Sure, I would suggest:

What are your thoughts on increasing transparency in order to enhance
community understanding of decision-making at the Board level? In
particular the transparency subgroup has recommended a requirement that any
decisions to remove material from Board minutes must be grounded in one of
the exceptions in the DIDP, and that material removed from minutes should,
as far as possible, be scheduled for release after a particular period of
time (to be determined based on the specific sensitivity of the material).
Do these sound like reasonable proposals?

On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 2:12 PM, Tapani Tarvainen <[log in to unmask]
> wrote:

> Hi Michael,
>
> Sounds good. Could you try to formulate that as a question
> we could ask them? (Any others are of course also welcome to
> give it a go.)
>
> Tapani
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 07, 2017 at 11:03:31AM -0400, Michael Karanicolas (
> [log in to unmask]) wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > How about one on Board transparency? We've heard calls for that as part
> of
> > our subgroup discussions. In particular, we can ask their thoughts about
> a
> > requirement that a decision to remove material from Board minutes must be
> > grounded in one of the exceptions in the DIDP, and that material removed
> > from minutes should, as far as possible, be scheduled for release after a
> > particular period of time (to be determined based on the specific
> > sensitivity of the material).
> >
> > Mike
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 10:43 AM, Tapani Tarvainen <
> > [log in to unmask]> wrote:
> >
> > > Sounds like we'll only have one question for the board...
> > >
> > > Kathy, can you have publishable phrasing for it today?
> > >
> > > Anybody else, if you have other questions to suggest, please
> > > let us know TODAY. Thanks.
> > >
> > > Tapani
> > >
> > >
> > > On Mar 02 10:55, Kathy Kleiman ([log in to unmask]) wrote:
> > >
> > > > Tapani,
> > > >
> > > > These are questions for the Board/NCSG Meeting, right?   I think we
> > > > should be asking questions about Compliance -- and continue our
> > > > efforts to seek fairer compliance actions for registrants,
> > > > compliance actions that fall within the scope of ICANN, and
> > > > compliance actions responsive to the needs of the whole community
> > > > (not a subset).
> > > >
> > > > This is definitely not the right phrasing yet, but we can certain
> > > > provide it. I know Ayden and Raoul have been thinking about
> > > > compliance. Would anyone else like to help craft a question for the
> > > > board? (Please respond privately.)
> > > >
> > > > Best, Kathy
> > > >
> > > > On 3/2/2017 8:05 AM, Tapani Tarvainen wrote:
> > > > >Dear all,
> > > > >
> > > > >As time is running short, I'll take the liberty of hijacking
> > > > >Farzaneh's message from NCUC list - thank you.
> > > > >
> > > > >So, questions below for all NCSG members. The deadline is rather
> > > > >impossible, but I don't expect sky to fall if we extend it by
> > > > >the weekend. Nonetheless quick comments would be appreciated.
> > > > >
> > > > >Tapani
> > > > >
> > > > >On Thu, Mar 02, 2017 at 07:57:57AM -0500, farzaneh badii (
> > > [log in to unmask]) wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >>NCUC members,
> > > > >>
> > > > >>Board has requested to answer the below questions for its meeting
> with
> > > the
> > > > >>stakeholder groups ( I think NCSG):
> > > > >>
> > > > >>1. To what degree is your membership actively participating in
> > > > >>CCWG-Accountability Work Stream 2?  What could the Board or ICANN
> > > > >>organization do to facilitate participation and timely completion
> of
> > > this
> > > > >>work?
> > > > >>2. What policy/advice issues are top priorities for your group?
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>They also want to know what we want to ask them during NCSG/Board
> > > meeting.
> > > > >>
> > > > >>This meeting will take place at the NCSG level but I took the
> liberty
> > > to
> > > > >>ask you and trigger the discussion. If discussions take place on
> NCSG
> > > about
> > > > >>these questions and our questions to the Board, then we shall
> transfer
> > > our
> > > > >>input to that thread.
> > > > >>
> > > > >>Board has generously given us a deadline of 3 March for submitting
> our
> > > > >>questions!
> > > > >>
> > > > >>Best
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>Farzaneh
> > >
>
> --
> Tapani Tarvainen
>