All good points, tx Carlos! Kathy On 2/26/2016 12:49 PM, Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez G. wrote: > Dear Kathy, > > I think it is an excellent question that deserves closer look and > discussion with David Olive. Some food for thought for development of > your proposal: > * just the number of staff does not guarantee effectiveness for the > particular WG > ** the exploding number of separate wikis spaces for all those new > initiatives duplicates, if not dilutes information and we are about to > need an internal search engine and relational data base of documents > that i don’t see in the Budget > *** as the CCWG ACCt as assumed power parity between all SO/ACs, it is > worth asking if they all have information parity and all can work > based on a level playing field in terms of access to information > **** but under access to information I don´t mean only to have access > to the wiki-spaces and some staff helping to coordinate calls and > basic drafts > ***** some recent initiatives have had access to enormous outside > resources dire cutely contracted by ICANN Staff (lawyers on > accountability, regional DNS market studies for Middle East, LatAm and > Africa, but also Nielsen and Analysis for the competition review) and > I´m not sure there is a plan that all this investment is going to be > accesible at the fingertips of every person who is not a dedicated > volunteer and has spent at least 5 years in the ICANN world. > *********………. > > Cheers > > > Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez > +506 8837 7176 > Skype: carlos.raulg > Current UTC offset: -6.00 (Costa Rica) > On 26 Feb 2016, at 6:16, 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, >>>