I am in agreement with the majority of posters.
I see no reason to have different rules and different names for Board Nominated and
"Self-Nominated". I believe all candidates should be merely listed as candidates,
without preference as to how they got on the ballot.I also agree that 10% support
is a stumbling block to ensure there is little choice (if any) in nonboard nominated
candidates. This is plain wrong. The same is true about the campaigning
period. If you want candidates from a completely open forum, let's give them a fighting
chance to win without stacking the deck against them by the labels and requirements.
All candidates should have exactly the same requirements.
I am also real confused
with the requirement for support from members of at least 2 countries since you have
indicated that voting may only take place from within the voter's region. Isn't
this then like asking people to have a say in candidates for a district they are
not even authorized to vote in? Couldn't this even cause an undesired bias? As an
example: Should I as a US citizen have the right to have a say in who makes the ballot
for a Canadian election even though I can't even vote in a Canadian election? I don't
think so.
The only way ICANN is going to have a true cross section of the public
as representatives on the board is to show all people who wish to be a part of this
process the same respect, under the same rules and requirements.
If, for example,
board selected candidates are selected on the basis of education, training and credentials,
make this the same type of selection process for "self-nominated" candidates, such
as "self-nominated" must submit credentials showing experience in Internet related
industry (which can come from hosting a website, building websites, creating programing,
etc.) if this is a criteria used to select board nominated candidates.