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 > >