<html>
<head>
<style>
.hmmessage P
{
margin:0px;
padding:0px
}
body.hmmessage
{
font-size: 10pt;
font-family:Verdana
}
</style>
</head>
<body class='hmmessage'>
<br>Several interesting points are raised in the posting from Liz Williams below.<div>I have some sympathy for some points raised, and do not support some others. </div><div>For example, for over 27 years of my professional career, I worked for a multi national </div><div>corporation; represented said company in numerous industry groups, coalitions, and </div><div>organizations. Today, I am the owner/operator of a micro enterprise, that provides </div><div>advisory services and policy analysis, and some other forms of strategic planning to </div><div>large companies. However, my company is a SME. Maybe a M-SME. :-) My point is</div><div>that many of the SMEs in the BC might be able to 'identify' with large businesses, </div><div>but they are not actually large businesses, and there is a rationale for the separation</div><div>of the two seats allocated to the BC. </div><div><br></div><div>Originally, and perhaps this history is a little useful, the Board did not intend to give</div><div>the second seat to the BC. In fact, I was engaged in a quite detailed debate with the </div><div>then CEO and staff who were even favoring giving the seat to the Small Business Administration</div><div>representative of the US, who was very enthused about such a role. I protested this</div><div>to various Board members, and spent a lot of time with ICANN General Counsel and </div><div>CEO, detailing why the BC should assume this role. </div><div><br></div><div>Philip Sheppard, also an officer at that time, supported the analysis of the BC membership</div><div> that is the basis of the analysis that appears on the BC site, noting the number </div><div>of SMEs, and large corporations. The Board and CEO were persuaded, and although</div><div>others objected, we were given two distinct seats, for two distinct categories of business. </div><div><br></div><div>I think that we have to remember that we are blessed to have two seats on the </div><div>nominating committee and that one is to come from small business and one from</div><div>large business. We should not run the risk of losing the second seat by playing </div><div>fast and loose with the principle behind the two seats. I was engaged in the </div><div>negotiations to get the BC two seats, and this is a privilege that others [constituencies] </div><div>do envy. We could easily lose the second seat. </div><div><br></div><div>I do not agree that an SME should take the seat that is intended for large business. </div><div>Indeed, a candidate who last year was representing small businesses for that seat on the NomComm, </div><div>really can't just reappear now as the large business seat holder, without creating concern and perhaps </div><div>challenge to the right of the BC to have that second seat. </div><div><br></div><div>I am aware, as a former elected officer, that there is the option to 'second' a willing member, when no </div><div>candidate is available. However, I strongly object to the officers approaching someone engaged in </div><div>an <b>active election</b> and offering them a different seat than the one they were standing for. </div><div><br></div><div>That step however, was entirely unknown to the membership so did not affect the vote of any member. In fact, </div><div>we are learning about it only now, from Liz, who has volunteered this information to us. Of course, the</div><div>outreach should not have happened, and really, the offer deserved to be declined as inappropriate.</div><div><br></div><div>I am aware that we have a volunteer who is qualified from large business. I see two options:</div><div>The officers can accept Rick's volunteering and appoint him to fill the large business seat, or they</div><div>can reopen a nomination period for nominations of representatives from large businesses, and </div><div>hold a second election. </div><div><br></div><div>As to the communication I posted in my nomination and endorsement of Mike Roberts, that was</div><div>certainly an option available to all three candidates. And the candidates could have requested </div><div>a call with members to explain their interest and expertise to fill the small business seat. I think it </div><div>is important not to discredit the election of the small business representative in any way. </div><div><br></div><div>I can understand that there was probably concern by the officers about filling the seat. But they should not</div><div>be recruiting a SME to fill the large business seat. IF it were absolutely necessary, they should come to the </div><div>membership for agreement. </div><div><br></div><div>Once there were no nominations,</div><div>that should have been announced to the members, and a second opportunity opened for nominations. </div><div>That can still happen. Or the Officers can accept Rick Anderson's volunteering. But candidates who fit the SME </div><div>qualifications don't magically turn into large businesses -- as much as even I might hope for such status for my</div><div>own small business. </div><div><br></div><div>So, I oppose having an SME -- even myself -- fill the seat for large business in this situation. </div><div><br></div><div>Finally, I am under the impression that all votes are confidential, so I don't think that they can be made </div><div>public. I am not detecting that Liz is stating that she thinks there was election fraud, or anything of that</div><div>sort, and while the turn out was low, the BC doesn't have a minimal number of members who must vote</div><div>on any decision, whatever it is. </div><div><br></div><div>I, like others, greatly appreciate the work that volunteers do for the BC. WE all benefit. And certainly, </div><div>I appreciate the work that was done on the NomComm last year by both Phil and Liz. In no way is that </div><div>my point. </div><div><br></div><div>If there need to be more detailed criteria written out for elections such as this, and more guidance </div><div>to the officers, I would certainly volunteer to work with others, and the secretariat, to develop such </div><div>guidelines. ICANN staff could even be part of assisting in developing election process guidelines. </div><div>It is often good to document procedures in any case. And we have now learned that we need more detailed</div><div>procedures. </div><div><br></div><div>For instance, just to give an example of the kind of procedural details that can be helpful: if there is no nomination put forward,</div><div>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. </div><div><br></div><div>No contacts should be made with nominated candidates to encourage them to change their candidacy in any way. </div><div>Candidates must establish how they fit the required criteria. </div><div><br></div><div>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</div><div>seat. That loses the distinct nature of the two seats, which I advise against. </div><div><br></div><div>I am confident that the secretariat has fulfilled his duties with intregrity and thoroughness. I would ask the officers to </div><div>advise the members how they plan to proceed on either accepting Rick Anderson and 'seconding' him to this position,</div><div>or opening an election limited to only qualified large business representatives for this role. </div><div><br></div><div>Marilyn Cade </div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br><div><br><br><br><br>> From: lizawilliams@mac.com<br>> To: bc-gnso@icann.org<br>> Subject: [bc-gnso] Elections<br>> Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2009 08:34:47 +0100<br>> <br>> <br>> Colleagues<br>> <br>> I am very disappointed with the conduct (not the results) of the <br>> elections and have set out below my suggestions for a way forward. <br>> The problems with the election illustrate again, despite months of <br>> discussion about accountability, transparency, charter improvements <br>> and policy development processes that we still haven't got things right.<br>> <br>> I preface my remarks by saying how delighted I am that Mike Roberts <br>> has been encouraged to join our efforts -- the test for him will be <br>> whether he actually joins the constituency and takes an active role in <br>> its operations.<br>> <br>> I am most concerned about the way in which the election process was run.<br>> <br>> 1. No nominee for the large business representative was received. <br>> Three nominations were received for the small business <br>> representative. There was no plan from the Councillors to address <br>> that - either through an appointment process or whatever that was made <br>> PUBLIC before the elections took place. I was asked for and I <br>> submitted a note to the Councillors expressing my interest in <br>> volunteering for the Large Business representative seat, should no <br>> other nominees be received. I don't know whether Waudo was given that <br>> option.<br>> <br>> 2. We are now in a situation where two candidates have lost the <br>> election who could have been selected for the position as runners-up. <br>> There is nothing in the By-laws that would have prevented that <br>> happening, except that the nominees may not have wanted to.<br>> <br>> 3. We now have a presumptive nominee (Rick Anderson) sending in his <br>> nomination AFTER the fact with a statement as to why he should be <br>> elected when there isn't even a nomination period open. He didn't <br>> nominate in the first place and shouldn't be given preferential <br>> treatment in any "second" round, especially where other candidates <br>> have spent time and effort finding nominees, submitting statements of <br>> suitability, going through an election where they have to seek support <br>> for their candidature. Members will recall the fuss and bother last <br>> year, over exactly this issue, when Rick protested about not having <br>> his nomination in on time and he was excluded from running.<br>> <br>> Waudo and I have been significantly disadvantaged in the choices open <br>> to us -- as a representative of WITSA Waudo is qualified to represent <br>> large business interests; having worked for large corporations I am <br>> qualified to do the same. Indeed employment with a large organisation <br>> is not a requirement of this post -- sensitivity to the various needs <br>> of large businesses is much more important.<br>> <br>> Having said that, I would support Rick's candidacy because he is able, <br>> highly critical of the constituency and may have some influence on <br>> making positive changes. My issue is that the process was not public <br>> beforehand and candidates have not been treated equitably.<br>> <br>> 4. With respect to Mike Roberts' nomination, it was very unfair that <br>> neither Waudo or I were given the chance to have a detailed statement <br>> of support from our nominees, in exactly the way that Marilyn did for <br>> Mike. This was a decision taken by the Secretariat which, for perhaps <br>> uninformed and disinterested voters, was the information that they <br>> needed to sway their vote. My argument is not that the statement <br>> shouldn't have been distributed but that each candidate would have had <br>> the same opportunity. We are now in exactly the same situation with <br>> Rick Anderson receiving letters of support -- what other potential <br>> candidate would be silly enough to stand in the face of a self- <br>> nomination in a pseudo election by default?<br>> <br>> If we are to be taken seriously as representatives of business <br>> interests, we need to smarten up immediately -- not sometime in the <br>> future, not when a notional charter is completed, not when we get <br>> around to it but immediately in every action we take. I say this <br>> across the board in our operations -- from working on the Credentials <br>> Committee assessing new member applications & being involved in <br>> disciplining members; in my work on developing the new charter and <br>> encouraging a deliberate move to a new and broader mode of operation <br>> and in our work on policy development process improvements. On the <br>> latter, no BC representative has been present on the Working Group on <br>> PDP improvements for many months.<br>> <br>> I am also making an official request that the results of the election <br>> are made public showing who voted for whom and how the weighted votes <br>> were applied.<br>> <br>> Liz<br>> <br>> <br>> <br>> <br>> ...<br>> <br>> Liz Williams<br>> +44 1963 364 380<br>> +44 7824 877757<br>> <br>> <br>> <br></div></div>
</body>
</html>