I share the value of proposals, but at this point, there is none. It is 
an out-of-control problem (per the email I just sent to Rafik) and I 
would recommend airing it and brainstorming about it -- especially with 
David Olive present. But per your good suggestion, perhaps we can set a 
person on the ICANN side and a person on our side to work out a proposal 
for next steps after the meeting. (I am not volunteering because I am in 
the car headed towards the cliff...)

Best :-),
Kathy

On 2/26/2016 7:25 AM, Matthew Shears wrote:
> Agree Kathy - but can we go in with a proposal?
>
> On 2/26/2016 12:16 PM, Kathy Kleiman wrote:
>> I would like to talk with them about work flow. ICANN has hired 100 
>> policy staffers in the last year and has an enormous new capability 
>> for work flow, but we do not. There is no way to keep up with what is 
>> "in the queue" and "coming down the pike."
>>
>> I would expressly invite David Olive (as lead of ICANN's Policy 
>> Development Support Team) to be part of this discussion as well. How 
>> do we make the work load reasonable if we want the volunteer, 
>> multistakeholder model to continue? Is it based on ICANN capacity or 
>> stakeholder capacity?
>>
>> Best,
>> Kathy
>>
>> On 2/26/2016 6:10 AM, Tapani Tarvainen wrote:
>>> 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,
>>>
>