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 >