>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. I guess I don't see the disparate treatment. Under
the basic election structure that's been set in motion, there are two ways to get
onto the ballot (NomCom nomination; and self-nomination). Once on the
ballot, all candidates will be treated exactly the same: they have the same
rights to post information and to campaign over the same period of time; they'll
appear on the same ballot in the same way.
The two avenues to the ballot are intended
to effect a basic compromise rooted in the fact that ICANN is a technical coordinating
body, not a government. The job of the NomCom is to put forward a set of excellent
nominees. In order to keep the process open, candidates not chosen by the NomCom
can get onto the ballot, if they are supported by some appreciable number of At Large
members.
>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.
You're basically right about the reasoning, but not about the source.
The proposed rules do not come from any committee, but from the ICANN staff, giving
effect to the resolutions of the ICANN Board in Cairo (see the link below).
The Board called for two different avenues of access to the ballot, specifying a
Nominating Committee and "a petition process for additional nominations from the
At Large membership that meet certain minimum qualifying criteria..."