[council] Preliminary planning for ICANN58

[Rubens Kuhl]

> On Nov 23, 2016, at 3:57 AM, James M. Bladel <jbladel at godaddy.com> wrote:
> 
> 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?

Single Constituency Day. 

> (2) What is the right number of High Interest Topics (HIT)?  The current Block Schedule drafts contain five HIT sessions.

1. If we can't pick just 1, 2 max... but I think it's easier to pick 1 than 2 to 5. Usually there is something that stands out. 
For all other HIT slots: PDP WGs and IRTs from the 3 SOs. 

(3) Any thoughts on the best way to solicit topics for HIT sessions, and how to choose the top 5?

SO/AC Leadership. 

> (4) Similarly, any thoughts on how to address the inevitable conflicts between working sessions and HITs?

Having less so-called HITs. Avoid conflicts with PDP WGs and IRTs.

> (5) Any other specific feedback you’d like us to bring to the SO/AC meeting

When in doubt, make meeting A more like meeting B than meeting C. 


Rubens


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20161123/3c5c00b8/attachment.html>