[ICANN-EU] RE: Prefered access for ICANN nominees: we need clear rules for the election

["Andrew McLaughlin" <ajm@icann.org>]

Christian:

I appreciate the seriousness of your views, and the constructive spirit in
which they are offered.  When the community reviews the election rules and
experiences in the comprehensive study to begin after this year's round of
elections, you will surely want to advance them.

But there is considerable history here, which you may not be aware of.  The
current membership rules have been under construction since December 1998,
when the Membership Advisory Committee started its work.  See
<http://www.icann.org/membership-com.html>.  There was a study through
Harvard Law School <http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/rcs/index.html>.  To see
all the variations of the rules as they were proposed, adopted, and
modified, take a look at the resolutions and documents at
<http://www.icann.org/at-large/at-large.htm>.  These rules were not just
created out of thin air -- they are the product of a lengthy debate within
the ICANN process.

The 2-track nominating committee/member-nomination process was the consensus
of the Cairo meeting (pulling together the face-to-face and online inputs)
in March.  So there has been over 1.5 years of opportunity to take part in
the creation of these rules.  The rules are clear and straightforward.  You
may not like them, but you had every opportunity to participate in (or just
comment on) their creation.

I hope you are wrong that "most members and candidates even donīt know
exactly, which aims and duties ICANN has..."  Personally, I don't see how
someone could ethically be a candidate without spending some time to review
the website and learn what ICANN's duties are.

Anyway, I'm open to ideas for improved implementation of the rules as we go
through the next weeks.  But a sudden, wholesale replacement of the election
rules does not strike me as a realistic option.

Best regards,

--Andrew


[ -----Original Message-----
[ From: Christian Schultz Kommunalberatung [mailto:SchultzKom@t-online.de]
[ Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2000 6:38 PM
[ To: ajm@icann.org
[ Cc: icann-europe@fitug.de
[ Subject: Prefered access for ICANN nominees: we need clear rules for the
[ election
[ Importance: High
[ 
[ 
[ Dear Andrew,
[ 
[ I donīt know why Judith Oppenheimer distributes these mails, but I must
[ agree. It seems not to be a fair election, at least for all 
[ At-Large-member
[ nominated candidates, when all candidates must look for two 
[ places while the
[ ICANN nominated candidates have five reserved places on the ballot.
[ 
[ I prosume, that most members and candidates even donīt know exactly, which
[ aims and duties ICANN has and and who had fixed the rules of 
[ election of the
[ board.
[ 
[ So I think, it would be good for all members, if we would have in the
[ elected board of ICANN some members, who are also experienced in
[ understanding and creating legal rules. What I see since yesterday in the
[ current correspondance, strengthens my conviction that we should 
[ start with
[ clear and simple rules, not only for this election.
[ 
[ It would be very helpfull and we all would feel in a 
[ win-win-situation, when
[ you could find a solution for these questions of many european members. I
[ think, ICANN should start with a fair election.
[ 
[ Best regards
[ 
[ Christian
[ 
[ Christian Schultz, RA, StD.a.D., Kommunalberatung
[ D 58097 Hagen, Kammannstr. 18
[ Tel.: + 49 2331 - 843407, Fax: + 49 2331 - 843408
[ SchultzKom@t-online.de
[ 
[