[bc-gnso] Nominating Committee - Large Business nominations

["Rick Anderson" <RAnderson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I'd like to thank the officers for re-opening the nomination and
election of the large business seat on the NomCom, and I encourage
others to step forward if they are interested.

I have pasted in below two recent posts on this subject...I was a bit
surprised that Phillip at least now appears to deem the NomCom's
specification that the BC shall have "two voting delegates, one
representing small business users and one representing large business
users" as to be essentially meaningless in practice, with no distinction
as to candidacy, voting etc between the two types of user.

Back in July, when nominations for these two positions were first
opened, the BC Secretariat pointed out that "uniquely, the BC has two
places on the Nominating Committee; one for small business and one for
large business".  Back then, the BC Secretariat stated that "Candidates
cannot stand for both", which would seem a rather logical expression of
the idea that one is either fish or fowl.

In any event, this sprit of egalitarianism gives rise to the hope that
if we in the BC no longer perceive a difference as to large and small
amongst our categories of member, that we large company members who pay
six times as much in membership fees as do micro enterprise members
(1000 euros versus 160 euros) shall soon be extended the same
egalitarianism.

I do not expect that, and I would respectfully suggest that if the BC is
serious about recruiting more large enterprise members, that it not be
so entirely casual about collecting bonus membership fees based on our
size, and then entirely disregard the notion that seats which ICANN
explicitly sets aside to foster the participation of large (and small)
business members can really just be filled by anyone, that a seat for
small business users and a seat for large business users can simply
morph into two seats filled by small business users....if the situation
were reversed and both these seats both came to be filled by members
from large enterprises I can only imagine the hue and cry...

Anyway, I know this shall seem self-serving, and in a sense it is.  But
there is also a principle here, one which goes to ICANN's entire - and
sometimes awkward - mission of engaging stakeholders from multiple
backgrounds and carefully trying to appreciate and balance all of those
various interests.  Respecting that principle in spirit and in action is
really what the BC, GNSO and ICANN are about; if we ever forget that
matter of engaging and respecting the various stakeholder groups and let
things degenerate into whoever has the votes for whatever on a given
day, we shall have lost our way. 

cheers/Rick

Rick Anderson
EVP, InterBorder Holdings Ltd.

randerson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
cell: (403) 830-1798

Calgary office: (403) 750-5535
Scottsdale office: (480) 586-9327

 

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
Of Philip Sheppard
Sent: Friday, September 04, 2009 8:05 AM
To: 'bc - GNSO list'
Subject: [bc-gnso] Nominating Committee - Large Business nominations


Marilyn, 
you raise an interesting question about what qualities the Nom Com are
seeking.
As you rightly said earlier the BC was given by default the large
business seat
and I worked to demonstrate that actually we were equally entitled to a
small
business seat due to our extensive associations membership at the time.
Today we
also have more small business direct members.
 
The nom com charter tells us:

"The NomCom member is expected to do his/her best to find the
highest-qualified candidates for consideration by the NomCom, and to do
his/her best to encourage those individuals to serve".  ie the qualities
are a personal network and persuasiveness.

The Nom Com is comprised of individuals drawn from a pool of different
ICANN stakeholders. It seems therefore that the key rationale between
the small business seat and the large business seat is the ability of
the nom com member to have an appropriate network. It is likely that an
employee of  say a global multinational may have a better network of
global multinational contacts than an employee of a national focused
medium size company. But it is possible that other types of members may
have access to networks in a variety of ways that serve the purpose of
the nom com. I wonder if we may miss out on selecting the best talent if
we are too simplistic in equating current employment background with
personal network.

Anyway it will be for the voters of the BC membership to make that
judgement - not you nor I.

Just my pennyworth.

Philip


------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------
From: owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
Of Marilyn Cade
Sent: Friday, September 04, 2009 7:35 AM
To: secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxx; bc - GNSO list
Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] Nominating Committee - Large Business nominations

I see that the officers have decided to open nominations for candidates
who are from companies, associations, or someone demonstrably
associated/affiliated to the BC that is from a large business, or an
association that serves and represents large businesses [or businesses
of all sizes]. 

While I provide advice, strategy, and consulting to large businesses, I
understand that I and other BC members who are in the SME category are
not eligible to stand for this seat.  That is clearly the past practice
of the BC, in all our previous appointment/elections for the two
Nominating Committee seats, and I had thought that it was in written
guidance in the Charter/which serves as the BC bylaws. I strongly
support maintaining the two separate categories, since that is the
legitimacy upon which the two seats -- while others get only one -- is
based on. Important, in my view, to ensure that we do not jeopardize the
BC having these two distinct seats in the Nominating Committee. 

Accordingly, I will send a separate email to the Secretariat, with a
nomination of someone who fits the large business requirement. 

Thanks to the Officers and secretariat for moving forward.  


 
 
This e-mail message and any attachments may contain confidential and/or 
privileged information intended only for the addressee. In the event this 
e-mail is sent to you in error, sender and sender’s company do not waive 
confidentiality or privilege, and waiver may not be assumed. Any dissemination, 
distribution or copying of, or action taken in reliance on, the contents of 
this e-mail by anyone other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you 
have been sent this e-mail in error, please destroy all copies and notify 
sender at the above e-mail address.
 
Computer viruses can be transmitted by e-mail. You should check this e-mail 
message and any attachments for viruses. Sender and sender’s company accept no 
liability for any damage caused by any virus transmitted by this e-mail. Like 
other forms of communication, e-mail communications may be vulnerable to 
interception by unauthorized parties. If you do not wish to communicate by 
e-mail, please notify sender. In the absence of such notification, your consent 
is assumed. Sender will not take any additional security measures (such as 
encryption) unless specifically requested.