Milton, FWIW, I see the addition of two independent directors as good practice from a corporate governance point of view. The construct of 3 executives, one of whom is the IANA managing director (or equivalent most senior person) together with two independents seems strong to me and yet remains consistent with the advice we have received. Adding the independence criteria has the additional benefit (I believe) of diluting Chuck's concern relating to having the senior IANA staff member as a director. For now, we may wish to specify that they need to be independent but not insist on the two liaisons you suggest (although these could be provided as an example). Jonathan -----Original Message----- From: Andrew Sullivan [mailto:ajs@anvilwalrusden.com] Sent: 02 June 2015 16:28 To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] v1 Final Proposal Just on one narrow issue: On Tue, Jun 02, 2015 at 02:46:57PM +0000, Milton L Mueller wrote:
not be honored. What is preventing us, for example, from making the 4th and 5th board members the IETF liaison and the ASO liaison to the ICANN board?
Well, one thing preventing us is that this group is not in a position to add to the job description of people appointed by other operational communities. I know that the IETF's liaison is already somewhat taxed. It's a difficult position to fill because it takes a lot of time, and not everyone can volunteer to offer that much time. (The IETF has an expectation that its liaisons are not compensated, so the fact that ICANN offers such compensation doesn't help in this case.) Best regards, A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship