Right, Kathy, if we want financial reports from the staff, the board – NCSG meeting is probably not the right place to ask for it. We could and should submit a formal request to their Financial director and at best remind the board that we have done so at this meeting. From: NCSG-Discuss [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Kathy Kleiman Sent: Friday, February 26, 2016 11:53 AM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: Questions to the Board? Sam and All, I would actually recommend making your question below a question in its own right. We have always wondered about the money flows within ICANN -- who is getting staff and support and who is not. If this material is still not clear and public, it rises to a question of its own! In putting this question on the list, we should ask that some reports or at least a list of funding be presented by ICANN at our meeting with the Board so we might discuss real numbers. That would be great! Quick note that not all questions have to be long discussions. Some of the best questions in the past have been short and sweet-- e.g., Dear ICANN you are spending tens of thousands of hours training intellectual property owners on who to pursue their rights in the Trademark Clearinghouse, but none on registrants teaching them about their rights to respond to Trademark Claims and Notices generated by the Trademark Clearinghouse in New gTLDs. What are you going to do about it? :-) Kathy On 2/26/2016 9:49 AM, Sam Lanfranco wrote: As a complement to the "work flow burden" issue I would like to ask about more transparency with regard to how ICANN funds are allocated to internal and external support of AC/SC activities. Who gets what to do what? Sam L. On 26/02/2016 9:33 AM, Schaefer, Brett wrote: How about demanding a comprehensive account of conflict of interest steps taken/followed in the Fadi situation by Fadi, the Board members, and other senior officers? We actually want a fully vetted and prepped response on that. __________ ________________________________ Brett Schaefer Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy The Heritage Foundation 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE Washington, DC 20002 202-608-6097 heritage.org<http://heritage.org/><http://heritage.org/> On Feb 26, 2016, at 9:22 AM, Padmini <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]><mailto:[log in to unmask]><mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote: Hello I was also wondering, at Dublin we had raised our concerns about how representative the process is, and the Board had reaffirmed a commitment to go out on a limb to ensure that the participation diversity be increased. I recall both Fadi and Asha Hemrajani putting this on record. Could we raise the question of what they've done to this effect, and if the impact, this time around, has been more meaningful? Also, +1 to what Ed said, about not wanting ICANN Legal to come up with a nice legalese draft response. Padmini Baruah V Year, B.A.LL.B. (Hons.) NLSIU, Bangalore On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 6:00 PM, Rafik Dammak <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]><mailto:[log in to unmask]><mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote: Hi Kathy, If I can respond partly to that. the issue of increasing workload was raised more than 1 year ago by SO/AC leadership with Fadi and VPs like David during their meetings , with regard of lack of visibility and coordination of all ongoing processes with some initiated by staff. Some effort (in addition to other initiatives on other issues) started to compile the processes from SO/AC and trying to visualize them giving an insight about workload. There was also some presentation in a session in singapore meeting last year to take community feedback. David is managing those efforts . So I would expect he will give some updates about that. He also regularly attends our joint session with board. I will try to find the material and share them if it helps. Best, Rafik On Feb 26, 2016 9:17 PM, "Kathy Kleiman" <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]><mailto:[log in to unmask]><mailto:[log in to unmask]>> 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, -- ------------------------------------------------ "It is a disgrace to be rich and honoured in an unjust state" -Confucius ------------------------------------------------ Dr Sam Lanfranco (Prof Emeritus & Senior Scholar) Econ, York U., Toronto, Ontario, CANADA - M3J 1P3 email: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> Skype: slanfranco blog: http://samlanfranco.blogspot.com Phone: +1 613-476-0429 cell: +1 416-816-2852