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

[R.Gaetano@iaea.org]

Andy,

> 
> 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.


I have no doubts about your recollection, but we are talking about two
different things.
What I am arguing is that there was a difference between the positions
expressed "by the members of the elections committee and the Board up to
(and including) the public ICANN Board meeting on 2000-07-15" and "the
decision of the NomCom (endorsed by the Board, I assume) published on
2000-08-01".

Again, the decision of nominating 5 out of 7 people is not in opposition
with the letter of the delibration of the Board, but is not what the people
that read the preparatory material and attended the public forum in Yokohama
would have expected as a result from the debate.
Specifically, the 7-persons cap was expected, the ratio of 5:2 between
NomCom and Membership was not.

The article you mention below would not have been violated even with a ratio
of 6:1 (and strictly legally speaking even if all 7 places would have beed
pre-assigned by NomCom), but what I am talking about is that nobody (unless
I missed something) did ever speak in public about the possibility of having
in one region more people NomCom-nominated than Membership-nominated. On the
contrary, all those who did speak were assuming a large majority of
Member-nominated.

Anyway, as Lutz nicely put it, it is this way, and we have to live with it
;>), but I have the impression that by doing so the ICANN Board has put the
premises for having a large membership support in October for one of the two
membership-nominated vs. the 5 "official" candidates ;>).

Regards
Roberto

> 
> 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#AtLarg
eDirectorSelec
> 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
> [ >
> 
> [ >
> 
> [ >
> [ >
> [ 
>