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

[Gene Gaines]

Margaret,

I read your statements below, but I reject both your explanation
and the actions of the nominating committee.

Even among polite people, at some times it is necessary when
something stinks to point out the dead fish. It is unpleasant to
do so, but some times necessary.

To make it plain.  YOUR COMMITTEE HAS ACTED TO ATTEMPT TO
SILENCE TO VOICE OF VENI MARKOVSKI.

Personally, I find this unacceptable.

I will attempt to keep this short, so will focus on just one
point in your committee's process.

Gene
gene.gaines at gainesgroup.com

On Tuesday, April 5, 2005, 2:54:20 AM, Margaret wrote:


> 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




--