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
|
