[bc-gnso] Elections

[Liz Williams]

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 at 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=255
> http://listserv.syr.edu/scripts/wa.exe?A2=ind0909&L=ncuc-discuss&T=0&O=D&P=368
>
> 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-redacted-01jun09.pdf
>
> 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/
>