Rules like x times minimum wage in California, allows to make the pay simple and not escalating by self serving board members. Also, he does not stop anyone on the board to refuse the compensation, for various reason. I support the idea of the board to be compensated for their work, if it allows the ability to bring more candidates to the positions. Don't forget, at the moment, if I'm correct the board members are reimbursed their costs to be on the board (trip+hotel+meal). ----- Original Message ----- From: "John R. Levine" <johnl@iecc.com> To: "At-Large Worldwide" <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Sent: Thursday, 26 August, 2010 12:56:21 PM Subject: Re: [At-Large] ICANN Board Nomination
The problem is legal before anything else. To allow the compensation (not salary) to the chair we did a formal legal move, consulting the court, and this was allowed because there is, really, much more burden to the chair out of the internal tasks, not demanded to the members of the board.
Hmmn. I see why Karl says that board members need their own lawyers. Anyone who told you that it was difficult to pay the directors of a California non-profit was at best misinformed. The California not-for-profit law makes it quite clear that directors can be paid. The main rules are that the full board, not just a committee, must set the compensation (Section 5212(a)(3)), and that the compensation be reasonable (Section 5235(a)), which considering how large ICANN is, and how much work it expects of its directors, would never be a problem for any plausible amount of pay. R's, John _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org