Agree with you on this Stephanie. I personally believe that the Board had a good reason for submitting its issues to the CCWG and for discussing them in that venue. The CCWG invited them to participate and make their issues known early. This was in order to avoid having a final proposal that was approved by the chartering bodies that then had to go through the lengthy formal negotiation process that would be necessitated if the Board issues had not been dealt with, and compromised on, before the completion and approval of the report. Whether in the long run this technique helped us avoid further slippage in our schedule or not is difficult to measure. I think ignoring the Board's issues until the end of the process would have caused greater schedule slippage and ruined the chances of completing the transtion this year. So as opposed to seeing their actions as threatening the schedule, I see them as ultimately preserving our chance of meeting the transition schedule. Having said that, I think asking the Board abut the way they worked with the CCWG they did is a good idea. While I am making assumptions about why they acted as they did, I do not believe they ever gave us a clear statement that this was their intent. This question is important not only in regard to the CCWG but on ways of working with the Board going further. Do we want them to only speak and act at the end of a processes, or do we want to integrate working their issues in the course of policy development. I prefer working through the process with all the various issues and viewpoints, as I want to avoid situations where the Board decides we have left issues open and decides that it is its responsibility to 'fix' things we have not not covered completely, something it has done all too often. I also believe that it would be good to discuss the issue with Markus as the Board member elected by the NCPH in a calm and non accusatory manner. It would be good to discuss his reasoning with his electorate. I expect he has an explanation. Re: > so out of touch with the NCSG (with one exception). On the issue of only one person in NCSG having agreed to compromises with the board: while I was the only NCSG participant that was vocal in the CCWG on the side of compromise, I do not believe that I am in the only one in the NCSG who can support the compromises that have been reached. While we had some webinars after the initial 3rd draft, we have not had public discussions on the NCSG Discuss list of all the compromises that were worked through in the last few weeks of the discussions. Perhaps we should spend part our Constituency and SG meetings to discuss/debate these compromises and the reason some thought then anathema while others thought them necessary and acceptable. Though I was not an NCSG representative on the CCWG but rather a participant who also had responsibility as a expert on the ATRT, I am willing to explain the principles that guided my reasoning and demarcated the areas in which I was willing to compromise and those I wasn't, from a personal perspective. avri On 28-Feb-16 22:35, Stephanie Perrin wrote: > I agree that this should be done quietly at the breakfast. I don't > see any point in having a nasty public confrontation over this. It is > not as though they have not heard an earful about it already. > I would like to ask them their thoughts on public interest. And on > limitations to the ICANN remit. > stephanie > > On 2016-02-28 22:18, Mueller, Milton L wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> 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. >> >> >> >> MM: Your outrage is justified but what they did is history and >> nothing productive will come out of us waving our fingers at them >> over this. >> >> >> >> 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). >> >> >> >> MM: This might actually be useful. But there normally are quieter, >> more private meetings between us and our GNSO-appointed board members >> at a breakfast. Will that be happening again this meeting? I would >> like to get Markus and Bruce in a room and ask them what the hell was >> going on in the board during the CCWG process. >> >> >> >> 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 >> >> > --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus