Hello Jonathan, all The "why At-Large" in this context can perhaps be likened to what eventually made At-Large to have a single Board member on ICANN Board. If At-Large believes that her voice is important on the "new" PIR decision table, and that it will be through Board representation, I don't see anything wrong with making that clear from the start. Contributing towards getting a generic block of slot with a "later" tag on its allocation won't be strategic IMO Regards Sent from my mobile Kindly excuse brevity and typos On Thu, 9 Jan 2020, 17:14 Jonathan Zuck, <JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org> wrote:
I recognize it feels natural in our comments/advice to suggest someone from At-Large be on the PIR board but again I feel it prudent to ask, why At-Large? Why wouldn’t we ask that 1/3 of the board members be representatives of 501c(3) non-profits or ASBLs from Brussels? Those same people *might* be in the At-Large but that wouldn’t be why they are on the board of PIR.
Jonathan Zuck *|* Executive Director *|* Innovators Network
jzuck@innovatorsnetwork.org | O 202.420.7497 | S jvzuck |
[image: cid:image001.png@01D2AEED.C7EA7800]
_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
