[Chapter-delegates] Board composition (Was Re: Unfortunately, the Internet Impact Toolkit is unsound)

[Andrew Sullivan]

On Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 11:11:16AM -0400, Veni Markovski wrote:

>Perhaps the Board can gently remind the other nominating members that since
>ISOC is a global organization, it would be good that they nominate people
>from different regions, not only the USA?

As I said, I think the Board _does_ do that.  One of the things that I think I can do as a member of the staff, and that I've been trying pretty hard to do, is to ensure the Internet Society effective in achieving its goals. I believe that will make us more attractive to a broader range of organizations.  The only really practical way for us to improve the diversity of nominees for the organization pool is to improve the diversity of organizations among the membership.  We're working on that, but it is not an overnight effort.  Despite the challenges of COVID-19, I'm really pleased to note we've managed to achieve an awful lot of what was in the Action Plan for 2020.  Our success in attracting really great collaboration in the Global Encryption Coalition is an example of the kind of collaborative effort that I hope we can build upon.  We certainly have a distance to go, but the way to travel that distance is definitely tied to being seen as effective in ensuring the Internet is for everyone.  Only through effectiveness in that way will we be able to engage more organizational members both from around the world, and (at least as importantly) from beyond the Internet industry.

The IETF also always hears from the Board about how important diversity is.  I will note my excitement this year that the IETF appointed a woman as Trustee for a change (I haven't looked to see whether it's the first time ever, but it's the first time in at least a decade).  Diversity is clearly a larger challenge that the IETF struggles with, but I think they hear this from the Board.

>Also, the Board could decide, when there’s a vacancy, to appoint someone
>from another region, too.

There's been some discussion of this.  I will note that this Board is already quite large, and adding more people could make it seriously unwieldy.  The Board, after all, is responsible for oversight and not responsible for doing the work, and in any organization where the Board is too large there is a temptation to start blending the roles.  (I can think of some organizations with which I am familiar that have suffered from that effect.)

There is in addition the question of whether the community would be comfortable with the Board second-guessing the community processes.  I can't speak for the Trustees, but I think there is a serious possibility of community anger in the event the Board started appointing additional Trustees themselves on a regular basis.  One possibility that is worth the community considering is whether the expansion of the Board a few years ago was the best way to do things, and whether a different arrangement would be desirable.  It would be, I think, totally inappropriate for me to express a view about whether that's a good idea, but it's something to think about as the Governance Reform WG gets spinning up.

Best regards,

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
President & CEO, Internet Society
sullivan at isoc.org
+1 416 731 1261