Agree with you on this Stephanie.

I personally believe that the Board had a good reason for submitting its
issues to the CCWG and for discussing them in that venue.  The CCWG
invited them to participate and make their issues known early.  This was
in order to avoid having a final proposal that was approved by the
chartering bodies that then had to go through the lengthy formal
negotiation process that would be necessitated if the Board issues had
not been dealt with, and compromised on, before the completion and
approval of the report.

Whether in the long run this technique helped us avoid further slippage
in our schedule or not is difficult to measure.  I think ignoring the
Board's issues until the end of the process would have caused greater
schedule slippage and ruined the chances of completing the transtion
this year.  So as opposed to seeing their actions as threatening the
schedule, I see them as ultimately preserving our chance of meeting the
transition schedule.

Having said that, I think asking the Board abut the way they worked with
the CCWG they did is a good idea.  While I am making assumptions about
why they acted as they did, I do not believe they ever gave us a clear
statement that this was their intent.  This question is important not
only in regard to the CCWG but on ways of working with the Board going
further.  Do we want them to only speak and act at the end of a
processes, or do we want to integrate working their issues in the course
of policy development.  I prefer working through the process with all
the various issues and viewpoints, as I want to avoid situations where
the Board decides we have left issues open and decides that it is its
responsibility to 'fix' things we have not not covered completely,
something it has done all too often. 

I also believe that it would be good to discuss the issue with Markus as
the Board member elected by the NCPH in a calm and non accusatory
manner.   It would be good to discuss his reasoning with his
electorate.  I expect he has an explanation.

Re:

> so out of touch with the NCSG (with one exception).

On the issue of only one person in NCSG having agreed to compromises
with the board: while I was the only NCSG participant that was vocal in
the CCWG on the side of compromise, I do not believe that I am in the
only one in the NCSG who can support the compromises that have been
reached.  While we had some webinars after the initial 3rd draft, we
have not had public discussions on the NCSG Discuss list of all the
compromises that were worked through in the last few weeks of the
discussions. Perhaps we should spend part our Constituency and SG
meetings to discuss/debate these compromises and the reason some thought
then anathema while others thought them necessary and acceptable.

Though I was not an NCSG representative on the CCWG but rather a
participant who also had responsibility as a expert on the ATRT, I am
willing to explain the principles that guided my reasoning and
demarcated the areas in which I was willing to compromise and those I
wasn't, from a personal perspective.

avri

On 28-Feb-16 22:35, Stephanie Perrin wrote:
> I agree that this should be done quietly at the breakfast.  I don't
> see any point in having a nasty public confrontation over this. It is
> not as though they have not heard an earful about it already.
> I would like to ask them their thoughts on public interest.  And on
> limitations to the ICANN remit. 
> stephanie
>
> On 2016-02-28 22:18, Mueller, Milton L wrote:
>>
>>  
>>
>>  
>>
>> For example, I want them to justify their action in the CCWG last
>> week where they ignored our timeline, process, Charter and pretty
>> much every procedural nicety to put us in crisis mode and threaten
>> the transition.
>>
>>  
>>
>> MM: Your outrage is justified but what they did is history and
>> nothing productive will come out of us waving our fingers at them
>> over this.
>>
>>  
>>
>> If Markus is there I want him to justify, as our appointee, siding
>> with the Board on all votes that this mess created last Tuesday and
>> point blank ask him why we should reappoint someone so out of touch
>> with the NCSG (with one exception).
>>
>>  
>>
>> MM: This might actually be useful. But there normally are quieter,
>> more private meetings between us and our GNSO-appointed board members
>> at a breakfast. Will that be happening again this meeting? I would
>> like to get Markus and Bruce in a room and ask them what the hell was
>> going on in the board during the CCWG process.
>>
>>  
>>
>> I guess we could label that as questions bout the Board's relations
>> with the CCWG and intent regarding the transition.
>>
>>  
>>
>> I'd be interested in their response to questions about retainment of
>> The Analysis Group and why the bottom up process seems to be under
>> threat by ICANN retaining more and more "experts".
>>
>>  
>>
>> I guess that's two topics.
>>
>>  
>>
>> Ed
>>
>>  
>>
>>  
>>
>>  
>>
>>  
>>
>>  
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> *From*: "Tapani Tarvainen" <[log in to unmask]
>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
>> *Sent*: Friday, February 26, 2016 11:12 AM
>> *To*: [log in to unmask]
>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>> *Subject*: Questions to the Board?
>>
>>  
>>
>> Dear all,
>>
>> One regular event at ICANN meetings is that we get to meet the Board,
>> talk with them about and ask them whatever we want.
>>
>> The Board would, however, like to know in advance what we're going
>> to ask them, so they could better prepare for it.
>>
>> If you have suggestions for topics for our meeting with the Board in
>> Marrakech, please let me know as soon as possible (feel free to post
>> to the list or me directly, as you prefer).
>>
>> Thank you,
>>
>> --
>> Tapani Tarvainen
>>  
>>
>


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus