[PC-NCSG] Fwd: [council] Consolidated input on ICANN58 planning

[Stephanie Perrin]

My apologies for being late to the meeting yesterday, and for having 
persistent difficulties in understanding what Tapani was saying.  Did we 
discuss this questionnaire at all?  If not I will simply send my 
responses as it is getting late, happy to receive comments and convey 
them.......

Steph

-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: 	[council] Consolidated input on ICANN58 planning
Date: 	Wed, 30 Nov 2016 08:54:12 +0000
From: 	Emily Barabas <emily.barabas at icann.org>
To: 	GNSO Council List <council at gnso.icann.org>



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). 


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 at icann.org | Phone: +31 (0)6 84507976

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20161130/b26656ae/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: GNSO Council Input on ICANN58 Planning.xlsx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.spreadsheetml.sheet
Size: 38256 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20161130/b26656ae/attachment-0001.xlsx>