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

[R.Gaetano@iaea.org]

Andy,

As a person that has followed the process attentively since its inception,
may I add a couple of words to what you say.

I have no problems whatsoever with the "dual mechanism", NomCom + Community,
but with the change in its interpretation that took place between the ICANN
meeting in Yokohama and the end of July.

The report of the election committee
http://www.icann.org/elcom/recs-07jul00.htm seemed to indicate a preference
to give enough room to "community candidates".
The different positions were:
- Costello: 5-9 "membership" on 10-12 overall
- Cranor: No limit on the number of "membership" candidates
- Fockler: No limit on the number of "membership" candidates
- Kraaijenbrink: 2 out of 3 limit on "membership" candidates
These were the only positions officially reported.

During the comment phase and during the ICANN meeting in Yokohama there was
no substantial opposing view.
Moreover, to a specific point on the elections raised by myself during the
ICANN BoD open meeting, Vint Cerf repeated the ratio of 2:1 for "membership"
vs. "NomCom" as an "orientative figure".

Therefore, while I agree that the proposal of stopping the election for lack
of user input in the process is out of order (we debated at length, and we
cannot every time restart from square 1, like we seem to be doing for
gTLDs), the question on how we got from a 2:1 ratio (consensus upon) to a
practical implementation of 2:5 is perfectly legitimate, and sooner or later
should be answered.

Upon the choices of NomCom I would also have a lot to say, but if there was
a good chance to put on the ballot "membership" candidates expressing
different POV, and having different agendas, the discussion would be
pointless, because the electors would have wide choice, and will speak with
their votes, not arguing hopelessly.

Regards
Roberto



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andrew McLaughlin [mailto:ajm@icann.org]
> Sent: Tuesday, 15 August 2000 22:23
> To: Christian Schultz Kommunalberatung
> Cc: icann-europe@fitug.de
> Subject: [ICANN-EU] RE: Prefered access for ICANN nominees: we need
> clear rules for the election
> 
> 
> 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
> [ 
> [ 
> 
>