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