Avi, I agree with your assessment that we may unnecessarily insult Markus
and it reflects poorly on us. We’re the ones who put him on the board!

I would revert to a more general question that MM suggested, “How can
non-contracted stakeholders balance and improve board decisions and
deliberations?”  And maybe raise the issue that a single board member may
not be sufficient given the diversity of non-contracted interests. Of
course, raise this as a question. Isn’t that the real problem that makes
selecting a board member such a problem for us and CSG?

---------------------------------------
Brenden Kuerbis
Internet Governance Project
http://internetgovernance.org

On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 10:29 AM, avri doria <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> 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
>
>