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

["Roberto Gaetano" <roberto_gaetano@hotmail.com>]

Adrian,
>
>May I already put forward a proposal to be considered in this study?
>
>What I find a really bad idea - I think I have already written about that -
>is, that the number of places for self-nominated candidates on the ballot
>list depends from the number of names proposed by the nomination committee.
>
>If you want to set a sign that you really appreciate self-nominated
>candidates and still do not want to do without a nom-com, then you should
>guarantee the self-nominated candidates a certain number of places on the
>final ballot list, no matter how many names the nom-com proposes.
>
>"The nomination committee shall propose not more than four candidates per
>region. For the final ballot list, another four candidates per region are
>added: those who received the biggest number of endorsements by atlarge
>members."
>
>How about something along that line?
>

It is a good idea, but it is probably too soon to put a proposal forward.
I believe that the proposal has also to take account of the reality of the 
different regions, and about the fact that the AtLarge seats are 9, not 5.
What about to include in the proposal considerations about the different 
number of members in the AtLarge Community? Often "electoral constituencies" 
are build taken into account also the number of individuals affected, not 
only the guarantee for every region to be represented.
At the risk of being misunderstood, I would like to say that it is equally 
unfair to deny geo-cultural areas like Africa any representation, as it is 
to assume that Europe's 35K+ AtLarge members will have the same 
representation as other regions with *substantially less* members.

<digression>
I have been in the ICANN formation process (one of) the champions of 
geographical diversity.
For instance, since the early IFWP days I have insisted about a LAC region 
separate from NA (I was the only supporter of a LAC IFWP meeting in the 
Steering Committee, and my position was so stubborn that finally it got put 
on the agenda and done - see http://www.cabase.org.ar/ and please note that 
the initial meeting for NA (http://www.americas.ifwp.org/) was supposed to 
cover also LAC).
</digression>

Having this background, I feel that I will not be misterpreted if I ask that 
the residual 4 AtLarge members be allocated in proportion to the number of 
AtLarge members of the Regions.

Regards
Roberto

________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com