80\icann0001
1 June 2000I can also see some point
to the 2-country rule. Surely, it encourages diversity and does so in response to
the fact that Internet usage is not evenly distributed around the world. If one adopted
an unregulated system, then the outcome of the election would be likely to replicate
this current absence of diversity. In a sense that is fair, but in another sense
there are dangers of oppression of unrepresented "minorities" and there is a discouragement
to the world wide growth of the Internet. After all, the need to protect diversity
is not new or radical - just look at the constitution of the US Senate.
But I am
not convinced that ICANN is right to concentrate on the nomination rules to achieve
diversity and a cross-border outlook. I am sure I can find one friend in the US or
Australia or wherever. But that hardly ensures I share US understandings or concerns.
Rather, there should be attention to the voting rules. For example, diversity would
be far better ensured if each ICANN member had two votes, one of which must be cast
for a person from another jurisdiction. Another idea is that candidates could be
paired - each from different jurisdictions.
So if you don't believe in diversity,
then you won't agree with any of this. But if you do, then ICANN is probably barking
up the wrong tree by looking at the nomination rather than the voting process.
Clive