[council] Preliminary planning for ICANN58

Edward Morris egmorris1 at toast.net
Thu Nov 24 06:44:51 UTC 2016

Hi James,

Thanks for this. Remarks in line.

> (1) Do we prefer a Single or Split Constituency Day?

No preference. I would like to highlight a problem for NCSG Councillors though.

We represent the members of two constituencies - NPOC and NCUC - on Council. Meetings of these constituencies are held at the same time making it impossible for us to attend both meetings of the constituencies whose members we represent on Council. 

If consideration could be given to somehow scheduling Constituency meetings so these two groups do not completely overlap I would be grateful.  It would make it easier at least for this Councillor to feel he is adequately representing all those he is charged to represent on Council.

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

One. At most.

HIT's belong at the IGF and other fora. If there are burning issues directly involving ICANN and ICANN policy that masses of ICANN meeting attendees are interested in learning about and discussing fine. I just don't think this happens very often.

The A and C meetings are too long. Events that are not directly tied to policy making and the functioning of our California based public benefits corporation should be reduced with an eye towards elimination. 

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

Open call with attention paid to the number of requests for certain topics. High interest should, well, mean that there is high interest in a topic by a large number of community members.

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

If HIT's are to continue then I would suggest they should be of sufficient interest that attendees would want to attend the sessions in lieu of other nonessential activities. I would thus schedule HIT's, based upon the Hyberabad meeting, in the 18:30 and beyond time slots. Competition would largely, although not exclusively, be cocktail receptions and other optional activities rather than sessions directly related to the functioning of the corporation.

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

I am concerned that private trade associations such as the Domain Name Association were able to schedule sessions under the auspices of ICANN SG's. I would suggest this practice be prohibited before it proliferates.  I have already had inquiries from NCSG institutional members concerning  their desire and ability to hold similar meetings at ICANN using ICANN hosted facilities and resources. We need to stop this practice now before it wreaks havoc on our meeting schedules.

I would also like to echo a comment made earlier by Ruebens: when in doubt please make meeting A a
more like meeting B than like meeting C. I would go so far as to suggest we actually make meeting A exactly like meeting B and have only have one large non policy focused (the AGM) meeting a year.


> Please respond by next week with your ideas, and we’ll take them back to the planning group.
> Thanks—
> J.
> <ICANN58 Block Schedule_ProdTimeline_Nov16[3].pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20161124/67dce9fa/attachment.html>

More information about the council mailing list