Return to self-nomination Forum - Message Thread - FAQ

Username: traP
Date/Time: Fri, June 2, 2000 at 9:09 PM GMT
Browser: Netscape Communicator V4.51 using XWindows/Linux 2.2.5-15 (Pentium Pro)
Score: 5
Subject: A response

Message:
 

 
               
>Do you think it would be very difficult for the electorate to uncover >a candidate's registered DNs on its own?

For the electorate at large, it may be.  Not everyone is as technologically savvy as the 'elites' are.. I'm sure there are, by now, ICANN@Large members who call aol.com home ;-)

>Even if a candidate "disclosed" their domains, I've no doubt that >there will be people working independently to verify the fullness of >their disclosure. Which IMO makes asking the candidate to disclose >their DNs sort of redundant.

I have to disagree that it makes it redundant.. it actually, to the contrary, makes it a critical honesty and transparency test. 

Hypothetically, If I, as a candidate, claim I have never owned a DN, then you discover that I registered hotstocks.com in 1994, and announce this, along with an easy way for a layman to verify this information through reliable records, I'm clearly finished as a candidate; and I should be, if that were the case.   Therefore, it's in my own best interests to be completely upfront about the matter.


>I agree that the virtuous candidate would do so anyway, but mandating >it seems pointless. There's no benefit to a cybersquatter to fully >disclose the domains owned by e.g. a company they own or manage. If >cybersquatting reflects poor ethics as you suggest, what makes you >think such a person would be ethical enough to fully disclose all >their domains, knowing that disclosure would work against them >anyway?

See my above point.. it works as an ethics test, because such things shouldn't be hard to verify or dispute with the official records.. an unethical candidate can then be quite thoroughly discredited, while an ethical one has little to fear... and if they are or have been a cybersquatter, it's a lot better for that person to admit to it, in a way that they have opportunity to explain what happened, when, and why, then it is to try and hide it.   We certainly don't want Clintonesque cover-ups with our sole regional at-large voting member on the board.


>Perhaps instead it should be the responsibility of the electoral >committee to collect such background information for each candidate.
     
I distrust the Electoral Committee, personally.  I feel that their real purpose, along with the NOMCOM, is to ensure that the ballot contains very little choice.. the positions of the candidates will likely be identical to each other across the board, until you get down to the relatively trivial differences, and the bar against self nominated candidates is so high, that while ICANN will then claim it was an open process for any member, all of us know that, in reality, it is not, and never was intended to be so.

Giving the NOMCOM or ELECTCOM the power of disclosure makes it very easy for them to discredit any self-nom candidate who does somehow manage to get through their 10% barrier.. and to hide similar disclosures from their prefered nominees.

 


Message Thread:


Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy