Voting is open!

[Kaity]

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

[chuck_kesler]

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.

[chuck_kesler]

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.

[AlecTrevelyan]

---

@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.

[TrickyDicky]

---

@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

[AlecTrevelyan]

---

@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.

[GJackson]

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

[InfoSecGuru1]

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.

[InfoSecGuru1]

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

[InfoSecGuru1]

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

Brian Grayek

[InfoSecGuru1]

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