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 >