>ISSUES:
>1) The time table for nominations, campaigning
and
>election is exceptionally compressed.Why? The self-nominations
phase and campaign phases will each have a month. The voting will have over
a week (perhaps 10 days). Why is that "exceptionally compressed"? Assuming
that the At Large members read their email, they will received a number of reminders
to check out the candidates, read their webpages, and vote. A month seems like
plenty of time to me.
>2) The restriction on supporting only one
>nomination
(Rule 6) is patently ridiculous
>and totally undemocratic.
Why? Given
that only one candidate will be elected per region, why should each member in that
region not be limited to supporting the one candidate she likes best? I don't
see anything undemocratic about that. Because votes will be secret, she can
always choose a different candidate later, if she wants.
>3) There is a distinct
“incumbent” advantage built into
>the rules for NOMCOM candidates (a “sun-rise”
period, as
>it were…).
I don't see it. The campaign period will not start
until the final ballot has been determined. All candidates will be treated
equally in their ability to post a web page, etc., for equal periods of time.
>4)
The 10% rule is vague (10% as of which date?) and,
>as it is based on total *eligible*
voters, could potentially
>be a bar to any and all candidates in a low turn out
region.
>This is particularly problematic in combination with the
>restriction
on nominations mentioned in 2) above.
I agree about the vagueness point -- the
rules will have to specify what's meant. As I conceive of it, the 10% threshold
would apply to the number of activated membership as of the end of the self-nomination
period. (I.e., the number of people who have applied, received their PIN numbers,
and activated their memberships).
>5) The term “self nomination” itself is
prejudicial.
I just don't agree with this. The Board originally used the
term "petition process," but we were informed that in some countries "petition" has
a pejorative meaning - reflecting some kind of abject plea to a sovereign.
So we picked the term having the most obviously self-descriptive meaning.
>2)
Requiring individuals to determine who they
>will support in an election before
the nomination
>list is final, and before campaigns have even been
>started,
is among the stranger manifestations of
>“democracy” ever offered. There are
immense problems
>with this proposal. Will members be allowed to “revoke”
>their
endorsements?
I think you must misunderstand the proposal. Members are being
asked to decide if they want to support a candidate for inclusion on the final ballot.
After that, a member can vote for any candidate on the ballot (secretly and securely,
we hope).
But yes, I think members should be able to switch support from one candidate
for nomination to another. The proposed rules call for a 2-week period in which
candidates for nomination can step forward, and a following 2-week period in which
members can review and evaluate the candidates and make a decision.
>3) Candidates
tapped by the NOMCOM under the current
>proposal would have almost twice the
campaigning time
>as other candidates.
Maybe I'm missing something, I just
don't see this. Campaigning will happen via the ICANN website, and all candidates
will have equal access to it, for equal periods of time. I think that equal
access to info on the part of members will cancel any possible advantage for NomCom
nominees.
>5) The comments here in this forum and
>elsewhere display two
main responses to the
>prejudicial nature of the “self nominated”
>designation.
The first: replace it with a
>more neutral term, such as “Member Nominated”.
>The second: remove the distinction entirely
>by concealing the nature of
NONCOM tapped candidates.
>In the main, the members and ICANN will be
>best
served by member’s retaining the knowledge
>of who has been tapped by NOMCOM,
but treating them
>in all other ways identically with “Member Nominated”
>or
other appropriate designation) candidates.
Though I disagree about "self-nominated"
being prejudicial (it's just plain accurate, in my view), I agree with your basic
premise. I think the final ballot ought to list all candidates equally.
>In
their present form, the Proposed Rules
>for Self-Nomination present many challenges
to
>these specifications and goals. It is apparent that
>many of the problematic
sections mentioned in 1)
>through 5), above, were designed to ensure that
>only “competent” and “non-disruptive” persons are
>presented as viable candidates,
at the expense of
>these goals and specifications.
The rules were written (by
me, mostly) to foster an open and transparent election process that is orderly and
oriented toward candidates with broad support in their regional Internet communities.
The goal is to get excellent Directors that reflect the views of (and are accountable
to) the At Large members. I plead guilty to the charge that I hope to see only
candidates that are "competent." After all, ICANN is not a government - it
is a technical coordinating body with a mission to preserve the stable operation
(and evolution) of the Internet's name and number systems.
>If there are such
deeply held suspicions concerning
>the ability of the At Large members to select
>qualified candidates, then the purpose, role
>(and existence) of the
At Large members should
>be re-evaluated.
I suspect that what you take to be
mistrust in the At Large members is instead a fear that a small electorate is prone
to efforts at capture by small but well-organized special interest groups.
The rules are intended to promote the idea of candidate that attract wide support,
across national, cultural, and economic interests.
>Considering that the At Large
membership will
>eventually elect almost 1/2 of the seats in the
>controlling
body of one of one of the worlds most
>important international resources
(there is more
>truth to that than any of us can yet know), this
>process
requires a demonstrably fair election.
I certainly agree that ICANN wants a demonstrably
fair election, but your basic premise is quite mistaken. ICANN is not a "controlling
body" for the Internet. There is *no* "controlling body" for the Internet -
neither governments, nor ICANN, nor any other entity can be said to "control" the
Internet. ICANN is a technical coordinating body charged with the task of ensuring
that the DNS and IP address systems continue to do what they're supposed to do:
make available unique identifiers and parameters that allow packet traffic to be
properly routed. There are obviously some controversial and important issues
contained within that technical coordination task, but it's way off base to call
ICANN a "controlling body" for the Internet.
Thanks for the thoughtful comments!