Hi,
if you ask for a second Board member for the NCPH the first option would be to give one to the CSG and one to the NCSG. Is this the plan? I would disagree.
You should not forget that in the early days of ICANN civil society/non-commercial interests were linked primarily to ALAC. In the orginal ICANN bylaws (1998) non-commercial/civil society had 9 voting seats in the Board. This was never implemented and reduced to five in 2000 (picked by regional elections). In 2002 this was trimmed down to one non-voting liaison (with the expecation that CS/NC individuals will be picked by the new NomCom where ALAC and NCUC had six voting seats). Roberto Gaetano and Susan Crawford were seen as CS/NC friendly Board members, picked by the NomCom. Nowadays NomCom is not really looking for candidates with deep roots in the CS/NC sector. During ATLAS 1 in Mexico City (2008) we adopted a recommendation to give ALAC two voting seats (like the SOs). The compromise was to change the non-voting ALAC liaison to a voting Board member. Up to now, ALAC has (only) one voting Board member (Sebastian 2009 - 2014, Rinalha 2014 - 2017, Now Leon 2017 - 2020). But the call for a second ALAC Board member is still on the table. I supported in a previous mail the joint EURALO/NCUC outreach in COP. Probably such an option - to have another CS/NC Board member - could be an issue.
Wolfgang
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: NCSG-Discuss im Auftrag von Sam Lanfranco
Gesendet: Mi 08.03.2017 23:11
An: [log in to unmask]
Betreff: Re: [NCSG-Discuss] ICANN Copenhagen, questions from and to the Board
Tapani,
This is probably going to be a weak consensus decision here, so my
preference would
be to simply drop it. We are likely to get a pro forma answer and the
real question of
how the stakeholders hold the board's feet to the fire in terms of
ongoing accountability
will not get not get addressed even if the question is asked. My 2
krone... :-\
Sam L.
On 3/8/2017 4:26 PM, Tapani Tarvainen wrote:
> I'm fine with that, too. I've no problem with just dropping the 4th
> question either - I threw it in when there was only one question
> on the table, but now we have three others and three is enough.
>
> The point about second board member for NCPH would make Brenden's
> question concrete and much sharper, but how should it be phrased?
>
> And is there enough support for this question or should we just
> forget it and go with the three less controversial ones?
>
> Tapani
>
> On Wed, Mar 08, 2017 at 04:13:32PM -0500, avri doria ([log in to unmask]) wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I like this question.
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> avri
>>
>>
>> On 08-Mar-17 11:41, Brenden Kuerbis wrote:
>>> 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]
>>> <mailto:[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] <mailto:[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] <mailto:[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 <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> ---
>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
--
------------------------------------------------
"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] Skype: slanfranco
blog: https://samlanfranco.blogspot.com
Phone: +1 613-476-0429 cell: +1 416-816-2852
|
