Hi,

Is the goal to catch them by surprise and then show to the world that they
are not capable board members OR to have them prepared to provide responses
that we can hopefully hold them accountable on.

I will prefer the latter.

Regards

Sent from my LG G4
Kindly excuse brevity and typos
On 26 Feb 2016 12:43 p.m., "Edward Morris" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Hi Tapani,
>
>
> I think this is wrong.
>
> It just gives them time to come up with justifications for some of their
> improprieties.
>
> 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. 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).
>
> 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]>
> *Sent*: Friday, February 26, 2016 11:12 AM
> *To*: [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
>
>