I agree with Magaly. We should assume that we will not travel back on
Thursday, in order to be there with the necessary calm and tranquility. :)

--c.a.

On 05/06/2014 12:44 AM, Magaly Pazello wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> pls see below a request from Steve Crocker and Sally Costerton about the
> Icann 50 meeting schedule. They are proposing some changes and asking us
> feedback about it. The ISPCP has responded in favor of option 1. A quick
> look at the options I also think option 1 looks ok.  Any comments or
> observations?
> 
> Magaly
> 
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Jonathan Robinson <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Mon, May 5, 2014 at 7:54 AM
> Subject: [council] FW: [Soac-infoalert] ICANN 50 possible Thursday change
> To: [log in to unmask]
> 
> 
> All,
> 
> 
> 
> See below and please provide any feedback you may have ASAP.
> 
> 
> 
> I know some feel very strongly about the public forum but, given the High
> Level (Government) meeting taking place on Monday in London, a once-off
> schedule change may be a good idea?
> 
> 
> 
> What is being asked for  is guidance or feedback on 1 or 2 as a preferred
> option.
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jonathan
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *From:* [log in to unmask] [mailto:
> [log in to unmask]] *On Behalf Of *Steve Crocker
> *Sent:* 02 May 2014 20:02
> *To:* [log in to unmask]
> *Cc:* Sally Costerton; Tanzanica S. King; Jim Trengrove; Icann-board ICANN;
> Nick Tomasso; Theresa Swinehart; Duncan Burns
> *Subject:* Re: [Soac-infoalert] ICANN 50 possible Thursday change
> 
> 
> 
> Folks,
> 
> 
> 
> Sally Costerton and I thank you all for your helpful responses to my
> earlier note on the idea of changing the Thursday agenda to accommodate
> more time for the public dialogue we need to deliver at our forthcoming
> London meeting.  We are acutely conscious that the combination several
> major one-off events - the High Level Government Meeting (HLGM)  and the
> two public consultations are putting significant pressure on the agenda for
> ICANN50.
> 
> 
> 
> We are juggling trying to maximise flexibility for SOACs to do their work,
> access to the HLGM and the need to provide slots for Hot Topics for cross
> community dialogue with minimal agenda conflict.
> 
> 
> 
> Having considered your feedback and consulted with staff, we suggest two
> options below.   *Please pick one and let us know over the next day or two.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
>    1. We make the changes to Thursday as suggested and support this by
>    running an additional IANA stewardship transition session on Monday after
>    the opening session and provide support to the SOAC groups to find
>    alternative slots on the agenda in addition to the early Thursday slot as
>    needed.  We pilot remote hubs using two-way video and hopefully a YouTube
>    channel.  The use of remote hubs actually doubled participation at
>    NETmundial so could be a real opportunity to diversify input.
> 
> 
> 
>    2. We keep Thursday as it usually runs with a four hour public forum and
>    run two consultation sessions - one on the IANA stewardship transition and
>    one on the ICANN accountability dialogue on a 'normal' schedule - this
>    would be Monday or Wednesday to get time that is minimally conflicted.
>     This would be much like Singapore.  We would not set up the video remote
>    hubs in this case or possibly the YouTube channel.  This would maintain the
>    full Public Forum but reduce the time and attention for the two
>    consultation sessions.  Also the Monday sessions will have to run parallel
>    to the HLGM and we know that UKG have requested a session on IANA oversight
>    transition led by Larry Strickling.
> 
> 
> 
> Finally we are very aware that the community wants to improve the issue of
> agenda conflict at ICANN meetings.  This topic was addressed in detail by
> the Meeting Strategy Working Group which recently had its report out for
> public comment.  There was a previous opportunity to see this but in case
> you haven’t, not here is a copy of the recommendations
> http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/participation/mswg/recommendations-25feb14-en.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> If you can let us know which option you prefer over the next 48 hours we
> would appreciate it.  If we go for option 1 we need to let the community
> know early next week so that they can confirm travel and we can start the
> call to set up the hubs.
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> 
> 
> Steve Crocker and Sally Costerton
>