Return to atlarge Forum - Message Thread - FAQ

Username: Professor
Date/Time: Mon, February 28, 2000 at 6:26 PM GMT (Mon, February 28, 2000 at 2:26 PM EDT)
Browser: Microsoft Internet Explorer V5.01 using Windows 98
Score: 5
Subject: Response to questions

Message:
 

 
                        Q.A.1. Should ICANN require additional qualifications or at-large membership?
Ans.  Not at this time as the proposed system appears fair, simple and doable.

Q.B.1. At what point should membership registrations be considered to expire for purposes of data verification?
Ans.  The 30-day limit is fine.

Q.C.1. What means of member-to-member communication should ICANN provide?
Ans.  A secure (password protected), Internet-based electronic mailing list for all At Large members is perhaps the most desirable. Group messages can be mailed out to members and members may engage in private communication.

Q.C.2. What policies should apply to the use of such means of communication?
Ans.  The policies should facilitate communications among members, while ensuring the privacy of those communications.

Q.D.1. In general, what should the nomination process be?
Ans.  The process should be as open, and as publicized, as possible.

Q.D.2. What nomination criteria should apply to candidates for the At Large Council?
Ans.  Nomination criteria could include submitting to a Q&A about ICANN to get a sense of the candidate’s knowledge and inclinations.

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?
Ans.  Perhaps there could be a mix of regional and global candidates to equalize out the concerns. The former would be voted on only by regional members, while the latter would voted on globally.

Q.E.2. Should candidates for the At Large Council all run globally, or should candidates choose between global and regional candidacies?
Ans.  See above Q.E.1. answer.

Q.E.3. Should members cast unweighted or preferential ballots for At Large Council seats?
Ans. Yes, unweighted ballots would seem preferable.


Q.E.5. Should individual ballots be made public?
Ans.  Yes, as maintaining secret ballots would server no apparent purpose.

Q.E.6. Should ICANN (or a trusted third party) confidentially retain ballots to allow for independent verification of individual votes?
Ans.  Ballots can be “earmarked” by password encryption to avoid necessity of encumbering the process.

Q.G.1. What avenues for campaigning should be made available?
Ans.  Use the Internet (mailing list, web pages for posting flyers…) for campaigning.

Q.G.2. Should ICANN provide a forum in which members can post comments on particular candidates?
Ans.  This would be possible if the forum were moderated to avoid radicalization of the hyperboles inherent in campaigning.

Q.G.3. Should ICANN attempt to limit campaign expenditures? If so, how would ICANN monitor and enforce the limitations?
Ans.  Not enforceable so do not do it.

Q.I.1. Should ICANN require that no more than half of the At Large Council members come from any one geographic region?
Ans.  Perhaps a system determined by the percentage of Internet users in any one region…The higher the percentage, the more members can come from that region.

Q.J.1. What should the duties of the At Large Council be?
Ans.   The At Large Council should be involved in discussing and voting on issues. The Board could run the daily business as an “Executive Board,” subject to involvement and approval of the Council.

     
     
     
     

 


Message Thread:


Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy