RE: [registrars] Draft Registrar Position Paper on Restructuring
> I think you have described the POLICY council nomination
> committee, not the
> BOARD nomination committee. Can you rework the doc so this
> is clearer that
> there will be 2 seperate nomination committees, and the
> structure of the
> board one we discussed.
I wasn't able to participate in the last constituency teleconference so did
not hear other general views.
My own view is:
(1) There is a nominating committee to select at large Board members against
a set of criteria
(2) The nominating committee would consist of people appointed by major
(3) The policy council would consist of people appointed by major
stakeholder groups AND in addition the Board itself would appoint people to
ensure a more balanced and less political policy council. In the same way
that the Board approves membership of groups such as the root server
advisory panel and the security advisory panel.
I see no reason for a separate nominating committee to appoint additional
members of the policy council. We should avoid being too bureaucratic. IN
fact I think it is better that the Board itself is more involved in managed
the process (as opposed to directly developing policy), and part of this is
a better liaison between the Board and the policy councils.
I think the current draft reflects the above position.