That's better Tapani. Thanks

Farzaneh

On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 9:46 AM, Tapani Tarvainen <[log in to unmask]
> 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
>