ICANN 72: Difference between revisions

Line 117:

===Prioritization===

* ICANN's Office of Planning and Finance presented its plans for developing a [[Prioritization Framework]]

* ICANN's Office of Planning and Finance presented its plans for developing a [[Prioritization Framework]].

* The [[IPC]] is aggrieved, and burned out, that its work is prioritized by the GNSO Council and then de-prioritized as soon as it is passed by the Council; primary example: RPM Phase 1. Deadlines need to be applied to the [[ICANN Board]] and the [[ICANN Organization]] just as they are applied to GNSO Working Groups.<ref>IPC Membership Meeting, ICANN 72</ref>

* At the ICANN Board-CPH joint meeting, [[Donna Austin]], speaking on behalf of the [[CPH]], explained that volunteers feel disempowered and discouraged because their work is not being implemented in a reasonable timeframe, which she reminded the [[ICANN Board]], goes against the [[ICANN Bylaws]], especially for [[PDP]]s but also [[ICANN Reviews|review]] recommendations. Volunteers may not up to taking up new work as a consequence. Maybe scoping reviews could limit the number of future recommendations. But in the CPH, concerns remain over the backlog of recommendations sitting with the board, retrospectively applied prioritization, the credibility and legitimacy of ICANN externally and internally, the addition of processes before implementation; the potential for a chilling effect on the [[ICANN Community]]; and the "[[Accountability]] of ICANN" to implement recommendations within a reasonable time frame.

@@ Line 117: / Line 117: @@
 ===Prioritization===
-* ICANN's Office of Planning and Finance presented its plans for developing a [[Prioritization Framework]]
+* ICANN's Office of Planning and Finance presented its plans for developing a [[Prioritization Framework]].
 * The [[IPC]] is aggrieved, and burned out, that its work is prioritized by the GNSO Council and then de-prioritized as soon as it is passed by the Council; primary example: RPM Phase 1. Deadlines need to be applied to the [[ICANN Board]] and the [[ICANN Organization]] just as they are applied to GNSO Working Groups.<ref>IPC Membership Meeting, ICANN 72</ref>
 * At the ICANN Board-CPH joint meeting, [[Donna Austin]], speaking on behalf of the [[CPH]], explained that volunteers feel disempowered and discouraged because their work is not being implemented in a reasonable timeframe, which she reminded the [[ICANN Board]], goes against the [[ICANN Bylaws]], especially for [[PDP]]s but also [[ICANN Reviews|review]] recommendations. Volunteers may not up to taking up new work as a consequence. Maybe scoping reviews could limit the number of future recommendations. But in the CPH, concerns remain over the backlog of recommendations sitting with the board, retrospectively applied prioritization, the credibility and legitimacy of ICANN externally and internally, the addition of processes before implementation; the potential for a chilling effect on the [[ICANN Community]]; and the "[[Accountability]] of ICANN" to implement recommendations within a reasonable time frame.