Would be good if we could come up with a positive agenda item as well -
something we can work with the Board on, perhaps? Or is there something
positive that we want to update the Board on?
Matthew
On 2/26/2016 11:56 AM, Edward Morris wrote:
> Hi Seun,
> I understand what you are saying and agree in part with it. WE should
> always be civil and respectful. I'd like to know what the Board
> thinks, though, not what ICANN Legal thinks. If you give them enough
> detail in advance my experience suggests they just will parrot what
> Legal tells them to say. It's only when we catch them by surprise, as
> Robin did last meeting, that any useful information comes out. And,
> yes - given that Board members now receive a stipend equal to yearly
> wages for many people in the world, I want to know if they
> actually know the issues without too much preparation. We have some
> fantastic Board members, we also have some tourists. This is an
> opportunity to sort who belongs in each category.
> Ed
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From*: "Seun Ojedeji" <[log in to unmask]>
> *Sent*: Friday, February 26, 2016 11:49 AM
> *To*: "Edward Morris" <[log in to unmask]>
> *Cc*: [log in to unmask]
> *Subject*: Re: Questions to the Board?
>
> 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]
> <mailto:[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]
> <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
>
--
Matthew Shears | Director, Global Internet Policy & Human Rights Project
Center for Democracy & Technology | cdt.org
E: [log in to unmask] | T: +44.771.247.2987
CDT's Annual Dinner, Tech Prom, is April 6, 2016. Don't miss out - register at cdt.org/annual-dinner.
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
|
