Hi,

I worry about this Board member question.

First with Markus sitting there we again turn the meeting to focus on
his performance, even if implicitly.  Are we saying our Board member did
not communicate and work with us.  I do not think that this is the
case.  I think this may be an insulting process to put him through. 
Lets save the hard questions for the interviews.

And I think we know the kind of pabulum answer we will get to this
question.  We have heard so any times before.

We are in the midst of an election process and I think this question
could take us places we will prefer not to have been.

avri


avri



On 08-Mar-17 09:46, Tapani Tarvainen wrote:
> Hi Farzaneh,
>
> The point of the question is essentially just that: what we *can* do
> with our board member. I think we *do* want more collaboration with
> our board member and raise issues through him or her to put to the
> rest of the board - but we don't know if we can expect that, so that
> we can raise ruckus if our member doesn't fulfill our expectations.
> That would be much easier if the Board agrees in advance that
> such expectations are justified.
>
> If you have suggestions for reformulating the question, they'd be
> most welcome. Tentatively I'd drop the last question (leaving
> it implicit) and perhaps be more explicit, maybe like this:
>
> (4) NCPH is in the process of electing its Board member. How do you
> see the relationship between the Board member and NCPH? To what extent
> does the fiduciary responsibility of the Board member allow any
> special relationship with NCPH? Can we expect more collaboration from
> "our" Board member, ability to raise issues with to be put forward to
> the Board, having him or her attend our meetings to discuss Board's
> concerns with us etc?
>
> How's that sound?
>
> Tapani
>
> On Wed, Mar 08, 2017 at 09:32:31AM -0500, farzaneh badii ([log in to unmask]) wrote:
>
>> All
>>
>> As I said I asked the question why should ncph appoint anyone at all and I
>> didn't get an engaging answer.  And I promise George will give you the same
>> answer if you don't re formulate.
>>
>> What is the underlying reason we are asking this? Do we want more
>> collaboration with our board member? Do we want all the board members to
>> understand our perspective? Do we want to raise issues through our board
>> member and for the issues to be put forward by our board member to the rest
>> of the board?
>>
>>
>>
>> On 8 Mar 2017 09:10, "Tapani Tarvainen" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>>> Thank you all. Here's what the list of questions now looks like.
>>> First three I've simply copied from Kathy and Michael, the last
>>> one I based mainly on Milton's and Ed's comments. Comments still
>>> welcome, but quickly please, we're already past the deadline,
>>> I want this out today.
>>>
>>>
>>> (1) In follow-up to our question in Hyderabad, and with our new Compliance
>>> head
>>> now assigned, we would like to revisit the concerns we raised in Hyderabad
>>> and see what actions have been taken to mitigate the abuse we reported. How
>>> might ICANN's complaint process be modified to a) create accountability for
>>> the party filing the complaint, b) ensure registrants are notified and
>>> allowed time and due process to respond to allegations brought to ICANN
>>> against their domain names,  and c) create protections for Registrants who
>>> might themselves be the target of harassment and abuse?
>>>
>>> (2) What are your thoughts on increasing transparency in order to enhance
>>> community understanding of decision-making at the Board level? In
>>> particular the transparency subgroup has recommended a requirement that any
>>> decisions to remove material from Board minutes must be grounded in one of
>>> the exceptions in the DIDP, and that material removed from minutes should,
>>> as far as possible, be scheduled for release after a particular period of
>>> time (to be determined based on the specific sensitivity of the material).
>>> Do these sound like reasonable proposals?
>>>
>>> (3) As you know, specific PICs were accepted into the New gTLD Agreements
>>> without review or check (source: Alan Grogan in Hyderabad). Some of these
>>> PICs contradict and even set aside GNSO policy processes and consensus
>>> policies. What can we do to mitigate the problems of these PICs? Does the
>>> "New ICANN' no longer value consensus processes (and the many hours of
>>> volunteer effort, time, research, drafting, editing and reviewing spent
>>> creating it)?
>>>
>>> (4) NCPH is in the process of electing its Board member. How do you
>>> see the relationship between the Board member and NCPH? To what extent
>>> does the fiduciary responsibility of the Board member allow any
>>> special relationship with NCPH - would the Board member have any
>>> responsibility to NCPH at all? If not, what's the purpose of having
>>> NCPH elect a Board member?
>>>
>>> --
>>> Tapani Tarvainen


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus