I share the value of proposals, but at this point, there is none. It is an out-of-control problem (per the email I just sent to Rafik) and I would recommend airing it and brainstorming about it -- especially with David Olive present. But per your good suggestion, perhaps we can set a person on the ICANN side and a person on our side to work out a proposal for next steps after the meeting. (I am not volunteering because I am in the car headed towards the cliff...) Best :-), Kathy On 2/26/2016 7:25 AM, Matthew Shears wrote: > Agree Kathy - but can we go in with a proposal? > > On 2/26/2016 12:16 PM, Kathy Kleiman wrote: >> I would like to talk with them about work flow. ICANN has hired 100 >> policy staffers in the last year and has an enormous new capability >> for work flow, but we do not. There is no way to keep up with what is >> "in the queue" and "coming down the pike." >> >> I would expressly invite David Olive (as lead of ICANN's Policy >> Development Support Team) to be part of this discussion as well. How >> do we make the work load reasonable if we want the volunteer, >> multistakeholder model to continue? Is it based on ICANN capacity or >> stakeholder capacity? >> >> Best, >> Kathy >> >> On 2/26/2016 6:10 AM, Tapani Tarvainen wrote: >>> 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, >>> >