DGNSO-2520Public-2520Meeting-25202-2Den.pdf&d=DgMGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=4A3LwUUER9_CePZ11QJsr56eryGQiPHEqv4TL7JH87w&m=BQf60tkAj_4naRVooMxFGz9WR0SIjowXoV3KvfgpmAo&s=RCocvA--LH1U6oSK28IdIyovFVQvFevKM503Abxnxbg&e=>).
Several themes came up in the discussion, including:


-        Improving communication during the planning process

-        Revisiting the rubric used for scheduling: take a step back, clarify 
and prioritize objectives for ICANN meetings, develop schedule based on 
priorities to use the time effectively

-        Focusing meetings on ICANN’s core, substantive work

-        Managing and (to the extent possible) avoiding critical scheduling 
conflicts

-        Avoiding duplication of content across sessions

-        Scheduling sessions in a way that maximizes productivity and does not 
overload participants

Please note that the above is not intended to be a full summary. It highlights 
some of the points that have been raised to support further discussion.

Kind regards,
Emily


Emily Barabas | Policy Specialist
ICANN | Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
Email: emily.barabas@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:emily.barabas@xxxxxxxxx> | Phone: +31 
(0)6 84507976