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

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,

i confess i do not understand the relationship between the prioritization 
regime and the creation of a new PDP once the period's priorities are already 
established.

a.

On 11 May 2010, at 05:47, Marika Konings wrote:

> 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.