[SPAM] [chapter-delegates] Approaches to fixing the nomination process

[Ramon Morales]

Fred,
I believe your insights are excellent and I believe that these measures will
go a long way to repairing and solidifying the bonds that bring all of us
together under ISOC. Your idea about separate committees is a measure that
would allow the process to come closer to the constituents affected. 

The issue of allowing incumbents to run is a democratic standard which we
use in Puerto Rico and has worked well for us over the last three and one
half years and over the last two elections.

Way to go, Fred !!!

Ramón Morales
Chairman
Internet Society of Puerto Rico
-----Original Message-----
From: Fred Baker [mailto:fred at cisco.com] 
Sent: Friday, April 08, 2005 3:29 PM
To: chapter-delegates at lists.isoc.org
Subject: [SPAM] [chapter-delegates] Approaches to fixing the nomination
process

So I'm listening to the discussion on this list, and trying to figure 
out what the best way forward is. There are a variety of approaches, 
some of which call for changes to the ISOC by-laws.

One way to fix the issue being raised is to have several nominating 
committees. We are doing a Chapter election and an Organizational 
Member election now, and potentially in the future have an election for 
paying individual members (whatever they wind up being called). We 
could literally have a nominating committee for the chapter election 
whose members are designated by the chapters, a separate nominating 
committee for the organizational members whose membership is designated 
by the advisory council, and somehow set up the same kind of thing for 
the individual members when that comes up.

Another way to approach this would be as someone has suggested - 
consider incumbents to be nominated de facto and simply have the 
nominating committee come up with new names to add to the list.

Maybe there are other approaches that folks would like to suggest?

What is apparent is that there is dissatisfaction with the way that the 
nominating committee works now, so I want to pull something 
constructive out. A key part of this is going to be a definition of the 
problem to be solved - not just "we're mad", but some clear statement 
of the requirements the solution has to solve.