[gnso-ppsc-pdp] Your input requested - recommendation 16 Resources and Prioritization

[Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>]

For discussion / consideration:


 *   In light of the upcoming GNSO Council Prioritization activity, the WT 
might want to consider deferring a recommendation on this issue for the second 
phase so that the effectiveness of the prioritization can be assessed in 
relation to the PDP [note – any recommendation in relation to this issue could 
also apply to recommendation 25 - Evaluate the ICANN Staff costs and resources 
needed to conduct the PDP and prioritize existing policy work and revisit their 
existing deadlines and deliverables].
 *   The WT might consider requesting further input from the community on how a 
fast-track procedure could be devised that would allow for quick action, while 
ensuring broad participation and avoid gaming [note – any recommendation in 
relation to this issue could also apply to recommendation 23 - Should expedited 
procedures be available in case of urgency]

________________________________
>From PDP-WT – Draft Conclusions and Recommendations – Updated 11 May

11. Resources and Prioritization

Recommendation 16.

§  To be decided

Resources and Prioritization

Current Rules and Practice

None

Concerns / Questions

11.a       Should there be a maximum of issues that can be taken into 
consideration at the same time taking into account ICANN staff time but also 
volunteer workload?
11.b       Should there be a fast-track procedure for ‘emergency’ issues?

PDP WT Response

11.a       There was overall agreement that there should be a mechanism for 
prioritizing and planning PDPs over time. Ideas discussed included: 
consideration of a similar role / function as the IETF area director; should 
constituencies be asked to provide names of volunteers for participating in a 
WG at the time of a vote for the initiation of a PDP; how to deal with issues 
that are only of interest to one or two constituencies. The group noted that it 
would be worth checking with the WG-WT whether they have considered these last 
two ideas in their deliberations. Most agreed that it should be the role of the 
GNSO Council to prioritize, but no clear solution was proposed as to how to do 
this.

11.b       Some agreed that such a procedure could be developed, but more time 
would be required in order to do so. Issues to be considered would include how 
to demonstrate a higher need and how to avoid gaming the system. Some criteria 
suggested include: the community clearly considers it so and expresses it in an 
explicit manner; the issue is clearly outlined and the common goal clearly 
identified (including the expected outcome); the ICANN Board and GNSO Council 
agree about the urgency.