Comments of Thomas Lowenhaupt, March 4, 2000, toml@communisphere.com.NOTE:
While I offer the following comments concerning the proposed election criteria for
the At Large Council, I am fundamentally opposed to a two step election process for
the At Large board seats. However, being aware that this faulty process might move
forward, I offer these comments on the proposed At Large election.
Q.A.1. Should ICANN require additional
qualifications for at-large
membership?
Answer: I'm uncertain what is meant by a "functioning email address"
in this questions' scoping - no reference having been made to a "functional" physical
address. But if the intent was to assure the member has the ability to send and receive
email through an individual address, I'd say such an email address should be the
maximum qualification.
The net is having a significant impact on us all - users
and non-users alike. I'd look to expand suffrage beyond this as soon as practicable.
Outreach and education will be required. Perhaps election authorities in the various
place-based communities might be persuaded to assist in this expansion.
Q.B.1. At what point should
membership
registrations
be considered to expire for
purposes of data verification?
Answer: Until we have a better feel
for voter interest in the ICANN and its election, I'd resist removing members from
the voting pool; especially when 5,000 members are required to keep the At Large
ship afloat. Err on the side of caution and opt for a three year membership.
Q.D.1. In general, what should
the
nomination
process be?
Q.D.2.
What nomination criteria should
apply to candidates for the At Large
Council?
Answer: Requiring expressed support
of 10, 50, or 100 At Large members is an excellent method for narrowing an overly
large candidate field. However, this is only fair if you are playing on an even field.
Here we need to level the playing field. Let me use the undersigned as an example.
To my knowledge, I am not aquatinted with anyone who is an ICANN At Large member.
So, if the ICANN was to set a very low criteria, say that a nomination merely be
seconded, that would be enough to knock someone like me out of the field.
So we
must first do the leveling. There are several way to level, the simplest being through
self-nomination. Each such nominee should then be provided with an opportunity to
do two mailings to the membership. You might want to limit the mailing size but not
its content, i.e., allow them to send a site's address rather than the site itself.
(Each mailing should also educate the recipient about the upcoming election and
the official ICANN Candidate web site.)
After the two mailings you may then require
a certain minimum "expressed support" to become a certified candidate.
Q.D.3. What nomination criteria
should
apply to
candidates for the ICANN Board?
The At Large Council should set the criteria for
candidates to the ICANN board. They should be able to choose from amongst themselves
or any other ICANN member.
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?
Q.E.2. Should candidates for the At Large
Council all run globally, or should
candidates choose between global
and
regional candidacies?
Answer:
Regional apportionment in the existing Supporting Organizations has guaranteed a
measure of diversity on the ICANN board. Regional voting for the At Large Council
is too complex: in the short term it will advantage the Americans and in the long
term the Asians. But by having global elections, we make the At Large Council a global
body, and we acknowledge there is but one Internet and one people. ICANN'a At Large
board members, elected by and shouldering global responsibility, will act as global
citizens.
Q.E.3. Should members cast unweighted or
preferential ballots for At Large Council
seats?
Answer: In my community
we use preferential voting for school board elections and unweighted for all other
elections. Even thought the totaling process is quite befuddling in the preferential
method, its precision outweighs the majoritarian aspects of an unweighted system.
Also, I suspect a computer animated explanation of the preferential totaling process
could more clearly explain the basis for the outcome of this voting method.
Q.E.5. Should individual
ballots be made public?
Answer: No. Keep them secret.
Q.E.6. Should ICANN (or a trusted third
party) confidentially retain
ballots to allow
for independent verification of individual
votes?
Answer: Yes.
Q.F.1. Should independent election
monitoring be incorporated in the
At Large
membership
election process?
Answer: Yes.
Q.F.2. Should independent verification of
ballots be incorporated in the At Large
membership election process?
Answer:
Yes.
Q.G.1. What
avenues for campaigning
should be made available?
Answer: Each candidate should be provided with
the following:
I. Three mailings to the At Large membership. The mailings are to
be performed by an independent authority on a schedule determined by the candidate.
The size of the mailing may be regulated, but not the content, e.g., you can make
reference to a web site but you can't send it. (Each of these messages will also
include general ICANN elections information in its trailer - election date, campaign
web site, etc.)
II. An ICANN sponsored Campaign Web Site should provide access
to candidate information in an unbiased format - i.e., random and changing, not alpha.
The site should include:
A. Mailings - The three candidate mailings should be
made available.
B. Forums - These should be active for the full campaign period
and be of two types: general forums on names, numbers, protocols, etc.; and candidate
chosen forums, where each of those running should have the opportunity to choose
a forum on a topic of import.
C. Chat and Conference - Like the forums,
these should focus on general areas as well as those chosen by individual candidates.
Q.G.2. Should ICANN
provide a forum in
which members can post comments on
particular candidates?
Answer: Character endorsement and assassination
should be part of campaign. But members should be able to delete their postings from
this and the other forums.
Q.G.3. Should ICANN attempt to limit
campaign expenditures? If so, how would
ICANN monitor and enforce the limitations?
Answer:
The ICANN should try to limit campaign expenditures by prohibiting communication
outside the prescribed channels. A description of any violation should be mailed
to members, before the voting begins.
Q.I.1. Should ICANN require that no more
than half of the At Large Council members
come from any one geographic
region?
Answer: No, it is one globe, one Internet. The existing supporting organization
memberships guarantee some regional representation.
Q.J.1. What should the duties of the At
Large Council be?
Answer:
Since I don't believe in an At Large Council, I certainly wouldn't suggest giving
it any ongoing duties.