topic Re: Voting is open! in 2019 Board of Directors Election

Voting is open!

Kaity — Mon, 09 Oct 2023 09:20:02 GMT

Voting for the (ISC)² Board of Directors is now open! You're welcome to post questions for the candidates on this board.

In the meantime, you can read about the candidates background, as well as learn about what they hope to achieve on the board over on our website:

https://www.isc2.org/About/Board-of-Directors/Board-Elections

Re: Voting is open!

TrickyDicky — Thu, 12 Sep 2019 15:14:48 GMT

I'd like to start off the questions:

Mr Grayek: When the Board Slate was announced, I did a quick online search for you as I'm not sure we've ever met. When I attempted to validate your certification with the number you provided on LinkedIn, I got a null response. Have you always maintained your (ISC)2 certification or were you not "in good standing" when the Slate was announced?

Re: Voting is open!

TrickyDicky — Thu, 12 Sep 2019 15:29:04 GMT

Question for Mr Melnick: David, congratulations on being nominated on the Slate. There was some criticism from current and past Board members of another candidate (a previous Board member) who was attempting to get on to the Ballot. There was a bit of heated debate on the thread with some open and frank opinions on what added value past Board members could bring afresh.

Would you like to outline what your motivation is in running again after previous service on the Board, and what you feel you'd like to achieve now, that you couldn't before?

Re: Voting is open!

TrickyDicky — Thu, 12 Sep 2019 15:35:20 GMT

To all of the candidates: What's their opinion on being part of an all male Slate? Do they think the Board needs diversity or is it a "nice to have"?

Re: Voting is open!

Shannon — Thu, 12 Sep 2019 16:00:24 GMT

I've yet to go through the profiles, but I'll say one thing to the candidates now:

We're all hoping to see is active participation here by members of the BoD, so this is where you can start to show us the light...

Re: Voting is open!

njwiebe — Thu, 12 Sep 2019 16:14:50 GMT

Seconded. Is there any logical rationale behind all male candidates?

Which Candidate supports going back to reasonable maintenance fees?

marclamb — Thu, 12 Sep 2019 18:44:56 GMT

I pay for my own annual fees to maintain my CISSP and the price increase was an affront, borderline unethical. This cert provides me an entry on my resume and a checkbox for the recruiter (sometimes.) Beyond that there is no value added anything to me and all the other CISSPs I know, which is substantial. In other words there is no justification for the price increase and anything said to support the increase is detached from reality on how the average CISSP uses the site and resources. This is a certification, nothing more, albeit a top tier one. I have countless certs and the maintenance fee for the CISSP now probably is more than all the others combined. I want to know which candidate supports realistic fees and I think others would like to know as well. It is really basic, I don't want double talk, or conditionals, or any other means of getting past a Boolean question. Will the candidate try to work towards reducing the fees back to something reasonable? Yes/No, 0/1, On/Off this is a direct question that requires a direct answer.

--Marcus Lamb

Re: Voting is open!

DavidMelnick — Thu, 12 Sep 2019 20:51:07 GMT

TrickyDicky, I appreciate the question. Following my service while I was a Principal at Deloitte in their Cyber practice. I resigned my partnership and started a company focused on striking a new balance between Security and Privacy which provided Unmonitored Web Browser Isolation allowing companies to provide employees with a private space to conduct personal web browsing which was fully isolated to create a low risk zone blocking downloads and uploads into the corporate network space. As you might imagine this was a bold idea for US CISOs that want telemetry/monitoring on everything, but helped solve problems in Europe where employees arguably have a right to privacy in the work place. Anyway to make a short story long... At the beginning of 2018 my company (Weblife) was acquired by Proofpoint where I am now. This event was somewhat life changing for me personally and led me to consider how I could give back to a profession and community that had given so much to me. This run for me is an act of service. I have the time and desire to offer my time and energy to try and create value for our community.

Re: Voting is open!

DavidMelnick — Thu, 12 Sep 2019 20:53:06 GMT

Diversity leads to better decisions... Period. Not just gender diversity, but diversity of culture, geography, race, etc. I didnt establish the slate, so cant speak specifically to that process but assure you that developing a pipeline of leadership and a diverse board is something I would actively support.

Re: Which Candidate supports going back to reasonable maintenance fees?

DavidMelnick — Thu, 12 Sep 2019 20:59:42 GMT

If all you want is a simple answer, at this point I would say NO. That might not be the vote getting answer, but I am not a great politician. We face a trade off between the services and efforts we undertake for the community (which require money) and our role as a Non Profit,i.e organization that is not designed to make a profit, which should never collect fees it doesnt require. The real questions become two fold:

1st. Are we managing the money efficiently and effectively, i.e. NO WASTE. This is an important question that may be at the core of your comment. We have a key responsibility to be fiscal stewards over the organizations
2nd. How much should we do, beyond provide efficient minimal services for our membership. Should we be marketing/advocating for the community in a 1000 different ways. This is am important question also about not overreaching our mandate or underserving the community. And to this question the community should have input as we shape our strategy moving forward.

Re: Voting is open!

chuck_kesler — Fri, 13 Sep 2019 03:10:16 GMT

Regarding the diversity question, my position is the same as David's. While I did not have any input into the composition of the final slate of candidates, I am a firm believer that having open minded people from a variety of backgrounds can help create a stronger organization. I always appreciate the opportunity to learn from people who have different perspectives, and would be an advocate for ensuring diversity is a consideration in future board discussions and decisions.

Re: Which Candidate supports going back to reasonable maintenance fees?

chuck_kesler — Fri, 13 Sep 2019 03:43:04 GMT

Marcus: Thank you for your question regarding fees. You have raised a valid concern, but I think it's unfair to put this in terms of an absolute yes or no, especially for new board candidates who lack the context for why the fees were raised. Without that information, my boolean answer would be a "no" at this point in time. Based on my knowledge of some of the current board members, I would assume that careful consideration was given to any fee increases. But I am not privy to what those deliberations were.

That said, one of my goals as a board member would be to ensure that all members are getting value for their dues. If I come to the conclusion that sufficient value could be delivered at a lower level of fees, or if other funding sources could be secured in order to offset member fees, I would make lowering fees for members a priority. I recognize that not all members are able to be reimbursed for fees, and that this can be a significant burden for some.

Re: Voting is open!

AlecTrevelyan — Sat, 14 Sep 2019 08:55:28 GMT

@TrickyDicky wrote:
I'd like to start off the questions:
Mr Grayek: When the Board Slate was announced, I did a quick online search for you as I'm not sure we've ever met. When I attempted to validate your certification with the number you provided on LinkedIn, I got a null response. Have you always maintained your (ISC)2 certification or were you not "in good standing" when the Slate was announced?

I was able to find Mr Grayek on LinkedIn and the member ID he has provided on there checks out ok with an expiration date of Feb 2020 so he must have been in good standing when the slate was announced.

Given the current state of ISC2's systems I'd suspect the null response was an issue with the verification tool at the time you checked.

Re: Voting is open!

TrickyDicky — Sat, 14 Sep 2019 11:18:46 GMT

@AlecTrevelyan wrote:

I was able to find Mr Grayek on LinkedIn and the member ID he has provided on there checks out ok with an expiration date of Feb 2020 so he must have been in good standing when the slate was announced.

Given the current state of ISC2's systems I'd suspect the null response was an issue with the verification tool at the time you checked.

Absolutely Alec. I can validate him now, but at the time I couldn't. I also verified my own certification at the time, and that brought me back a positive response (certification verification was working).

My question to Mr Grayek is "Was he in good standing?" i.e. were his CPEs and AMFs up-to-date at the time his name first appeared on the ballot.

I'm not sure if you remember, but he briefly dropped off the ballot after the first notification, then was replaced by another gentleman), and reappeared on it shortly afterwards. I raised the question at the time, but never got a satisfactory answer.

I'd like to hear Mr Grayek's take on it

Re: Voting is open!

AlecTrevelyan — Sun, 15 Sep 2019 08:02:09 GMT

@TrickyDicky wrote:
Absolutely Alec. I can validate him now, but at the time I couldn't. I also verified my own certification at the time, and that brought me back a positive response (certification verification was working).
My question to Mr Grayek is "Was he in good standing?" i.e. were his CPEs and AMFs up-to-date at the time his name first appeared on the ballot.
I'm not sure if you remember, but he briefly dropped off the ballot after the first notification, then was replaced by another gentleman), and reappeared on it shortly afterwards. I raised the question at the time, but never got a satisfactory answer.
I'd like to hear Mr Grayek's take on it

Ah, I see - I wasn't actually aware of that or had forgotten the discussion about it.

Re: Voting is open!

GJackson — Mon, 16 Sep 2019 18:10:54 GMT

Hi everyone,

This conversation was brought to my attention. To provide some clarity, (ISC)² validates each member’s status during the nomination and election process. Only members who are in good standing are eligible to be placed on the slate for the election. I can confirm that all the members on the slate were/are in good standing and eligible.

Please feel free to let me know if you have any additional questions.

Regards,

Graham Jackson

(ISC)² General Counsel

Re: Voting is open!

InfoSecGuru1 — Mon, 16 Sep 2019 20:33:13 GMT

TrickyDicky,
Don't know what you were trying to do or why it wasn't working for you, but I've always maintained my membership in good standing. I paid my yearly maintenance fee in March, so no chance that it was due to non-payment of the yearly maintenance fee. If this did occur, I can't explain what may have happened in the (ISC)2 system. It definitely shows no issues with my account.

Re: Voting is open!

InfoSecGuru1 — Mon, 16 Sep 2019 20:38:23 GMT

TrickyDicky,

I didn't notice that the BoD slate was all male until you mentioned it. I wasn't responsible for the current slate of candidates, but yes, I definitely believe we need to maintain diversity on the BoD.

Since I was nominated by a female BoD member, I'm definitely known for my stance in helping females get started and grow their careers in InfoSec. You may check out my connections in LinkedIn and find that I'm connected with a large number of College/University students/graduates and quite a number are females.

Brian Grayek

Re: Voting is open!

InfoSecGuru1 — Mon, 16 Sep 2019 20:40:38 GMT

Shannon,
We're listening! If you have questions or comments, let us know.

Brian Grayek

Re: Voting is open!

InfoSecGuru1 — Mon, 16 Sep 2019 20:41:43 GMT

njwiebe,
You'd have to address that with the current BoD, but if I'm elected to the Board, I will definitely do all I can to make sure we continue to strive for diversity.

Brian Grayek