I think 10% is too high as a nomination threshold, for several reasons:
1)
A study of Parliamentary electoral systems suggest that even 5% (the German limit)
can have a significant effect in clearing the field of all but the major parties
and 1 or 2 'new entrants'. Therefore 10% seems prohibitive - especially for
the first election. We should try first with a lower limit: if we get thousands
of nominations then next time we can raise the limit. But it seems better to
err on the side of democracy and diversity this time.2) A 10% limit means that
potential candidates will have to effectively do a 'pre-campaign' even to get themselves
nominated. This campaign will take place outside the ICANN@large channel and
will mean that only highly-organized, politically bigshots will even manage to get
nominated. Potentially good candidates who don't have the time to devote purely
to getting nominated (perhaps because they are busy doing 'real work' rather than
politicking!) could be ruled out. Surely it is better to have a larger number
of nominees and let the voters decide.
3) Because of the rather arbitrary division
of the world into regions,
candidates from some countries will have a much easier
time getting nominated than others. For instance, South Africa has a high share
of the total African internet user base, because it is richer. Therefore a
South African candidate is likely to find it easier to get enough nominations from
fellow-nationals than someone from, say, Cameroon. As the typical South African
internet user (white, middle-class) does not live in the same situation as the majority
of African zone internet users this would rather defeat the purpose of ICANN@large
as representing the diversity of the world's internet user base.
Therefore I would
propose a low limit, perhaps 3-4% this first election. If this does lead to
an unexpectedly high number of candidates then let the voters decide - and if necessary
extend the campaigning period to allow them time to read through all the candidate's
profiles.