Thanks for the thought-provoking reply to my comments.
At the risk of
'clarifying' my message till it turns to mush ...I don't disagree
in principle with the existence of two ways to get on the ballot. I don't even object
in principle to the idea that inclusiveness and quality of representation
might justify 'separate' treatment.
I really have only 2 concerns.
The first is that where a separate track is established for any purpose, I believe
ICANN should take extra care to explain the necessity for it, and identify the intended
relationship between the separate entities.
While I agree with you that ICANN
is not a government, I don't agree that ICANN is "merely" a technical coordinating
body -- at least not yet. In my eyes, ICANN still carries some weighty governmental
baggage that it (for want of a better word) is trying to 'privatize' -- an effort
I applaud. (However, the Netopian in me thinks ICANN meets that challenge best when
it displays a certian, vague level of deference to due process and civil liberties
issues that true NGO's are free to ignore.)
My second concern is that this election
has been proceeded by almost two years of formal and informal dialogue regarding
the role of individual users in ICANN. It just seems prudent for ICANN
to make sure that the dual tracks to the ballot aren't (mis)perceived as a heavy
thumb on the scales.
No one respects the ICANN staff more than I, but this
seems to me to be a case where a little 'fuzzy deference' should temper the staff's
faithfulness to the Board's resolution.
Thanks again.