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