Changes

* 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>

* 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.

* 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.

** [[Matthew Shears]] said the board could offer "transparency" on what they're doing and that the board is very aware of the sentiment of frustration across ICANN constituencies at the backlog.  

** [[Matthew Shears]] said the board could offer transparency on what they're doing and that the board is very aware of the sentiment of frustration across ICANN constituencies at the backlog.  

** [[Avri Doria]] reported numbers from the [[OEC]] (part of the [[ICANN Organization]]), said there have been 241 recommendations, of which the board has approved 166 (69%), rejected 18 (7%), placed 44 in pending (18%; [[:Category:ICANN Staff|ICANN staff]] has to research the topics so that the Board can decide), the remaining recommendations (6%) were passed on. This year the board is focusing on the [[Third Accountability and Transparency Review]] and [[Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability|Work Stream 2]].  

** [[Avri Doria]] reported numbers from the [[OEC]] (part of the [[ICANN Organization]]), said there have been 241 recommendations, of which the board has approved 166 (69%), rejected 18 (7%), placed 44 in pending (18%; [[:Category:ICANN Staff|ICANN staff]] has to research the topics so that the Board can decide), the remaining recommendations (6%) were passed on. This year the board is focusing on the [[Third Accountability and Transparency Review]] and [[Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability|Work Stream 2]].  

** Donna Austin responded with questions about how long implementing those recommendations will take and is it the community's responsibility to prioritize old recommendations (isn't it an issue with resource management on the part of ICANN org?)

** Donna Austin responded with questions about how long implementing those recommendations will take and is it the community's responsibility to prioritize old recommendations (isn't it an issue with resource management on the part of ICANN org?)