[CWG-Stewardship] v1 Final Proposal

[Jonathan Robinson]

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 at anvilwalrusden.com] 
Sent: 02 June 2015 16:28
To: cwg-stewardship at 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 at anvilwalrusden.com
_______________________________________________
CWG-Stewardship mailing list
CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship