[chapter-delegates] Re: Report of the 2005 ISOC Nominations

[Margaret Wasserman]

Hi Jacek,

>>The problem, with this year process of nominations was however that 
>>it was not officially said (neither a priori nor post factum) that:
>>-  the nominations will follow the geographical diversity (or any 
>>other) criterium;
>>-  that there will be only two candidates selected;
>>
>>Since this was not written in the bylaws, it means it has been 
>>'invented' by the NC (before or after the famous consultations with 
>>yet unknown 'other' ISOC members). Fine, the NC was entrusted to do 
>>the nominations and if they have applied some criterium, which was 
>>not in the bylaws, they should (in my opinion) at least post factum 
>>say that they have applied criterium XYZ and there were only N 
>>candidates fullfilling this criterium.

The 2005 Call for Nominations said:

     The ISOC Nominations Committee expects to choose at least four
     well-qualified candidates for the Organizational Member elections and
     at least two well-qualified candidates for the Chapter elections.

     Candidates for ISOC Trustee should have demonstrable involvement in
     the Internet, particularly in the areas of standards, public policy or
     education.  The following qualifications are also highly desirable:

         - Business background and organizational leadership experience,
           including Board experience.
         - Not-for-profit experience.
         - Ability to raise funds for not-for-profit organizations.
         - The ability to identify relevant ISOC projects and obtain
           funds or other resources to accomplish them.
         - Vision for the role of the Internet Society.

     ISOC is interested in broadly-based representation on the Board of
     Trustees and seeks to identify candidates from industry, education,
     non-profit or government.  The selection criteria will include
     regional location, current activities, relevant experience and
     professional background.

The 2005 Call for Nominations was widely circulated, posted to the 
chapter-delegates list and discussed on this list.  However, to my 
knowledge, no one sent any feedback to the Nominations Committee 
regarding the number of candidates that we should select for each 
election and/or our published selection criteria, which do 
prominently feature "broadly-based representation" and "regional 
location".

As for the "famous consultations" with other ISOC members:

The Nominations Committee Chair (that would be me) explicitly asked 
the Board of Trustees for input on the criteria that we should use to 
select candidates for the ISOC elections, and we reflected that 
feedback in the Call for Nominations.  We also asked the Board of 
Trustees to nominate candidates (using the same Call for Nominations 
that was sent to chapter-delegates).  In one or two cases, I asked 
other Board members for their thoughts on specific nominees, 
particularly those that were not well-known to members of the 
Nominations Committee.

I think that it would be constructive for you to consider the fact 
that 10 members of ISOC served on the Nominations Committee and 
dedicated a substantial amount of time to reviewing the available 
candidates and selecting amongst them.  This was not an easy task, 
and we did not make our decisions lightly.  Perhaps you could give us 
the benefit of the doubt and at least consider the possibility that 
we may have carefully followed the documented selection process, 
published our criteria, considered all of the input that we received, 
and tried to make the best selections possible?

Best Regards,
Margaret