I concur with many of the remarks made on this board regarding problems with the
nominating committee structure. First of all, it takes away power from the
at-large membership, by basically defining the parameters of who they may elect.The
10% requirement seems awfully high-- given that this is a virtual environment-- and
look at how pitiful voter turnout in real elections are-- given that candidates spend
huge sums of money and do mass-mailings and telephone calls. To expect people
to get 10% seems unrealistic. Besides, large numbers of candidates would be
less of a problem under the multiple elimination voting that ICANN has proposed.
Only
letting you nominate one candidate for the ballot also seems unfair. In almost
any real election, you are allowed to sign the petitions for any number of candidates.
The idea is that by signing, you think the person deserves to be put on the ballot
and considered as a candidate, not that you are going to vote for them personally.
I think that it would make much more sense that if I saw 10 candidates that I thought
would be good people to run, I could sign their petitions rather than having to pick
1-- what if say only half of the voting membership visits the candidates trying to
nominate pages and sites and each picks a different one. None of them would
get on the ballot. What would be the harm in letting people sign on for multiple
candiates?
My final question: besides this public comment forum-- what sort of
say do we have in the process? It seems like there are very few replies from
anyone in a position of power in this forum. Are these comments being recorded?
Can ICANN at-large members propose amendments to future election processes and have
them voted on in the at-large election?
James