Re: [council] Re: [EXTERNAL] RE: Consolidated input on ICANN58 planning
Thanks Wolf-Ulrich. Updated summary is attached. From: WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@xxxxxxxxxxx> Reply-To: WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@xxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Thursday 1 December 2016 at 16:46 To: Emily Barabas <emily.barabas@xxxxxxxxx>, Phil Corwin <psc@xxxxxxxxxxx>, GNSO Council List <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Subject: Re: [council] Re: [EXTERNAL] RE: Consolidated input on ICANN58 planning Thanks Emily, here’s some ISPCP constituency input: 1) Do we prefer a Single or Split Constituency Day? Single day (2) What is the right number of High Interest Topics (HIT)? The current Block Schedule drafts contain five HIT sessions. Max of 4, preference is 3 per meeting. ICANN meetings should be focused on core activities whether an A, B or C meeting, not HITs. (3) Any thoughts on the best way to solicit topics for HIT sessions, and how to choose the top 5? (Best of 4 max) Seek topics via SOAC list, list topics supported, allow all SO/AC/Cs to select preferences in order. (4) Similarly, any thoughts on how to address the inevitable conflicts between working sessions and HITs? Reducing the number of HITs reduces conflicts. Limiting HITs to 3 greatly reduces this problem. Working sessions should be the priority. (5) Any other specific feedback you’d like us to bring to the SO/AC meeting. Hard code parts of the program BEFORE defining block schedules e.g. GNSO Council, GNSO meetings with Board, GAC, and CCSO, ASO mtg, CSG open meeting, parts of the CCSO meetings, Open Forum (prefer all on one day), Board Meeting etc, Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From: Emily Barabas Sent: Thursday, December 1, 2016 9:10 AM To: Phil Corwin ; GNSO Council List Subject: [council] Re: [EXTERNAL] RE: Consolidated input on ICANN58 planning I have updated the summary document (attached) to include comments from the BC. Kind regards, Emily From: Phil Corwin <psc@xxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Wednesday 30 November 2016 at 18:36 To: Emily Barabas <emily.barabas@xxxxxxxxx>, GNSO Council List <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: Consolidated input on ICANN58 planning Weighing in for the BC: 1. Prefer single Constituency Day 2. One HIT that the community has broad agreement on, and no more than 3 maximum for entire meeting. 3. Staff should create a process for requests for HIT’s that makes it fair and equitable for all who have requested topics and that looks toward achieving SO/AC consensus; and ICANN staff should moderate any HIT and should select panelists to ensure opportunity for each SOAC to be represented. 4. Conflicts will be substantially minimized via early review of draft schedule and limiting HIT sessions to no more than 1-3. We did not discuss whether the A meeting should look more like the B or C. Hope that is useful. Best regards, Philip Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/Cell Twitter: @VlawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Emily Barabas Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2016 3:54 AM To: GNSO Council List 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[schd.ws]<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=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=mBQzlSaM6eYCHFBU-v48zs-QSrjHB0aWmHuE4X4drzI&m=xYqYxeFPFwaxxz6gD3BYlivY7Par8rFxQ6dost3KjiY&s=mRlwIZE-amr865Sh1VuCurmKFR2h-kS7oPCyhmoDdB8&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 | Phone: +31 (0)6 84507976 ________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com[avg.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.avg.com&d=DgMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=mBQzlSaM6eYCHFBU-v48zs-QSrjHB0aWmHuE4X4drzI&m=xYqYxeFPFwaxxz6gD3BYlivY7Par8rFxQ6dost3KjiY&s=gemHi8vOTFBbCIzEPtCS2bAHzPKLBSQoEpLk4_43ZhY&e=> Version: 2016.0.7859 / Virus Database: 4664/13314 - Release Date: 10/30/16 Internal Virus Database is out of date. Attachment:
GNSO Council Input on ICANN58 Planning_1-12-2016_v2.xlsx Attachment:
GNSO Council Input on ICANN58 Planning_1-12-2016_v2.pdf
|