Colleagues I am very disappointed with the conduct (not the results) of the elections and have set out below my suggestions for a way forward. The problems with the election illustrate again, despite months of discussion about accountability, transparency, charter improvements and policy development processes that we still haven't got things right. I preface my remarks by saying how delighted I am that Mike Roberts has been encouraged to join our efforts -- the test for him will be whether he actually joins the constituency and takes an active role in its operations. I am most concerned about the way in which the election process was run. 1. No nominee for the large business representative was received. Three nominations were received for the small business representative. There was no plan from the Councillors to address that - either through an appointment process or whatever that was made PUBLIC before the elections took place. I was asked for and I submitted a note to the Councillors expressing my interest in volunteering for the Large Business representative seat, should no other nominees be received. I don't know whether Waudo was given that option. 2. We are now in a situation where two candidates have lost the election who could have been selected for the position as runners-up. There is nothing in the By-laws that would have prevented that happening, except that the nominees may not have wanted to. 3. We now have a presumptive nominee (Rick Anderson) sending in his nomination AFTER the fact with a statement as to why he should be elected when there isn't even a nomination period open. He didn't nominate in the first place and shouldn't be given preferential treatment in any "second" round, especially where other candidates have spent time and effort finding nominees, submitting statements of suitability, going through an election where they have to seek support for their candidature. Members will recall the fuss and bother last year, over exactly this issue, when Rick protested about not having his nomination in on time and he was excluded from running. Waudo and I have been significantly disadvantaged in the choices open to us -- as a representative of WITSA Waudo is qualified to represent large business interests; having worked for large corporations I am qualified to do the same. Indeed employment with a large organisation is not a requirement of this post -- sensitivity to the various needs of large businesses is much more important. Having said that, I would support Rick's candidacy because he is able, highly critical of the constituency and may have some influence on making positive changes. My issue is that the process was not public beforehand and candidates have not been treated equitably. 4. With respect to Mike Roberts' nomination, it was very unfair that neither Waudo or I were given the chance to have a detailed statement of support from our nominees, in exactly the way that Marilyn did for Mike. This was a decision taken by the Secretariat which, for perhaps uninformed and disinterested voters, was the information that they needed to sway their vote. My argument is not that the statement shouldn't have been distributed but that each candidate would have had the same opportunity. We are now in exactly the same situation with Rick Anderson receiving letters of support -- what other potential candidate would be silly enough to stand in the face of a self- nomination in a pseudo election by default? If we are to be taken seriously as representatives of business interests, we need to smarten up immediately -- not sometime in the future, not when a notional charter is completed, not when we get around to it but immediately in every action we take. I say this across the board in our operations -- from working on the Credentials Committee assessing new member applications & being involved in disciplining members; in my work on developing the new charter and encouraging a deliberate move to a new and broader mode of operation and in our work on policy development process improvements. On the latter, no BC representative has been present on the Working Group on PDP improvements for many months. I am also making an official request that the results of the election are made public showing who voted for whom and how the weighted votes were applied. Liz ... Liz Williams +44 1963 364 380 +44 7824 877757
Several interesting points are raised in the posting from Liz Williams below.I have some sympathy for some points raised, and do not support some others. For example, for over 27 years of my professional career, I worked for a multi national corporation; represented said company in numerous industry groups, coalitions, and organizations. Today, I am the owner/operator of a micro enterprise, that provides advisory services and policy analysis, and some other forms of strategic planning to large companies. However, my company is a SME. Maybe a M-SME. :-) My point isthat many of the SMEs in the BC might be able to 'identify' with large businesses, but they are not actually large businesses, and there is a rationale for the separationof the two seats allocated to the BC. Originally, and perhaps this history is a little useful, the Board did not intend to givethe second seat to the BC. In fact, I was engaged in a quite detailed debate with the then CEO and staff who were even favoring giving the seat to the Small Business Administrationrepresentative of the US, who was very enthused about such a role. I protested thisto various Board members, and spent a lot of time with ICANN General Counsel and CEO, detailing why the BC should assume this role. Philip Sheppard, also an officer at that time, supported the analysis of the BC membership that is the basis of the analysis that appears on the BC site, noting the number of SMEs, and large corporations. The Board and CEO were persuaded, and althoughothers objected, we were given two distinct seats, for two distinct categories of business. I think that we have to remember that we are blessed to have two seats on the nominating committee and that one is to come from small business and one fromlarge business. We should not run the risk of losing the second seat by playing fast and loose with the principle behind the two seats. I was engaged in the negotiations to get the BC two seats, and this is a privilege that others [constituencies] do envy. We could easily lose the second seat. I do not agree that an SME should take the seat that is intended for large business. Indeed, a candidate who last year was representing small businesses for that seat on the NomComm, really can't just reappear now as the large business seat holder, without creating concern and perhaps challenge to the right of the BC to have that second seat. I am aware, as a former elected officer, that there is the option to 'second' a willing member, when no candidate is available. However, I strongly object to the officers approaching someone engaged in an active election and offering them a different seat than the one they were standing for. That step however, was entirely unknown to the membership so did not affect the vote of any member. In fact, we are learning about it only now, from Liz, who has volunteered this information to us. Of course, theoutreach should not have happened, and really, the offer deserved to be declined as inappropriate. I am aware that we have a volunteer who is qualified from large business. I see two options:The officers can accept Rick's volunteering and appoint him to fill the large business seat, or theycan reopen a nomination period for nominations of representatives from large businesses, and hold a second election. As to the communication I posted in my nomination and endorsement of Mike Roberts, that wascertainly an option available to all three candidates. And the candidates could have requested a call with members to explain their interest and expertise to fill the small business seat. I think it is important not to discredit the election of the small business representative in any way. I can understand that there was probably concern by the officers about filling the seat. But they should notbe recruiting a SME to fill the large business seat. IF it were absolutely necessary, they should come to the membership for agreement. Once there were no nominations,that should have been announced to the members, and a second opportunity opened for nominations. That can still happen. Or the Officers can accept Rick Anderson's volunteering. But candidates who fit the SME qualifications don't magically turn into large businesses -- as much as even I might hope for such status for myown small business. So, I oppose having an SME -- even myself -- fill the seat for large business in this situation. Finally, I am under the impression that all votes are confidential, so I don't think that they can be made public. I am not detecting that Liz is stating that she thinks there was election fraud, or anything of thatsort, and while the turn out was low, the BC doesn't have a minimal number of members who must voteon any decision, whatever it is. I, like others, greatly appreciate the work that volunteers do for the BC. WE all benefit. And certainly, I appreciate the work that was done on the NomComm last year by both Phil and Liz. In no way is that my point. If there need to be more detailed criteria written out for elections such as this, and more guidance to the officers, I would certainly volunteer to work with others, and the secretariat, to develop such guidelines. ICANN staff could even be part of assisting in developing election process guidelines. It is often good to document procedures in any case. And we have now learned that we need more detailedprocedures. For instance, just to give an example of the kind of procedural details that can be helpful: if there is no nomination put forward,close to the close of a nomination period, a renewed call for candidates should be made. If the nomination period closes without candidates, the secretariat can, after advising the membership, open a second nomination period of X days. If no candidate then emerges, the officers can announce that they intend to select a qualified member of the constituency with a request that they volunteer. No contacts should be made with nominated candidates to encourage them to change their candidacy in any way. Candidates must establish how they fit the required criteria. In my view, these two elections need to remain separate. SO, I don't support the idea of a 'runner up' being given the secondseat. That loses the distinct nature of the two seats, which I advise against. I am confident that the secretariat has fulfilled his duties with intregrity and thoroughness. I would ask the officers to advise the members how they plan to proceed on either accepting Rick Anderson and 'seconding' him to this position,or opening an election limited to only qualified large business representatives for this role. Marilyn Cade
From: lizawilliams@mac.com To: bc-gnso@icann.org Subject: [bc-gnso] Elections Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2009 08:34:47 +0100
Colleagues
I am very disappointed with the conduct (not the results) of the elections and have set out below my suggestions for a way forward. The problems with the election illustrate again, despite months of discussion about accountability, transparency, charter improvements and policy development processes that we still haven't got things right.
I preface my remarks by saying how delighted I am that Mike Roberts has been encouraged to join our efforts -- the test for him will be whether he actually joins the constituency and takes an active role in its operations.
I am most concerned about the way in which the election process was run.
1. No nominee for the large business representative was received. Three nominations were received for the small business representative. There was no plan from the Councillors to address that - either through an appointment process or whatever that was made PUBLIC before the elections took place. I was asked for and I submitted a note to the Councillors expressing my interest in volunteering for the Large Business representative seat, should no other nominees be received. I don't know whether Waudo was given that option.
2. We are now in a situation where two candidates have lost the election who could have been selected for the position as runners-up. There is nothing in the By-laws that would have prevented that happening, except that the nominees may not have wanted to.
3. We now have a presumptive nominee (Rick Anderson) sending in his nomination AFTER the fact with a statement as to why he should be elected when there isn't even a nomination period open. He didn't nominate in the first place and shouldn't be given preferential treatment in any "second" round, especially where other candidates have spent time and effort finding nominees, submitting statements of suitability, going through an election where they have to seek support for their candidature. Members will recall the fuss and bother last year, over exactly this issue, when Rick protested about not having his nomination in on time and he was excluded from running.
Waudo and I have been significantly disadvantaged in the choices open to us -- as a representative of WITSA Waudo is qualified to represent large business interests; having worked for large corporations I am qualified to do the same. Indeed employment with a large organisation is not a requirement of this post -- sensitivity to the various needs of large businesses is much more important.
Having said that, I would support Rick's candidacy because he is able, highly critical of the constituency and may have some influence on making positive changes. My issue is that the process was not public beforehand and candidates have not been treated equitably.
4. With respect to Mike Roberts' nomination, it was very unfair that neither Waudo or I were given the chance to have a detailed statement of support from our nominees, in exactly the way that Marilyn did for Mike. This was a decision taken by the Secretariat which, for perhaps uninformed and disinterested voters, was the information that they needed to sway their vote. My argument is not that the statement shouldn't have been distributed but that each candidate would have had the same opportunity. We are now in exactly the same situation with Rick Anderson receiving letters of support -- what other potential candidate would be silly enough to stand in the face of a self- nomination in a pseudo election by default?
If we are to be taken seriously as representatives of business interests, we need to smarten up immediately -- not sometime in the future, not when a notional charter is completed, not when we get around to it but immediately in every action we take. I say this across the board in our operations -- from working on the Credentials Committee assessing new member applications & being involved in disciplining members; in my work on developing the new charter and encouraging a deliberate move to a new and broader mode of operation and in our work on policy development process improvements. On the latter, no BC representative has been present on the Working Group on PDP improvements for many months.
I am also making an official request that the results of the election are made public showing who voted for whom and how the weighted votes were applied.
Liz
...
Liz Williams +44 1963 364 380 +44 7824 877757
Marilyn Thank you for the background on the small/large distinction. What would be helpful was if that was made clear in our own Charter -- I think it's a good idea to separate out the two now that I know the background. With respect to your suggestion about "accepting the nomination (of Rick Anderson -- I am anxious not to be personal here but it helps to clarify). I would suggest that your latter suggestion of a whole new election is a good one. We do need to ask ourselves more broadly though about why a nomination wasn't received in the first place? Are our big business members not interested; was the position (which is very time consuming) something that our large business members couldn't deal with? Lastly, I am most certainly not suggesting that the Secretariat did anything other than run the election correctly. However, making votes public is certainly within the spirit and the intent of being more transparent in what we do. Liz On 3 Sep 2009, at 12:02, Marilyn Cade wrote:
Several interesting points are raised in the posting from Liz Williams below. I have some sympathy for some points raised, and do not support some others. For example, for over 27 years of my professional career, I worked for a multi national corporation; represented said company in numerous industry groups, coalitions, and organizations. Today, I am the owner/operator of a micro enterprise, that provides advisory services and policy analysis, and some other forms of strategic planning to large companies. However, my company is a SME. Maybe a M-SME. :-) My point is that many of the SMEs in the BC might be able to 'identify' with large businesses, but they are not actually large businesses, and there is a rationale for the separation of the two seats allocated to the BC.
Originally, and perhaps this history is a little useful, the Board did not intend to give the second seat to the BC. In fact, I was engaged in a quite detailed debate with the then CEO and staff who were even favoring giving the seat to the Small Business Administration representative of the US, who was very enthused about such a role. I protested this to various Board members, and spent a lot of time with ICANN General Counsel and CEO, detailing why the BC should assume this role.
Philip Sheppard, also an officer at that time, supported the analysis of the BC membership that is the basis of the analysis that appears on the BC site, noting the number of SMEs, and large corporations. The Board and CEO were persuaded, and although others objected, we were given two distinct seats, for two distinct categories of business.
I think that we have to remember that we are blessed to have two seats on the nominating committee and that one is to come from small business and one from large business. We should not run the risk of losing the second seat by playing fast and loose with the principle behind the two seats. I was engaged in the negotiations to get the BC two seats, and this is a privilege that others [constituencies] do envy. We could easily lose the second seat.
I do not agree that an SME should take the seat that is intended for large business. Indeed, a candidate who last year was representing small businesses for that seat on the NomComm, really can't just reappear now as the large business seat holder, without creating concern and perhaps challenge to the right of the BC to have that second seat.
I am aware, as a former elected officer, that there is the option to 'second' a willing member, when no candidate is available. However, I strongly object to the officers approaching someone engaged in an active election and offering them a different seat than the one they were standing for.
That step however, was entirely unknown to the membership so did not affect the vote of any member. In fact, we are learning about it only now, from Liz, who has volunteered this information to us. Of course, the outreach should not have happened, and really, the offer deserved to be declined as inappropriate.
I am aware that we have a volunteer who is qualified from large business. I see two options: The officers can accept Rick's volunteering and appoint him to fill the large business seat, or they can reopen a nomination period for nominations of representatives from large businesses, and hold a second election.
As to the communication I posted in my nomination and endorsement of Mike Roberts, that was certainly an option available to all three candidates. And the candidates could have requested a call with members to explain their interest and expertise to fill the small business seat. I think it is important not to discredit the election of the small business representative in any way.
I can understand that there was probably concern by the officers about filling the seat. But they should not be recruiting a SME to fill the large business seat. IF it were absolutely necessary, they should come to the membership for agreement.
Once there were no nominations, that should have been announced to the members, and a second opportunity opened for nominations. That can still happen. Or the Officers can accept Rick Anderson's volunteering. But candidates who fit the SME qualifications don't magically turn into large businesses -- as much as even I might hope for such status for my own small business.
So, I oppose having an SME -- even myself -- fill the seat for large business in this situation.
Finally, I am under the impression that all votes are confidential, so I don't think that they can be made public. I am not detecting that Liz is stating that she thinks there was election fraud, or anything of that sort, and while the turn out was low, the BC doesn't have a minimal number of members who must vote on any decision, whatever it is.
I, like others, greatly appreciate the work that volunteers do for the BC. WE all benefit. And certainly, I appreciate the work that was done on the NomComm last year by both Phil and Liz. In no way is that my point.
If there need to be more detailed criteria written out for elections such as this, and more guidance to the officers, I would certainly volunteer to work with others, and the secretariat, to develop such guidelines. ICANN staff could even be part of assisting in developing election process guidelines. It is often good to document procedures in any case. And we have now learned that we need more detailed procedures.
For instance, just to give an example of the kind of procedural details that can be helpful: if there is no nomination put forward, close to the close of a nomination period, a renewed call for candidates should be made. If the nomination period closes without candidates, the secretariat can, after advising the membership, open a second nomination period of X days. If no candidate then emerges, the officers can announce that they intend to select a qualified member of the constituency with a request that they volunteer.
No contacts should be made with nominated candidates to encourage them to change their candidacy in any way. Candidates must establish how they fit the required criteria.
In my view, these two elections need to remain separate. SO, I don't support the idea of a 'runner up' being given the second seat. That loses the distinct nature of the two seats, which I advise against.
I am confident that the secretariat has fulfilled his duties with intregrity and thoroughness. I would ask the officers to advise the members how they plan to proceed on either accepting Rick Anderson and 'seconding' him to this position, or opening an election limited to only qualified large business representatives for this role.
Marilyn Cade
From: lizawilliams@mac.com To: bc-gnso@icann.org Subject: [bc-gnso] Elections Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2009 08:34:47 +0100
Colleagues
I am very disappointed with the conduct (not the results) of the elections and have set out below my suggestions for a way forward. The problems with the election illustrate again, despite months of discussion about accountability, transparency, charter improvements and policy development processes that we still haven't got things right.
I preface my remarks by saying how delighted I am that Mike Roberts has been encouraged to join our efforts -- the test for him will be whether he actually joins the constituency and takes an active role in its operations.
I am most concerned about the way in which the election process was run.
1. No nominee for the large business representative was received. Three nominations were received for the small business representative. There was no plan from the Councillors to address that - either through an appointment process or whatever that was made PUBLIC before the elections took place. I was asked for and I submitted a note to the Councillors expressing my interest in volunteering for the Large Business representative seat, should no other nominees be received. I don't know whether Waudo was given that option.
2. We are now in a situation where two candidates have lost the election who could have been selected for the position as runners- up. There is nothing in the By-laws that would have prevented that happening, except that the nominees may not have wanted to.
3. We now have a presumptive nominee (Rick Anderson) sending in his nomination AFTER the fact with a statement as to why he should be elected when there isn't even a nomination period open. He didn't nominate in the first place and shouldn't be given preferential treatment in any "second" round, especially where other candidates have spent time and effort finding nominees, submitting statements of suitability, going through an election where they have to seek support for their candidature. Members will recall the fuss and bother last year, over exactly this issue, when Rick protested about not having his nomination in on time and he was excluded from running.
Waudo and I have been significantly disadvantaged in the choices open to us -- as a representative of WITSA Waudo is qualified to represent large business interests; having worked for large corporations I am qualified to do the same. Indeed employment with a large organisation is not a requirement of this post -- sensitivity to the various needs of large businesses is much more important.
Having said that, I would support Rick's candidacy because he is able, highly critical of the constituency and may have some influence on making positive changes. My issue is that the process was not public beforehand and candidates have not been treated equitably.
4. With respect to Mike Roberts' nomination, it was very unfair that neither Waudo or I were given the chance to have a detailed statement of support from our nominees, in exactly the way that Marilyn did for Mike. This was a decision taken by the Secretariat which, for perhaps uninformed and disinterested voters, was the information that they needed to sway their vote. My argument is not that the statement shouldn't have been distributed but that each candidate would have had the same opportunity. We are now in exactly the same situation with Rick Anderson receiving letters of support -- what other potential candidate would be silly enough to stand in the face of a self- nomination in a pseudo election by default?
If we are to be taken seriously as representatives of business interests, we need to smarten up immediately -- not sometime in the future, not when a notional charter is completed, not when we get around to it but immediately in every action we take. I say this across the board in our operations -- from working on the Credentials Committee assessing new member applications & being involved in disciplining members; in my work on developing the new charter and encouraging a deliberate move to a new and broader mode of operation and in our work on policy development process improvements. On the latter, no BC representative has been present on the Working Group on PDP improvements for many months.
I am also making an official request that the results of the election are made public showing who voted for whom and how the weighted votes were applied.
Liz
...
Liz Williams +44 1963 364 380 +44 7824 877757
Dear Colleagues - I have been having limited acess to my mails so I think that first of all it is only proper to congratulate Mike Roberts, albeit belatedly, for being elected our Small Business rep on Nom-Com 2009/10. I have only quickly skimmed through the mails and agree with some points raised by Liz and Rick. Marylin has given us a very useful background and explanation of the situation. My expectation is that the discussion will move the BC forward. Kind Regards, Waudo On Thu, 03 Sep 2009 12:43 +0100, "Liz Williams" <lizawilliams@mac.com> wrote: Marilyn Thank you for the background on the small/large distinction. What would be helpful was if that was made clear in our own Charter -- I think it's a good idea to separate out the two now that I know the background. With respect to your suggestion about "accepting the nomination (of Rick Anderson -- I am anxious not to be personal here but it helps to clarify). I would suggest that your latter suggestion of a whole new election is a good one. We do need to ask ourselves more broadly though about why a nomination wasn't received in the first place? Are our big business members not interested; was the position (which is very time consuming) something that our large business members couldn't deal with? Lastly, I am most certainly not suggesting that the Secretariat did anything other than run the election correctly. However, making votes public is certainly within the spirit and the intent of being more transparent in what we do. Liz On 3 Sep 2009, at 12:02, Marilyn Cade wrote: Several interesting points are raised in the posting from Liz Williams below. I have some sympathy for some points raised, and do not support some others. For example, for over 27 years of my professional career, I worked for a multi national corporation; represented said company in numerous industry groups, coalitions, and organizations. Today, I am the owner/operator of a micro enterprise, that provides advisory services and policy analysis, and some other forms of strategic planning to large companies. However, my company is a SME. Maybe a M-SME. :-) My point is that many of the SMEs in the BC might be able to 'identify' with large businesses, but they are not actually large businesses, and there is a rationale for the separation of the two seats allocated to the BC. Originally, and perhaps this history is a little useful, the Board did not intend to give the second seat to the BC. In fact, I was engaged in a quite detailed debate with the then CEO and staff who were even favoring giving the seat to the Small Business Administration representative of the US, who was very enthused about such a role. I protested this to various Board members, and spent a lot of time with ICANN General Counsel and CEO, detailing why the BC should assume this role. Philip Sheppard, also an officer at that time, supported the analysis of the BC membership that is the basis of the analysis that appears on the BC site, noting the number of SMEs, and large corporations. The Board and CEO were persuaded, and although others objected, we were given two distinct seats, for two distinct categories of business. I think that we have to remember that we are blessed to have two seats on the nominating committee and that one is to come from small business and one from large business. We should not run the risk of losing the second seat by playing fast and loose with the principle behind the two seats. I was engaged in the negotiations to get the BC two seats, and this is a privilege that others [constituencies] do envy. We could easily lose the second seat. I do not agree that an SME should take the seat that is intended for large business. Indeed, a candidate who last year was representing small businesses for that seat on the NomComm, really can't just reappear now as the large business seat holder, without creating concern and perhaps challenge to the right of the BC to have that second seat. I am aware, as a former elected officer, that there is the option to 'second' a willing member, when no candidate is available. However, I strongly object to the officers approaching someone engaged in an active election and offering them a different seat than the one they were standing for. That step however, was entirely unknown to the membership so did not affect the vote of any member. In fact, we are learning about it only now, from Liz, who has volunteered this information to us. Of course, the outreach should not have happened, and really, the offer deserved to be declined as inappropriate. I am aware that we have a volunteer who is qualified from large business. I see two options: The officers can accept Rick's volunteering and appoint him to fill the large business seat, or they can reopen a nomination period for nominations of representatives from large businesses, and hold a second election. As to the communication I posted in my nomination and endorsement of Mike Roberts, that was certainly an option available to all three candidates. And the candidates could have requested a call with members to explain their interest and expertise to fill the small business seat. I think it is important not to discredit the election of the small business representative in any way. I can understand that there was probably concern by the officers about filling the seat. But they should not be recruiting a SME to fill the large business seat. IF it were absolutely necessary, they should come to the membership for agreement. Once there were no nominations, that should have been announced to the members, and a second opportunity opened for nominations. That can still happen. Or the Officers can accept Rick Anderson's volunteering. But candidates who fit the SME qualifications don't magically turn into large businesses -- as much as even I might hope for such status for my own small business. So, I oppose having an SME -- even myself -- fill the seat for large business in this situation. Finally, I am under the impression that all votes are confidential, so I don't think that they can be made public. I am not detecting that Liz is stating that she thinks there was election fraud, or anything of that sort, and while the turn out was low, the BC doesn't have a minimal number of members who must vote on any decision, whatever it is. I, like others, greatly appreciate the work that volunteers do for the BC. WE all benefit. And certainly, I appreciate the work that was done on the NomComm last year by both Phil and Liz. In no way is that my point. If there need to be more detailed criteria written out for elections such as this, and more guidance to the officers, I would certainly volunteer to work with others, and the secretariat, to develop such guidelines. ICANN staff could even be part of assisting in developing election process guidelines. It is often good to document procedures in any case. And we have now learned that we need more detailed procedures. For instance, just to give an example of the kind of procedural details that can be helpful: if there is no nomination put forward, close to the close of a nomination period, a renewed call for candidates should be made. If the nomination period closes without candidates, the secretariat can, after advising the membership, open a second nomination period of X days. If no candidate then emerges, the officers can announce that they intend to select a qualified member of the constituency with a request that they volunteer. No contacts should be made with nominated candidates to encourage them to change their candidacy in any way. Candidates must establish how they fit the required criteria. In my view, these two elections need to remain separate. SO, I don't support the idea of a 'runner up' being given the second seat. That loses the distinct nature of the two seats, which I advise against. I am confident that the secretariat has fulfilled his duties with intregrity and thoroughness. I would ask the officers to advise the members how they plan to proceed on either accepting Rick Anderson and 'seconding' him to this position, or opening an election limited to only qualified large business representatives for this role. Marilyn Cade
From: [1]lizawilliams@mac.com To: [2]bc-gnso@icann.org Subject: [bc-gnso] Elections Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2009 08:34:47 +0100
Colleagues
I am very disappointed with the conduct (not the results) of the elections and have set out below my suggestions for a way forward. The problems with the election illustrate again, despite months of discussion about accountability, transparency, charter improvements and policy development processes that we still haven't got things right.
I preface my remarks by saying how delighted I am that Mike Roberts has been encouraged to join our efforts -- the test for him will be whether he actually joins the constituency and takes an active role in its operations.
I am most concerned about the way in which the election process was run.
1. No nominee for the large business representative was received. Three nominations were received for the small business representative. There was no plan from the Councillors to address that - either through an appointment process or whatever that was made PUBLIC before the elections took place. I was asked for and I submitted a note to the Councillors expressing my interest in volunteering for the Large Business representative seat, should no other nominees be received. I don't know whether Waudo was given that option.
2. We are now in a situation where two candidates have lost the election who could have been selected for the position as runners-up. There is nothing in the By-laws that would have prevented that happening, except that the nominees may not have wanted to.
3. We now have a presumptive nominee (Rick Anderson) sending in his nomination AFTER the fact with a statement as to why he should be elected when there isn't even a nomination period open. He didn't nominate in the first place and shouldn't be given preferential treatment in any "second" round, especially where other candidates have spent time and effort finding nominees, submitting statements of suitability, going through an election where they have to seek support for their candidature. Members will recall the fuss and bother last year, over exactly this issue, when Rick protested about not having his nomination in on time and he was excluded from running.
Waudo and I have been significantly disadvantaged in the choices open to us -- as a representative of WITSA Waudo is qualified to represent large business interests; having worked for large corporations I am qualified to do the same. Indeed employment with a large organisation is not a requirement of this post -- sensitivity to the various needs of large businesses is much more important.
Having said that, I would support Rick's candidacy because he is able, highly critical of the constituency and may have some influence on making positive changes. My issue is that the process was not public beforehand and candidates have not been treated equitably.
4. With respect to Mike Roberts' nomination, it was very unfair that neither Waudo or I were given the chance to have a detailed statement of support from our nominees, in exactly the way that Marilyn did for Mike. This was a decision taken by the Secretariat which, for perhaps uninformed and disinterested voters, was the information that they needed to sway their vote. My argument is not that the statement shouldn't have been distributed but that each candidate would have had the same opportunity. We are now in exactly the same situation with Rick Anderson receiving letters of support -- what other potential candidate would be silly enough to stand in the face of a self- nomination in a pseudo election by default?
If we are to be taken seriously as representatives of business interests, we need to smarten up immediately -- not sometime in the future, not when a notional charter is completed, not when we get around to it but immediately in every action we take. I say this across the board in our operations -- from working on the Credentials Committee assessing new member applications & being involved in disciplining members; in my work on developing the new charter and encouraging a deliberate move to a new and broader mode of operation and in our work on policy development process improvements. On the latter, no BC representative has been present on the Working Group on PDP improvements for many months.
I am also making an official request that the results of the election are made public showing who voted for whom and how the weighted votes were applied.
Liz
...
Liz Williams +44 1963 364 380 +44 7824 877757
References 1. mailto:lizawilliams@mac.com 2. mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org
Liz, Liz, Liz, (long message ahead, folks don't have to read it if they don't want to!) On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 3:34 AM, Liz Williams<lizawilliams@mac.com> wrote:
I am very disappointed with the conduct (not the results) of the elections
It would have been more appropriate to voice those concerns during the election, rather than ex post, where it comes off as sour grapes. Had you won the election, instead of experiencing a resounding defeat (62% to 30% for Mike Roberts), would we have ever heard about election problems? I think not.
and have set out below my suggestions for a way forward. The problems with the election illustrate again, despite months of discussion about accountability, transparency, charter improvements and policy development processes that we still haven't got things right.
I'm glad you're finally coming to the realization of what a lot of members know, that there are a lot of things that need improvement in the constituency. Members like myself have been pushing those positive changes forward, and until now the "establishment" has been pushing against them, and indeed as we've seen with the totalitarian draft charter of a few days ago, are attempting to weaken the base of the constituency even further. Indeed, this is the first time the BC has voted on *any* matter since the officers imposed a budget that did not reflect the wishes of the members, and violated our charter by issuing a statement in support of the IRT without the requisite vote, amongst other examples of poor leadership. It was a poor strategic decision to align yourself so closely with the "establishment" (you were "their" candidate, after all, with the nomination/blessing of one of the officers, Philip Sheppard). Not only were people voting against you (an incumbent, who had every advantage in this election), not only were they voting for Mike Roberts, a candidate of great stature, but the vote represented a repudiation of the leadership of this constituency, given the first opportunity to vote in a manner that would send a message. It's been 2 days since that repudiation, and hopefully they have heard that loud and clear. It would seem so, given the lack of open support by them (and indeed anyone) in your attempt to take the Large-Business rep NomCom position.
I preface my remarks by saying how delighted I am that Mike Roberts has been encouraged to join our efforts -- the test for him will be whether he actually joins the constituency and takes an active role in its operations.
These backhanded compliments really reveal another reason people might have voted against you. You've done this before: http://forum.icann.org/lists/bc-gnso/msg00255.html when initially praising Mike Roberts, but instead of leaving it at that, you tossed in a big "However........" It does not take a great level of sophistication to see this, and I'm sure I'm not the only one who noticed.
place. I was asked for and I submitted a note to the Councillors expressing my interest in volunteering for the Large Business representative seat, should no other nominees be received. I don't know whether Waudo was given that option.
As Marilyn noted earlier, it's educational to see all the back-room maneuvering that took place here, another "strike" against the leadership of this constituency. As she wrote: "However, I strongly object to the officers approaching someone engaged in an active election and offering them a different seat than the one they were standing for. That step however, was entirely unknown to the membership so did not affect the vote of any member. In fact, we are learning about it only now, from Liz, who has volunteered this information to us. Of course, theoutreach should not have happened, and really, the offer deserved to be declined as inappropriate." On the RAP Workgroup, I've recently written up the topic of "front running", which involve the use of insider information. https://st.icann.org/reg-abuse-wg/index.cgi?domain_front_running Had the plan succeeded, it would have been a classic case of the use of "insider information" to gain an unfair advantage.
2. We are now in a situation where two candidates have lost the election who could have been selected for the position as runners-up. There is nothing in the By-laws that would have prevented that happening, except that the nominees may not have wanted to.
It was not even a close election. An incumbent candidate with 30% of the votes is in no position to be asking for the job as "runner up."
Waudo and I have been significantly disadvantaged in the choices open to us
Oh, but you had seemingly every advantage that you neglected to mention. You had the blessing of an officer. You had the officers choosing the timing of the election. You had the ability to vote for yourself (Mike Roberts didn't vote for himself, as he had no votes at all). You had pre-campaigning on the mailing list (and an attempt to eliminate Mike Roberts from the ballot) in July: http://forum.icann.org/lists/bc-gnso/msg00255.html You had a year in office to "prove yourself" and meet people from the constituency at meetings around the world, with travel fully paid for by ICANN. Those don't sound like "disadvantages" to me.
-- as a representative of WITSA Waudo is qualified to represent large business interests; having worked for large corporations I am qualified to do the same. Indeed employment with a large organisation is not a requirement of this post -- sensitivity to the various needs of large businesses is much more important.
I've bought a Big Mac, but it doesn't qualify me to run McDonald's or represent their needs. All the alchemy and incantations in the world cannot transform bronze into gold, or a Category 3 member of the BC into a Category 1 member that represents large businesses, like Rick's company.
Having said that, I would support Rick's candidacy because he is able, highly critical of the constituency and may have some influence on making positive changes. My issue is that the process was not public beforehand and candidates have not been treated equitably.
Indeed, it's nice to see you stand up so publicly to talk about people being treated "equitably." Where was that sense of equity, justice and due process when you and the officers tried to have me removed from the constituency in the past few weeks, issuing private "warnings", convening a "star chamber" without any evidence or proof? Dear lady, when all is said and done, people value honesty more than fake civility, a lesson I hope you have learned from all this. They'll keep people like me around who are honest and plain speaking, because people like me are for "positive changes." This has been a year of "change" and the ones that go are the ones who stand in the way of it. This election has been a litmus test that the officers who cling to "power" and "titles" know went against them. There are people in life who want to "be somebody", but there are others who want to "DO something." There's a big difference. Most people have outgrown high school cliques, outgrown "running for class president." That's why the power flows from the *members* who want to *DO* something. Officers are there to *serve* the members, seek their input and follow their wishes.
4. With respect to Mike Roberts' nomination, it was very unfair that neither Waudo or I were given the chance to have a detailed statement of
Yes, yes, so many disadvantages and so much unfairness (yawn)......see above.
If we are to be taken seriously as representatives of business interests, we need to smarten up immediately -- not sometime in the future, not when a notional charter is completed, not when we get around to it but immediately in every action we take. I say this across the board in our operations --
That's one thing we can all agree on, not just now after you've lost an election or before seeking the other position, but *always.* But, glad to see you're embracing the need for change.
from working on the Credentials Committee assessing new member applications & being involved in disciplining members; in my work on developing the new charter and encouraging a deliberate move to a new and broader mode of operation and in our work on policy development process improvements. On
You started to "campaign" again here, but then "oops" on the "disciplining members" -- you're talking about me, right? :) And the charter? That's not something to be proud of, it was totalitarian and even the NCUC has been mocking it: http://listserv.syr.edu/scripts/wa.exe?A2=ind0909&L=ncuc-discuss&T=0&O=D&P=2... http://listserv.syr.edu/scripts/wa.exe?A2=ind0909&L=ncuc-discuss&T=0&O=D&P=3... If we want to get an acceptable new charter, it's so hard to modify the draft one it might simply be easier to copy verbatim another constituency's charter, perhaps even the one Dirk drafted for the CityTLDs: http://gnso.icann.org/files/gnso/en/improvements/ctldc-petition-charter-reda... which followed the GNSO new template very well, although it would of course need to be tweaked for the BC.
the latter, no BC representative has been present on the Working Group on PDP improvements for many months.
Ouch, are you "calling someone out" for not showing up, just as I did at: http://forum.icann.org/lists/bc-gnso/msg00316.html which might have prompted some scary "discipline"? Oh, please do tell: https://st.icann.org/icann-ppsc/index.cgi?pdp_team there are only 2 BC members on that work team, yourself and Mike Rodenbaugh, the same Mike Rodenbaugh who hasn't shown up at the last 2 RAP workgroup calls, and came on in the last couple of minutes of the prior one, yet proudly trumpets all the "work" he does for the constituency. Yet, has time to post comments in a "personal capacity" on the Council list: http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg07217.html that have never been cross-posted to the BC list. Comments which I agree with, as to conflicts of interest, but which are highly amusing and ironic coming from him, given what's been said on this list before re: applying for new gTLDs! Let's agree that the constituency needs more "work horses" and fewer "show horses."
I am also making an official request that the results of the election are made public showing who voted for whom and how the weighted votes were applied.
It's funny, because in the "star chamber", where I was told from on high I should appreciate the "special privilege" of giving direct input into the new charter, I advocated transparent voting, using systems like BigPulse.com that is used by ALAC, or like the Registry Constituency who uses the "workgroup" model of showing who voted in favour of a position, and those who didn't could create a minority position that appears in final statements. Did those get reflected in the new draft charter? Of course not! But, since you asked, I'd be happy to tell you I cast all 3 votes of my company (you had the chance to change the small business definition too, so that companies like me get lower fees and only 1 vote) against you, against the officers, and for change in the right direction, for excellence, for Mike Roberts. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
Thank you George I am not a Business Constituency insider and never have been. I am a new member, having only recently renewed my annual subscription for the second time. I am a volunteer, like many others, who gives my time freely. I call out problems where I see them -- both privately and publicly. Liz On 3 Sep 2009, at 17:38, George Kirikos wrote:
Liz, Liz, Liz,
(long message ahead, folks don't have to read it if they don't want to!)
On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 3:34 AM, Liz Williams<lizawilliams@mac.com> wrote:
I am very disappointed with the conduct (not the results) of the elections
It would have been more appropriate to voice those concerns during the election, rather than ex post, where it comes off as sour grapes. Had you won the election, instead of experiencing a resounding defeat (62% to 30% for Mike Roberts), would we have ever heard about election problems? I think not.
and have set out below my suggestions for a way forward. The problems with the election illustrate again, despite months of discussion about accountability, transparency, charter improvements and policy development processes that we still haven't got things right.
I'm glad you're finally coming to the realization of what a lot of members know, that there are a lot of things that need improvement in the constituency. Members like myself have been pushing those positive changes forward, and until now the "establishment" has been pushing against them, and indeed as we've seen with the totalitarian draft charter of a few days ago, are attempting to weaken the base of the constituency even further.
Indeed, this is the first time the BC has voted on *any* matter since the officers imposed a budget that did not reflect the wishes of the members, and violated our charter by issuing a statement in support of the IRT without the requisite vote, amongst other examples of poor leadership. It was a poor strategic decision to align yourself so closely with the "establishment" (you were "their" candidate, after all, with the nomination/blessing of one of the officers, Philip Sheppard). Not only were people voting against you (an incumbent, who had every advantage in this election), not only were they voting for Mike Roberts, a candidate of great stature, but the vote represented a repudiation of the leadership of this constituency, given the first opportunity to vote in a manner that would send a message.
It's been 2 days since that repudiation, and hopefully they have heard that loud and clear. It would seem so, given the lack of open support by them (and indeed anyone) in your attempt to take the Large-Business rep NomCom position.
I preface my remarks by saying how delighted I am that Mike Roberts has been encouraged to join our efforts -- the test for him will be whether he actually joins the constituency and takes an active role in its operations.
These backhanded compliments really reveal another reason people might have voted against you. You've done this before:
http://forum.icann.org/lists/bc-gnso/msg00255.html
when initially praising Mike Roberts, but instead of leaving it at that, you tossed in a big "However........" It does not take a great level of sophistication to see this, and I'm sure I'm not the only one who noticed.
place. I was asked for and I submitted a note to the Councillors expressing my interest in volunteering for the Large Business representative seat, should no other nominees be received. I don't know whether Waudo was given that option.
As Marilyn noted earlier, it's educational to see all the back-room maneuvering that took place here, another "strike" against the leadership of this constituency. As she wrote:
"However, I strongly object to the officers approaching someone engaged in an active election and offering them a different seat than the one they were standing for. That step however, was entirely unknown to the membership so did not affect the vote of any member. In fact, we are learning about it only now, from Liz, who has volunteered this information to us. Of course, theoutreach should not have happened, and really, the offer deserved to be declined as inappropriate."
On the RAP Workgroup, I've recently written up the topic of "front running", which involve the use of insider information.
https://st.icann.org/reg-abuse-wg/index.cgi?domain_front_running
Had the plan succeeded, it would have been a classic case of the use of "insider information" to gain an unfair advantage.
2. We are now in a situation where two candidates have lost the election who could have been selected for the position as runners-up. There is nothing in the By-laws that would have prevented that happening, except that the nominees may not have wanted to.
It was not even a close election. An incumbent candidate with 30% of the votes is in no position to be asking for the job as "runner up."
Waudo and I have been significantly disadvantaged in the choices open to us
Oh, but you had seemingly every advantage that you neglected to mention. You had the blessing of an officer. You had the officers choosing the timing of the election. You had the ability to vote for yourself (Mike Roberts didn't vote for himself, as he had no votes at all). You had pre-campaigning on the mailing list (and an attempt to eliminate Mike Roberts from the ballot) in July:
http://forum.icann.org/lists/bc-gnso/msg00255.html
You had a year in office to "prove yourself" and meet people from the constituency at meetings around the world, with travel fully paid for by ICANN.
Those don't sound like "disadvantages" to me.
-- as a representative of WITSA Waudo is qualified to represent large business interests; having worked for large corporations I am qualified to do the same. Indeed employment with a large organisation is not a requirement of this post -- sensitivity to the various needs of large businesses is much more important.
I've bought a Big Mac, but it doesn't qualify me to run McDonald's or represent their needs. All the alchemy and incantations in the world cannot transform bronze into gold, or a Category 3 member of the BC into a Category 1 member that represents large businesses, like Rick's company.
Having said that, I would support Rick's candidacy because he is able, highly critical of the constituency and may have some influence on making positive changes. My issue is that the process was not public beforehand and candidates have not been treated equitably.
Indeed, it's nice to see you stand up so publicly to talk about people being treated "equitably." Where was that sense of equity, justice and due process when you and the officers tried to have me removed from the constituency in the past few weeks, issuing private "warnings", convening a "star chamber" without any evidence or proof? Dear lady, when all is said and done, people value honesty more than fake civility, a lesson I hope you have learned from all this. They'll keep people like me around who are honest and plain speaking, because people like me are for "positive changes." This has been a year of "change" and the ones that go are the ones who stand in the way of it.
This election has been a litmus test that the officers who cling to "power" and "titles" know went against them. There are people in life who want to "be somebody", but there are others who want to "DO something." There's a big difference. Most people have outgrown high school cliques, outgrown "running for class president." That's why the power flows from the *members* who want to *DO* something. Officers are there to *serve* the members, seek their input and follow their wishes.
4. With respect to Mike Roberts' nomination, it was very unfair that neither Waudo or I were given the chance to have a detailed statement of
Yes, yes, so many disadvantages and so much unfairness (yawn)......see above.
If we are to be taken seriously as representatives of business interests, we need to smarten up immediately -- not sometime in the future, not when a notional charter is completed, not when we get around to it but immediately in every action we take. I say this across the board in our operations --
That's one thing we can all agree on, not just now after you've lost an election or before seeking the other position, but *always.* But, glad to see you're embracing the need for change.
from working on the Credentials Committee assessing new member applications & being involved in disciplining members; in my work on developing the new charter and encouraging a deliberate move to a new and broader mode of operation and in our work on policy development process improvements. On
You started to "campaign" again here, but then "oops" on the "disciplining members" -- you're talking about me, right? :) And the charter? That's not something to be proud of, it was totalitarian and even the NCUC has been mocking it:
http://listserv.syr.edu/scripts/wa.exe?A2=ind0909&L=ncuc-discuss&T=0&O=D&P=2... http://listserv.syr.edu/scripts/wa.exe?A2=ind0909&L=ncuc-discuss&T=0&O=D&P=3...
If we want to get an acceptable new charter, it's so hard to modify the draft one it might simply be easier to copy verbatim another constituency's charter, perhaps even the one Dirk drafted for the CityTLDs:
http://gnso.icann.org/files/gnso/en/improvements/ctldc-petition-charter-reda...
which followed the GNSO new template very well, although it would of course need to be tweaked for the BC.
the latter, no BC representative has been present on the Working Group on PDP improvements for many months.
Ouch, are you "calling someone out" for not showing up, just as I did at:
http://forum.icann.org/lists/bc-gnso/msg00316.html
which might have prompted some scary "discipline"? Oh, please do tell:
https://st.icann.org/icann-ppsc/index.cgi?pdp_team
there are only 2 BC members on that work team, yourself and Mike Rodenbaugh, the same Mike Rodenbaugh who hasn't shown up at the last 2 RAP workgroup calls, and came on in the last couple of minutes of the prior one, yet proudly trumpets all the "work" he does for the constituency. Yet, has time to post comments in a "personal capacity" on the Council list:
http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg07217.html
that have never been cross-posted to the BC list. Comments which I agree with, as to conflicts of interest, but which are highly amusing and ironic coming from him, given what's been said on this list before re: applying for new gTLDs!
Let's agree that the constituency needs more "work horses" and fewer "show horses."
I am also making an official request that the results of the election are made public showing who voted for whom and how the weighted votes were applied.
It's funny, because in the "star chamber", where I was told from on high I should appreciate the "special privilege" of giving direct input into the new charter, I advocated transparent voting, using systems like BigPulse.com that is used by ALAC, or like the Registry Constituency who uses the "workgroup" model of showing who voted in favour of a position, and those who didn't could create a minority position that appears in final statements. Did those get reflected in the new draft charter? Of course not!
But, since you asked, I'd be happy to tell you I cast all 3 votes of my company (you had the chance to change the small business definition too, so that companies like me get lower fees and only 1 vote) against you, against the officers, and for change in the right direction, for excellence, for Mike Roberts.
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
participants (4)
-
George Kirikos -
Liz Williams -
Marilyn Cade -
waudo siganga