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

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

Andreas:


[ Dear Andrew, may I, in the kindliest possible way ask you to address
[ the issue of the equal rights violation?
[ 


I fear that we are now talking in circles.  

There are two routes to appear on the final ballot, as decided by the ICANN Board in Cairo, bringing to conclusion a lengthy process of debate and deliberation by many individuals in the ICANN process.  (I have searched the archives of the At Large membership process, and I have not found a single comment or contribution from you -- this is not a criticism, but you must acknowledge that you had every opportunity to participate starting in November 1998, but that you chose not to do so.)  Every individual had an equal right to put his/her name before the nominating committee.  Likewise, every individual had an equal right to appear as a candidate for member-nomination.

In some ways, your use of the term "equal rights violation" may reflect a lack of perspective -- ICANN is a narrowly-focused technical coordinating body, responsible for policy relating to the unique assignment of names and numbers, and performing a set of functions under a cooperative agreement with the U.S. Government.  This is not a governmental election for a governmental legislature.  Rather, these elections are an experiment in letting the many users of the Internet's DNS (including technical, academic, business, non-commercial, and individual users) have a voice in the selection of Directors.

It is an exciting experiment, and one that I hope will encourage other organizations to open up their governing Boards to this kind of input.  We have in place a set of rules that represent a broad consensus developed over a 19-month process.  After October, we will be conducting a 6-month study to review the process, to make improvements, and to do ever better in the future.

--Andrew