I agree with the below formulation of the question as I think it addresses both Sam's points and Avri's concerns. > > “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 >> >> >