> Should ICANN require additional qualifications for at-large
> membership?Answers
are sometimes gleaned from the most unlikely sources if we only bother to really
LISTEN. Thus, even a person of non-technical background can make valuable suggestions
on technical issues which are normally over their heads. In making the attempt to
be credible, dont throw out the baby with the bath water.
> At what point should
membership registrations be considered to
> expire for purposes of data verification?
I
believe there should be a group of 3 people using different addresses (ISPs/domains
- not connected to each other for email purposes) who mail out at a quarterly basis
requiring an answer within 14 days. Should there be no reply, the person should be
considered to have expired but only if all 3 sources verify this. That way, should
someone drop out for reasons unknown, it can be quickly taken care of. Also, this
means people have to remain active enough to at least let one or more of those 3
know they will be on holidays at a the time that those emails would be sent out.
Other than that, there should be expiration on a yearly basis, renewable or not,
at that time.
> C. Members' Mailing Lists or Forums
> open, Web-based public
comment forum
Definitely not on web based forum. A mailing list run on the equipment
of a designated party would be preferred. For example, I have run mailing lists using
Arrow software (I am not connected with them in any way other than being a registered
users) and ran them on my own home lan, connecting to the net for email exchange.
It is not hard and can be run on a dial-in or broadband connection connected to the
net 24 hours a day thus not limiting to countries where broadband exists and disallowing
others where it doesnt. The designated person can eliminate spam and also would have
to be trusted to be a fair and reasonable person should moderation be required. However,
the list should be UNmoderated. A moderated list has an unfortunate limiting effect
on occasions. Such lists should ban the sending of HTML based messages and binaries.
>
Q.C.1. What means of member-to-member communication should ICANN
> provide?
The
mailing list as I mentioned above. Other than that, should 2 or more people jointly
want to devise a plan - or perfect it - that isnt ready for presentation to all,
they can fall back on normal email. However, it should be taken into account that
an agreed upon encryption method be used, as needed, where needed. Ability to translate
what is sent into the native language of the member. Members may not speak each others'
language or even if so, the concept in the other language may not translate easily
unless presented in the language of the member. Proposing members, for example, may
speak Spanish and others may not. Translation of languages is a must.
> Q.C.2.
What policies should apply to the use of such means of
> communication?
Keep
communication civil. Unencumbered communication, private between members or between
members in general is best in my opinion.
> D.1. In general, what should the nomination
process be?
As broad a spread of ability and nationality as possible.
> Q.D.2.
What nomination criteria should apply to candidates for the > At Large Council?
Ability
to put forward a point of view clearly and concisely. Dont be overawed by the qualifications
of a person to be a member. There are those who are educated who cannot think outside
rigid lines and there are those without qualifications who can think well enough
to take into account the ramifications of decisions made without having to know that
"A connects to D by going through B and C first".
> Q.D.3. What nomination criteria
should apply to candidates for the > ICANN Board?
Tolerance and ability to listen
above all else.
> Q.E.1. Should the Board maintain the principle that the regional
> members of the At Large Council be elected solely by the residents > of the
candidates' regions?
Yes. It is a far too common practice, these days, that where
there is an opportunity for global decision making, countries become singled out
and accused. We want to steer clear of this sort of possibility from the start. Thus
elections held regionally by the people living in that region is a must.
Q.E.2.
Should candidates for the At Large Council all run globally, or should candidates
choose between global and regional candidacies?
Personally, I believe that all
candidates should be regional only and report to the regional member who is a representative
to the global council. Thus, should the region decide the answer is "A" via vote
resolution, the global member should report this vote from his/her region directly
to the global council.
> Q.E.3. Should members cast unweighted or preferential
ballots for
> At Large Council seats?
Vote for your first preference should
get highest priority. If it becomes clear the voter's high priority wont be elected,
then the preferences should come in, down the line to the end of preferences available.
Eg, if priority number 2 doesnt get in then the 3rd preference takes precedence.
At no time should the preferences of a voter be used where the choice is elected,
be that at first, second or whatever stage. When a peson gets in, all preferences
under that vote should be ignored. Otherwise, a primary vote could be outvoted by
a 3rd preference vote.
> Q.E.4. What level of transparency is necessary to provide
> reasonable assurance of the integrity of the voting system?
Fully OPEN voting.
Member name and then the vote.
> Q.E.5. Should individual ballots be made public?
Yes.
Secret ballots make it possible for too much distrust.
> Q.E.6. Should ICANN (or
a trusted third party) confidentially
> retain ballots to allow for independent
verification of individual > votes?
All votes should be made a matter of public
record on the web page and offline copies stored by someone nominated as the "Records
Officer" for want of a better title.
> Q.F.1. Should independent election monitoring
be incorporated in
> the At Large membership election process?
Not needed so
long as the way in which votes is handled is known and adhered to and the results
made public to all.
> Q.F.2. Should independent verification of ballots be incorporated
> in the At Large membership election process?
Yes to an extent. A member can
be chosen randomly from another region to ensure the voting of this region has been
conducted properly.
> Q.F.3. What independent third parties might be appropriate
election > monitors?
After regional checking verification, that very much depends
on the region in which the vote is held and local laws that may affect that. If none
exist, then the region's version of a "public notary" should be used.
> Q.G.1.
What avenues for campaigning should be made available?
Try mailing lists once more
but rather than individual messages, you CAN make a mailing list a digest form, daily,
weekly, whatever time you like. I suggest a daily digest. Thus, whatever the number
of posts, only one daily email will be received with all the posts within that one
digest.
> Q.G.2. Should ICANN provide a forum in which members can post
> comments
on particular candidates?
A profile of each candidate, alterable only by each candidate,
such as it took to get to the position of being able to post this message, should
be maintained. Should anyone want to know more, they can email the particular candidate.
>
Q.G.3. Should ICANN attempt to limit campaign expenditures? If so, > how would ICANN
monitor and enforce the limitations?
Yes. Campaigns should be limited to a statement
of self and intent only and should be something posted only once to each voter. Thus,
campaign funds are not needed. Anything breaking this rule invalidates the candidacy.
>
Q.H.1. How should the terms of the second stage At Large Council
> members be
allocated?
By highest vote only. Thus, those wanted are in the positions most
think they should be.
> Q.I.1. Should ICANN require that no more than half of the
At Large > Council members come from any one geographic region?
No. I believe it
should require that no more than one third are from any one region. It is quite possible
that the whole of Icann could be voted byt the Govts of regions as illegal should
that region see itself as unfairly represented, thus making it impossible for ICANN
to be truly globally representative.
> Q.J.1. What should the duties of the At
Large Council be?
I see their duties as wathcing that ICANN remains truly country
independent and should it be moved that the directorship is being unfair, favouring
one region/group of regions or countries, then a vote can be taken by the At Large
Council which would effectively dissolve and open for nomination all positions therein.
Also, where decisions are made at ICANN level, a certain "revolving" percentage of
the At Large membership should be used in making this decision, thus introducing
future ICANN directors to what goes on at that level and also getting fresh input.
Sometimes, a different point of view can solve a potentially sticky situation.