Re: [ICANN-EU] ICANN endorsement period prolonged

[Alf Hansen <aha@uninett.no>]

Jeanette,

I agree with you. I had the same thought. 

In genral,the election rules shoud not be changed during the election
process, even if the change is regarded as an improvement. 

Instead ICANN should have thought of this on beforehand, and spent some
more time on the planning before the election process started.

Best regards,
-- 
Alf Hansen                     Mail address:
                                 UNINETT FAS A/S
aha@uninett.no                   N-7465 Trondheim, Norway
Home page:                     Phone: +47 73 55 79 00
http://domen.uninett.no/~alf/  Fax:   +47 73 55 79 01


Jeanette Hofmann wrote:
> 
> >
> > > May I take this chance to thank ICANN (who monitors this list without
> > > any doubt) for this wise decision that, in the end, will allow more
> > > people to vote adding more legitimacy to the ballot.
> >
> > May I join you in this? I am wondering at the same time though, why the
> > rules can be changed in this respect, and not in another, which we
> > earlier discussed, vid. the 5 ICANN nominated versus the 2 member
> > candidates.
> 
> I've noticed that many people appreciate ICANN's decision to extend
> the endorsement period.  However, I still feel uncomfortable about this
> move. First, I hadn't seen any discussion about this issue anywhere. I
> was completely taken by surprise and my first thought was: once
> again one of those top-down decisions.
> Second, I don't like the idea of changing rules during the election
> process. I mean several suggestions have been made recently to
> improve the election procedure. And it's probably save to say that
> most of us agree that this has to wait until the election is completed.
> So, what exactly justifies this exception? And who is allowed to judge
> between justified and not justified exceptions?
> 
> What do you think? Am I on the wrong track here?
> 
> jeanette
> 
> >