I think one relevant question to the board could be along the lines:

5. Why does ICANN think, that supporting corporations' attendance by
funding their travel in equal amounts would be justified, as opposed to
funding the travel of non-commercial constituencies?

Some background for the question:
Non-com groups are defending and even advancing the rights of all users,
including individuals under corporate contracts, whereas the corporations
are attending only because they want to lobby for more control and profits
for themselves. The corporations already have a financial incentive to
attend, so do we really need to make it almost free for them as well? Their
representatives also get paid to do the work they're doing, whereas us
noncoms don't, apart from some exceptions. Therefore, the balance would
STILL be rigged for corporations, but not quite as much. I think this would
be a minor, nut justified improvement. To make it remarkable, we could use
the saved money to fund more noncoms into joining the workload. Workload,
that is mostly made by corporations and governments..

-Raoul

On 2 November 2016 at 19:14, Tapani Tarvainen <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:

> Reading through the thread, it looks like we've got at least rough
> consensus on the following. I'm very tired so I may have missed
> something, proofreading welcome, but I'm going to ignore significant
> changes unless argued for by several people (and even then probably
> will simply drop such questions as too difficult for us to agree on).
> Likewise the order, not everybody will be happy with it, but that'd be
> the case with any order.
>
> I'm going to declare this final before noon tomorrow, so comments
> quickly please.
>
>
>
>
> 1. Does the Board continue to agree with Fadi Chehade's position of
> Summer 2015 that ICANN does not police content,
> https://www.icann.org/news/blog/icann-is-not-the-internet-content-police
> (published by Alan Grogan, ICANN's Chief Contract Compliance Officer)?
> Does the Board share our concerns that arrangements like the
> MPAA-Donuts agreement are deeply inappropriate for the Domain Name
> System?
>
> 2. In the Whois Complaint process, anonymous people can make
> complaints that he data is inaccurate and in some cases cause trouble
> for innocent registrants. Why doesn't ICANN ever investigate whether
> these allegations are intended to harass or intimidate registrants or
> are made for anti-competitive reasons?
>
> 3. How does the Board expect the the new complaint system to work when
> it puts ICANN legal, whose job is to protect the corporation from
> complainers whether they are right or wrong, in charge of managing
> complaints? Has the Board considered how it affects the independence
> of the Ombudsman? As an example of our concerns, why there were no
> repercussions for the abuses of TLD evaluation procedures in the Dot
> Registry case?
>
> 4. Following up on the discussion between the NCSG and the Board at
> the Marrakech meeting (ICANN55), we are very interested to hear what
> steps the Board is taking in relation to human rights in addition to
> the ongoing accountability processes. What efforts have been made and
> what activities are planned in relation to human rights and ICANN's
> policy processes as well as ICANN the organization?
>
>
> --
> Tapani Tarvainen
>