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

[David McAuley]

Gene, you and I have met several times and I hope it is
clear from our meetings that I hold you in high respect. I
do.

I also have only the highest regard and respect for Veni -
I believe he knows that and many others do with whom I
speak. I consider Veni a good friend. 

And one final person to note from your e-mail: Margaret. I
hold her in exactly that high level of respect. Three good
people all working to help the Internet Society reach its
goals. That is why I cannot for the life of me understand
the tenor that sometimes grips this list. It gets
discouraging.

I was not privy to the work of the NomComm but I could
gather from a distance that they worked hard, took pains to
be comprehensive and fair, and faced a very, very difficult
task. It is not easy to select a few candidates from a list
of highly quailfied and willing candidiates.

As a reservist in the US Navy in the past I was called on
to pass on who would be promoted to Captain - we had loads
of qualified people to take up very few slots. It is not
easy work - it almost always is thankless. 

To suggest that the motive here was to silence Veni is a
grand leap that you have no reason to postulate other than
emotion. Or is there more? I too feel an emotional tie to
Veni but I realize there is a large world out there and
having candidiates from other parts of it is not on its
face unreasonable. And our process does wisely have a
petition element to it. 

I love our community - I just wish we could be more
communal at times. 

David

On Tue, 05 Apr 2005 06:46:53 -0400
 Gene Gaines <gene.gaines at gainesgroup.com> wrote:
> 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
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
>