I am concerned with the urge to filter candidates for the board.
The objective should be to offer choice, not limit it. We are dealing
with a sophisticated electorate and will probably know each member by their
long history of participation (or will not have any basis for voting for
them!). We do not have to worry about Phineus Fantom or Net Kook
getting elected just because they can self-nominate. However, we
do have to worry about having a meaningful choice if the nominations must
come from a committee or be supported by a petition of 68 members as is
required by ISOC. That would pose a serious barrier for most members
of the Boston Working Group, for example, though I consider each of them
qualified to be a
candidate as well as to serve.
The real filter is the election. The voters must determine what
qualifications are important to them and who, on balance, will best represent
the constellation of interests, approaches and values they wish to advance.
Any artificial mechanism limiting such choice or the ability of member
participation is inherently suspect and must be rejected unless shown necessary
by clear and compelling justification (burden of proof). Inclination
and personal preference in such regard is not sufficient basis for diminishing
member access to the process.
Eric Weisberg, Gen. Counsel
Internet Texoma
Wendy Seltzer wrote:
...
1:00 - 2:30 Breakout Sessions:
...
How should directors be nominated and elected (Diane Cabell)<br>
