[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [ICANN-EU] RE: prefered access for ICANN nominees

Dear Andrew:



>You seem to be unhappy about the role given to the Nominating Committee,
but
>it's actually a very standard mechanism.


I have no problem with the nomination committee at all. It was certainly
necessary to
identify potential candidates ahead of the process just in case there were
no candidates from within the community or not enough.

I made my point, shared by some other candidates, clear within the request
for reconsideration.
Here a longer version:

The board of ICANN decided to have candidates nominated by the nomination
committee.
The board decided to place them "in front of the At-Large-Members" for
election as directors.

Now ICANN placed the candidates directly on the ballot. And that means they
are placed ahead of the other candidates, who have to convince the
At-Large-Members to get there.

So, why did ICANN choose to give the nom-com candidates a better starting
position then all the other candidates?

I am very curious about your answer to this question.

Truly yours,

Andreas Fuegner


--Andrew


[ -----Original Message-----
[ From: Andreas Fügner [mailto:Andreas.Fuegner@lizenz.com]
[ Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2000 3:22 PM
[ To: ajm@icann.org
[ Cc: icann-europe@fitug.de
[ Subject: Re: prefered access for ICANN nominees
[ 
[ 
[ Dear Andrew:
[ 
[ Thanks for your prompt attention and reply.
[ 
[ > to nominate five or more candidates for consideration by the
[ > At Large membership for selection to the ICANN Board.
[ 
[ This would be fullfilled, if the ICANN nominated candidates,
[ were now competing for the 7 places on the ballot
[ as the member nominated candidates are.
[ 
[ So why the unequal procedure?
[ 
[ Thanks again and best regards,
[ 
[ Andreas Fuegner
[ 
[ 
[ 
[ 
[ >Dear Andreas:
[ >
[ >Take a look at the Cairo resolutions, which did the following:
[ >
[ >"3. Establish a Nominating Committee consisting of members 
[ appointed by the
[ >Board to accept recommendations and nominations from the 
[ Internet communi
ty
[ >as a whole, and to nominate five or more candidates for consideration by
[ the
[ >At Large membership for selection to the ICANN Board;"
[ >
[ >"4. Establish a petition process for additional nominations from the At
[ >Large membership that meet certain minimum qualifying criteria; ..."
[ >
[ ><http://www.icann.org/minutes/minutes-10mar00.htm#AtLargeMembership>
[ >
[ >There are therefore two ways to appear on the ballot:  (1) be
[ nominated by
[ >the Nominating Committee, or (2) through member-nomination meet minimum
[ >support criteria (i.e., 2% of the activated members in the region).
[ >
[ >That was the consensus compromise achieved in Cairo.
[ >
[ >Best regards,
[ >
[ >--Andrew
[ >
[ >     -------------------------------------------------------------------
[ >andrew mclaughlin           |    chief policy officer & cfo
[ >internet corporation for assigned names and numbers
[ ><mclaughlin@icann.org>  |     <http://www.icann.org>
[ >     -------------------------------------------------------------------
[ >
[ >
[ >
[ >-----Original Message-----
[ >From: Andreas Fügner [mailto:Andreas.Fuegner@lizenz.com]
[ >Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2000 7:36 AM
[ >To: election@icann.org
[ >Subject: prefered access for ICANN nominees
[ >
[ >
[ >Dear Madam or Sir:
[ >
[ >I am desperately trying to find out,  when and by whom the decision was
[ >made,
[ >that the candidates nominated by the nomination committee will have a
[ >guaranteed
[ >place on the ballot and, thus, will be preferred over member nominated
[ >candidates.
[ >
[ >Could you please help me here?
[ >
[ >Many thanks in advance for this matter and all your work so far!
[ >
[ >Best regards,
[ >
[ >Andreas Fuegner
[ >
[ >
[ >
[ 
[