Re: [council] Re: [EXTERNAL] RE: Consolidated input on ICANN58 planning

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

Thanks, Emily & Wolf-Ulrich.

The call was ealier today, and I can confirm that the points below & and in the 
spreadsheet were raised by the GNSO folks in attendance.
Thanks –
J.

From: <owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> on behalf of Emily Barabas 
<emily.barabas@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thursday, December 1, 2016 at 14:34
To: WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Phil Corwin <psc@xxxxxxxxxxx>, 
GNSO Council List <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: 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.