Re: [bc-gnso] Nomcom election

[George Kirikos <icann@xxxxxxxx>]

Hello,

According to the August 17, 2009 notice:

http://forum.icann.org/lists/bc-gnso/msg00319.html

"Nominations must indicate whether the candidate is standing to
represent  small business or large business. Candidates cannot stand
for both."

I believe this language was very clear. Someone who has already stood
for the small business seat cannot stand for the large business seat.

Furthermore, I was always under the impression that Fairwinds Partners
(Phil Lodico's company) was a Category 1 BC member (i.e. "large"). If
that's not the case, then I think members might have protested the
appointment last year, had they known this apparent discrepancy,
especially given there was already a controversy last year over the
exclusion of Rick Anderson's nomination. The public BC Members list at
http://www.bizconst.org/members.htm should be augmented with an
additional column with the membership category of each organization,
for transparency.

Sincerely,

George Kirikos
416-588-0269
http://www.leap.com/

On Mon, Sep 7, 2009 at 4:07 AM, Philip Sheppard<philip.sheppard@xxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
> Marilyn,
> thank you for informing us about your complaint to the Ombudsman.
> This does seem unfortunate.
>
> You seem also to think it was OK for yourself to post an interpretation about
> election eligibility to the list but seek to silence an elected BC officer
> replying with a clarification that is consistent with past BC practise. For 
> the
> record I have not nominated anyone for the current election. I did nominate a
> candidate for the previous now complete election.
>
> Clarification
> 1. The election notice states the following:
> "Nominations for candidates should be made by a paid-up member of the BC
> nominating ONE candidate. Candidates can be either a paid-up member of the BC 
> or
> someone who is demonstrably associated/affiliated to the BC. This
> association/affiliation must be explained clearly by the candidate in his or 
> her
> election statement."
>
> 2. Previous BC appointees to the nom com have been as follows.
>
> 2004 Mike Roberts (S) & Grant Forsyth (L). Roberts was from a small company
> member, Forsyth from a large.
> 2005 Marilyn Cade (S) & Catherine Gabay (L). Cade was from a small company 
> (but
> ex AT&T, a large company). Gabay was from a category 2 regional association
> representing more small companies than large.
> 2006 Ken Fockler (S) & Catherine Gabay (L). Fockler was ex ICANN Board (?) and
> associated with a small BC member. Gabay was from a category 2 regional
> association representing more small companies than large.
> 2007 Waudo Siganga (S) & Grant Forsyth (L). Siganga was from large BC member 
> but
> had a network of small companies. Forsyth was by then not a BC member.
> 2008 Liz Williams (S) & Phil Lodico (L) . Williams was from a small company BC
> member. Lodico was also from a small company BC member but had a network of
> large companies.
>
> 3. In other words past BC practise - as I tried to explain in my previous 
> email
> - is exactly NOT strict on matching BC member category to the two nom com 
> roles.
> If it did do we exclude category 2?
>
> That is why I said it was up to the candidate to explain to us all WHY they 
> had
> particular qualities that fit the nom com seat - in this case the large 
> business
> seat.
>
> Philip
>
>