I have a proposal as it relates to Governance:
As many have noted I sat on the CIRA Board for a little over a decade on and off with the last few years as the Board’s Chair. As I started my tenure on the first elected Board I saw the Board and the Organization evolve significantly over that period
During that time we grew from a handful of staff and a modest budget trying to run a registry with just over 60,000 domains. Today the organization has grown to near 100 people and in the period from 2008 to 2013 .CA doubled in size with the registry now just north of 2.5 million domains. CIRA has also diversified into other areas and has also successfully launched a community investment program.
As the organization is larger and more complex it needs to ensure that it has a proper diversity of skill sets and experience on its board.
The last major set of Governance changes put in a split ballot and independent Nomination Committee in the hope that the mix would occur. With nearly a decade under that system the process has generally produced good results; however, the growing complexity of the organization puts a larger stress on the process. The nomination committee is currently hampered in that it can only put forward a slate and not seat members on the Board itself.
At the same time there has always been a concern about the ability for member driven nominations to proceed is limited by a single seat.
So I ask the Candidate’s view on the following proposal:
Would you support moving the Board such that six members of the Board are directly seated by the Nomination Committee and have the remaining six elected by open nomination.
In effect this moves the number of seats the Nomination Committee deals with from nine to six and doubles the number of member nominees. However the membership would vote for only half the Board.
There are several details on how this would work under the not for profit legislation; however, do you support this concept and why or why not?