The disparities between the rules for Nominated and Self-Nominated candidates are
troubling. The need for such a distinction isn't apparent, while the distinction
itself could render the election undemocratic (at the very least).I would find
it very helpful if the Committee would publish its rationale for disparate treatment
of the two groups before the rules are voted on.
To all appearances
the Committee has decided to impose on Self-Nominees the burden of demonstrating
their base of support --- by getting 10% of their region's At Large Members,
who in turn are permitted to endorse only one candidate -- on the grounds that Self-Nominees
should demonstrate their viability as candidates, unlike Nominated Candidates who
can safely be presumed to have substantial support already. But I'm just assuming
this was the reasoning.
Why did the Nominating Committee not choose the opposite
presumption? It also seems reasonable to question whether the Nominated Candidates
aren't being hand-picked, making them more unrepresentative of the At Large Membership.
Why then wouldn't Nominated Candidates be required to pass the higher numerical hurdle
to demonstrate representativeness? Both presumptions seem like untested hypotheses
that are destined to pull the election into questionable ground.
ICANN will have
to defend the way this election was carried out. If the elections for even
At Large Members are perceived as tilted in favor of corporate interests, ICANN will
be diminished.