@ericgeater wrote:
You're stating concerns that you believe affect the membership at large, and I completely agree that terms like transparency and ethics tend to arouse an alignment within a group who are, shall we say, innately aware of the importance of clear, just, unbiased leadership.
I think your campaign would greatly benefit from succinctly hearing exactly how your concerns would benefit me as a member. Because, at this point, I'm only aware that there's a beef (or cause célèbre, or struggle, or what have you) with an organization who -- like any other organization -- has the express right to establish its governance as its leadership sees fit.
Eric,
You make good points. Personally I have elaborated on many of these things at https://www.be-represented.org.
To your direct question, I think we are at a crucial time for our profession. We are seeing fragmented debates about licensure across the globe. There are concerning examples from Australia, Singapore, Japan, the UK, the US, and many other countries. There is a documented workforce shortage in our industry. Organizations and individuals around the world are continuously hammered with devastating ransomware attacks.
The association operates globally as a 501c6 expressly to protect our shared interests as security professionals and, as its Bylaws state, to deliver value to society.
I may not be fully aligned with the other petitioners and might ask questions differently but at the core we as members deserve to be informed about how (ISC)2 is applying its funds to protect our shared interests and to deliver value to society.
I disagree with your assessment that (ISC)2 has the express right to establish its governance as its leadership sees fit. The articles of incorporation, the association's Bylaws, its 501c6 status, and its certifications' ISO17024 significantly restrict what its leadership can do. Changes to the Bylaws can only be implemented after approval by the membership. This is primarily where the Board, over the past 3 years, has changed its approach. When I was on the Board, and I believe the same goes for @dcontesti and @TrickyDicky , we understood that the Bylaws were written succinctly and quite openly. It was our policy to take a very conservative reading of the Bylaws. Most recently the Board seems to have reversed that and it currently applies a very liberal reading of the Bylaws. Running a slate with only 5 candidates for 5 open seats is an example of that. It is not strictly against the Bylaws but it is definitely against the spirit of the Bylaws. This also goes for the composition of the Ethics committee and the merging of the Ethics and the Bylaws committee. These are 3 governance actions that are questionable at best considering all limiting factors mentioned above. If the association continues on this path, ISO17024 accreditation and 501c6 status may even be impacted.
The Board overseeing the CEO should ensure that the organization focuses on its 2 stated reasons for existence.
As a member, or generally as a security professional, you would greatly benefit from an association that finds its focus back, that is committed and involved on furthering our profession and not just by giving away 1 million free entry level certifications but by actively helping politics and society globally understand what they can expect from a security professional and how to recognize professionals from amateurs. Not to mention providing society information, insight, and tools that help to protect itself.
All that said, (ISC)2's Board is supposed to be elected by its membership. The upcoming election, if no petitions are successful, is just a confirmation of the Board's will. It's counter to anything we should reasonable expect from a representative Board, to the basics of the association's 501c6 status, and to the association's claims on its Form 990 submissions.
Sic semper tyrannis.
