[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [ifwp] Re: Delicate balance

On Sat, 10 Oct 1998, Michael Sondow wrote:
> supporters. The only correct position as regards Board nominations is
> that of the Boston Working Group: that there can be no nominations until
> the method for inviting them, and for choosing Board members, is
> determined.

This is far from a new problem. We've had the same problem in Sweden, when
creating a new organization for handling the .se-domain. I guess all new
non-profit entities have the same problem, i e how do we select the board
and how do we handle day to day business while determining how to select
the board and what are our mandates?

Working with an interim board is the most common solution (also the one
used in the Swedish case). The interim board must obviously have limited
powers and much work must be put into answering the other questions raised
above. However all aspects of the interim board members must be out in the
open. In this latter strive I say the Berkman Center website works fine.
It is not in itself any pro or con argument for the board. It's simply
information which will provide the Internet community and the Internet
stakeholders with more information for the use of their (not the Berkman
Center) choice.

The main objective in my point of view must be to create a board which is
transparent and representative, both in the stakeholder, Internet
community and geographical perspective.


Mikael Pawlo



Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy