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

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

Roberto:

There has been no change since Yokohama.  The Board extensively discussed
the 7-candidate maximum, upon Linda's statement that the NomCom would not
nominate more than 5 candidates in any one region.  The Board discussed a
number of possible alternatives, including the 1:2 ratio, but that was in
the context of a higher threshold percentage.  The decision was to set the
threshold percentage very low (2%), but to cap the total number of
candidates at 7.

The video and audio archives of the meeting are posted at
<http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/yokohama/archive/>.  I urge you to
review them, if you doubt my recollection.

Finally, let's look at the record.  The Board's resolution from Yokohama is
explicit about the 7-candidate maximum:

   7. To obtain a place on the final ballot, an individual
   seeking member-nomination must meet the following
   conditions:

   Support from 2% of the At Large Members in her/his
   geographic region, or 20 members, whichever is greater;

   Support from residents of at least two (2) countries;

   Subject to an absolute limit of 7 candidates per region,
   including both Nominating Committee-nominated and
   member-nominated candidates, except that in the event
   of a tie in which the number of threshold-exceeding tied
   candidates exceeds the number of available nominations,
   all tied candidates will be placed on the ballot.

<http://www.icann.org/minutes/prelim-report-16jul00.htm#AtLargeDirectorSelec
tionPlan>.

--Andrew


[ -----Original Message-----
[ From: R.Gaetano@iaea.org [mailto:R.Gaetano@iaea.org]
[ Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2000 4:12 AM
[ To: ajm@icann.org; SchultzKom@t-online.de
[ Cc: icann-europe@fitug.de
[ Subject: RE: [ICANN-EU] RE: Prefered access for ICANN nominees: we need
[ clear rules for the election
[ 
[ 
[ 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 acces
s 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
[ >

[ >

[ >
[ >
[