Re: [ICANN-EU] ICANN endorsement period prolonged

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

Jeannette, Marc,

> >
> > 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?
>

You are right about the fact that rules should not be changed when the 
process is ongoing.
However, the decision of extending a deadline, while it is "technically" to 
"change a rule of the game", is nevertheless something that has been done in 
the past when observation of the reality suggested that the initially 
planned schedule was too tight.
In fact, if you look carefully at the schedule, the additional week given to 
member-nomination is chopped away from the presentation of the candidates 
for the final run. It should be really the NomCom-ed candidates to complain 
...

A different thing would be now to change the numbers (for instance adding 
more seats on the ballots for some regions).
Even if, considering that the spirit of the restrictions to 
member-nomination was only to have a ballot of a manageable size, it would 
be not completely far off to ask the Board to include in the final ballot 
all candidates that have passed the 2% threshold, without limit on the total 
number, now that it is evident that we will not have dozens of them.

>What do you think? Am I on the wrong track here?
>

ICANN was afraid of the possibly weird outcome of the member-nomination 
process, and I believe that large parts of the Board were in favour of 
putting strong limitations to it.
Now that the process is ongoing, some of the fears are reduced (because 
nothing "too" weird is happening), and moreover the consideration that the 
more members vote, the more implicit endorsement of the process there will 
be, ICANN sees a higher number of participant as more an advantage than a 
risk.

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

Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at 
http://profiles.msn.com.