Andrew Mclaughlin wrote:
"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?"and later in the same
post wrote
"The campaign period will not start until the final ballot has been
determined."
I respectfully suggest that requiring members to decide "the one candidate
she likes best" before the campaign period begins is inconsistent with the members'
ability to make an effective informed choice.
I recommend that those determining
the nomination and election processes should decide at what point the members are
being asked to select their preferred candidate and stick to it, ensuring that members
get the maximum information possible consistent with the preservation of the members'
right to privacy.
The fact that the initial decision of which of the [self-nominated
or member nominated] candidates they like best is subject to later revision (during
the final voting process) does not negate the potentially tremendous effect of that
decision, which can put candidates on to or take them off of the final ballot. There
is a reason that Americans pay so much attention to their Primaries, even though
they are only selecting candidates for the ballot rather than voting on them.
Given
the importance of this decision, I respectfully suggest that, in addition to great
information availability to support the decision, the time available for the decision
should be increased. A two week window in August, when many people are on vacation
(many vacations lasting longer than two weeks- reducing or eliminating their access
to the nominating process for the duration) is insufficient for a process that wishes
to maintain the appearance of being open, accessible and fair, especially when a
high support percentage of the theoretically available members (as opposed to the
actually available members- those not on vacation, reading their emails and visiting
the ICANN Web site) is required to make the ballot.
Given the above considerations,
I would like to join the others who hae posted here in recommending to the ICANN
administration that they:
1. Remove the limit enabling At Large Members to only
support one self-nominated candidate in his/her attempt to become a member-nominated
candidate. This would eliminate the requirement that members make a decision uninformed
by the campaign process.
2. Given the impracticality of changing the season of
the nomination process, extend the time alotted to create the maximum opportunity
for those members who have vacatiosn scheduled for August to participate. If this
is not deemed possible or reasonable, perhaps members should be given the opportunity
to "opt out" of this process this time around if they know in advace that they will
not be available during the candidate selection period, allowing the number of "active
members" for this process to more closely reflect the number of available members.
Alternatively or additionally, the percentage of active member support required to
secure a place on the ballot should be substantially reduced.
I would also like
to raise for consideration by the administration and by my fellow members reading
this forum the possibility of permitting links from the official ICANN candidate
pages to external pages maintained by the candidates themselves (or by others on
their behalf. This would allow members access to greater amounts of information upon
which to base an informed decision. We would have access to information not limited
to answers to questions that the ICANN administrative staff choose to ask nor filtered
by whatever process is involved in getting the candidate supplied information up
on the ICANN site. This would allow candidates to directly address the membership
without giving them any access at all to members' email addresses. On the other hand,
those candidates with greater resources could perhaps build bigger, better and more
persuasive Web sites. This would, to a certain extent, remove the "level playing
field". Personally, I think the increased access to candidate-supplied material allowing
me to make a more informed decision would make this sacrifice worthwhile. What do
others think?
Respectfully,
David Tallan
Canada