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

[Ramon Morales]

-----Original Message-----
From: Ramon Morales [mailto:ramon at isocpr.org] 
Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2005 4:56 AM
To: 'Margaret Wasserman'
Subject: RE: [chapter-delegates] Re: Report of the 2005 ISOC Nominations

Margaret,
Do you really believe that not allowing an incumbent to run again and to
review their qualifications on the same field as other applicants is fair?
Don't you think that someone who has been on the Board has the right to run
again and let their constituents decide if they should be re-elected? I
agree with Franck on this point. And I agree with the essence of Jacek's
arguments even with your defense of the process. 

I ask that you pass on to your future replacement that this matter ought to
be done in the interest of true democracy and transparency. I believe that
chapters ought to decide chapter representation on the BoT through a set of
rules that inspire trust in the process and that gives us the right to
re-elect leaders if they wish to be re-considered. 

Whether it was your's or the Nominating Committee's intention or not is not
the issue. What is at issue is our right to elect our leaders. 

I urge all chapter representatives to please review the existing rules and
to bring about the changes that will align this organization with its
chapter constituency. It has everything to do with this organization's
future. 

I urge the two candidates that were nominated to speak out about this matter
and join in this discussion. I will respect their right to remain silent if
they choose to do that as well. 

I ask again how many chapter votes will be rendered in total in this
election. I have lost track of how many chapters we have now. Perhaps, David
will clarify this matter.

Best regards,
Ramon Morales
Chairman
Internet Society of Puerto Rico


-----Original Message-----
From: Margaret Wasserman [mailto:margaret at thingmagic.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2005 2:54 AM
To: Jacek Gajewski
Cc: Tommi Karttaavi; chapter-delegates at lists.isoc.org
Subject: Re: [chapter-delegates] Re: Report of the 2005 ISOC Nominations


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