Proposed bylaw change might need some tuning

[Thomas Roessler <tlr@xxxxxx>]

Hello,

I'm writing this comment in a personal capacity, as somebody who moved  
into his country of residence less than five years ago, holds another  
country's passport, has at one point payed taxes in both countries for  
one year, and had the pleasure to serve on an ICANN nominating  
committee in the past.
First of all, I suspect that the intent behind this proposed bylaw  
change is a useful one -- namely, letting people who have close ties  
to several countries (and regions) pick one of these countries, and be  
considered as if that country was theirs (whatever that means in  
detail).

Unfortunately, I'm not sure the proposed change leads to the desired  
effect.

1. Whatever change is made needs to be reflected in article VI section  
5 as well (the article that defines the geographic regions, and  
repeats part of the rules in 2.*).

2. The current text sounds as if it takes all citizenships *and* the  
country of residence into account for the purpose of calculating the  
number of directors that represent a country. I.e., a citizen of the  
UK who lives in Tokyo and indicates an interest in being taken into  
account as an "Asian" candidate would now also be counted toward the  
maximum five European Board members.
> At no time when it makes its selection shall the Nominating  
> Committee select a  Director to fill any vacancy or expired term  
> whose selection would cause the  total number of Directors (not  
> including the President) who are citizens of, or  have been  
> Domiciled (as defined below) for more than five years in, countries  
> in  any one Geographic Region (as defined in Section 5 of this  
> Article) to exceed five; and the Nominating Committee shall ensure  
> when it makes its selections that the Board includes at least one  
> Director who is a citizen of, or Domiciled (as defined below) for  
> more than five years in, a country in each ICANN  Geographic Region  
> (“Diversity Calculation”).

That sounds like it'll make the Nominating Committee's life more  
difficult rather than less, and will also negatively affect the  
chances of anybody to join the board who lives in one region, is a  
citizen of a country in another one, and opts to be considered for  
their region of residence (if one of the two regions in question is  
one that's well-represented on the board). It is also not clear  
whether the "have been domiciled" piece of this clause only applies to  
candidates who opt for a country, or whether it applies to candidates  
who have ever lived there, according to the bylaws' definition.  If  
the latter, then that means that the Nominating Committee would need  
to consider the history of residence of candidates.

3. The proposed change is phrased in terms of *countries* of  
residence. E.g., a citizen of South Africa who has lived in a number  
of different European countries for many years could not be considered  
as a "European Candidate" unless they have kept their current domicile  
for five years. It would appear more logical to phrase the bylaw rule  
in terms of geographic regions, not countries, and leave details to  
the Nominating Committee's judgment.

4. There seems to be an assumption that the following text always  
identifies a single country:
> For purposes of this sub-section 2 of Article VI, Section 2 of the  
> ICANN Bylaws, a  person can only have one “Domicile,” which shall be  
> determined by where the  candidate files his/her income tax returns,  
> and has a permanent residence and  place of habitation.
That is not necessarily the case; it would seem that this detailed set  
of criteria might lead to more trouble than it's worth.

5. The proposed change only applies to the board, not to other ICANN  
bodies that have regional diversity requirements, and to which the  
nominating committee makes appointments.  Is that intended?

It might be worthwhile to look into a simpler approach by which  
candidates with multiple passports (and expats) can pick any of the  
relevant countries or regions as the one that they want to be  
considered for; criteria could be as loose as requiring either a  
passport of a relevant country, or a residence in the relevant region  
over five years.
It would then be left to the nominating committee to exercise its  
judgment in determining whether it accepts the candidate's choice, or  
whether (in considering the candidate's overall application) the  
candidate's choice is implausible, and disqualifies them.

Regards,

Thomas Roessler