Re: [ICANN-EU] Measuring Election Success

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Rob and all,

  I don't think there can be any question that the @Large election is
and will remain a farce and/or is illegitimate.  When only, at best
50% of the @large members could even vote due to various
reasons, most of which was a lack of ICANN getting out the PIN's
in time....

Rob Courtney wrote:

> To the ICANN-Europe group:
>
> Now that At-Large voting's about to end, the question before us will be
> whether this election can meaningfully be termed a success. If we're going
> to come up with precise answers to that question, we're going to need to
> identify the sub-questions that need to be addressed once we've achieved
> the benefit of hindsight. To that end, CDT and Common Cause have put
> together the attached set of metrics for election success. We anticipate
> that these will help us and others distill out the core elements of this
> process, both in the last ten days and in the last several months. I'm
> submitting them for the group's consideration.
>
> r
>
> * * *
>
> ICANN’s Elections:
> Potential Metrics for Success
> October 2000
>
> The election soon to be held by ICANN--the Internet Corporation for
> Assigned Names and Numbers--is an unprecedented experiment in online
> democracy. Policymakers and the media will watch its outcome closely; it
> will bear strongly on ICANN’s ultimate legitimacy and promise as a model
> for Internet governance; and it will be the cornerstone of ICANN’s own
> upcoming assessment of the At-Large membership. A major question for those
> of us who have supported and commented on the election will therefore be:
> _How do we measure the success of ICANN’s first-ever elections?_
>
> GOALS OF THE ELECTION
>
> Measuring success will be difficult because of the numerous and competing
> goals for the ICANN elections. Common Cause and CDT cataloged these
> competing goals in our March 2000 report _ICANN’s Global Elections: On the
> Internet, For the Internet_:
>
> “While there appears to be little consensus on the ultimate role of the
> election, several major themes have emerged among the responses that we
> have heard:
>
> ·* To give a voice in ICANN’s governance to those bound by and affected by
> ICANN’s decisions  a diverse population of potentially tens of millions of
> people all around the world. A major goal for many is to ensure that ICANN
> acts “with the consent of the governed.” Others articulated this goal as
> “providing a voice in ICANN to those not already represented in the
> Supporting Organization structure.”
> ·* To select high-quality board members capable of fulfilling ICANN’s
> responsibilities for managing and ensuring stability of essential technical
> systems.
> ·* To fairly represent the diverse interests of Internet users worldwide,
> as expressed by an engaged and educated At-Large electorate.
> ·* To avoid “capture” of the board through disproportionate representation
> of any one organization or interest group.
> ·* To complete the election by September 30, 2000 in order to allow the
> appointed At-Large board members to be replaced, and to inject an elected
> voice into the board’s ongoing decision-making as quickly as possible.”
>
> Satisfying all of these competing demands is almost impossible, as we
> further noted:
>
> “ICANN faces the daunting goal of seeking a fair ballot, free from capture
> or fraud, from a potential electorate of millions of Internet users
> worldwide who have little knowledge of ICANN and little understanding of
> its mission, in order to select a high-quality board of technically-capable
> members  all by September of this year.  *Realistically, without
> substantial changes to the proposed process, it is difficult to see how
> this is possible.*” (emphasis added)
>
> Even the election modifications made since that time do not address many of
> these fundamental tensions. It is almost certain that, given the
> constraints under which ICANN is operating, the election will be less than
> a complete success in some dimensions.
>
> SOME METRICS FOR SUCCESS
>
> Within the context of these daunting goals, there are several areas where
> we might measure the success of the election. These include:
>
> 1. BROAD PARTICIPATION--While only a small fraction of eligible voters have
> registered, the election should nevertheless have a large number of voters.
> ICANN set a low goal of 5000 members; over 150,000 have registered
> worldwide and over 75,000 have activated their memberships.  A key question
> will be how many participate in the campaign debates, and ultimately vote.
>
> 2. FAIR ACCESS TO THE BALLOT--ICANN must offer fair and open access to the
> ballot. An evaluation of the nominations process should judge whether there
> was real access to the ballot by alternative candidates, not just those
> nominated by a Board-dominated committee.
>
> 3. HONEST AND SECURE ELECTION PROCESS--There must be no hint of dishonest
> activity such as fraud, corruption or abuse of authority. Fairness will
> depend on the accurate and secure counting of votes, equal treatment of
> voters and of candidates, and impartiality of election officials. More
> difficult questions include verification of “one-voter-one-vote” and the
> enforcement of reasonable campaign rules, which have not been well articulated.
>
> 4. MEETS TIME AND RESOURCE LIMITATIONS--The election has a constrained
> budget and a hard November deadline. We should recognize that meeting the
> deadline, fairly and within budget, is a major goal.
>
> 5. ELECTION OF HIGH-QUALITY DIRECTORS--Many will view the end product as
> the ultimate measure of election success: Are the election winners
> high-quality people who will ably manage ICANN and effectively represent
> the interests of the Internet community?
>
> Further metrics may be much more difficult to measure, but ultimately quite
> important:
>
> 6. FREEDOM FROM CAPTURE--It is important that no single interest or group
> of interests be able to unfairly dominate the elections. There has been
> evidence of national domination of regional elections. Measuring other
> forms of capture  by particular corporate interests, for example  will be
> much harder. Capture remains a difficult and unanswered question.
>
> 7. A REPRESENTATIVE AND ENGAGED ELECTORATE--Number alone are not enough.
> ICANN’s electorate and Directors should also be somewhat representative of
> the various interests of the numerous stakeholders in ICANN’s decisions,
> including minority viewpoints. The electorate must be educated and engaged
> as well; an uninformed electorate without a clear understanding of ICANN’s
> mission or issues could be destabilizing or lead ICANN to overstep its
> authority. Creating an engaged electorate from among the potential voting
> pool remains a major challenge.
>
> CONCLUSION
>
> We have a combination of metrics for ICANN’s elections, some easily
> measured, others highly subjective. It is clear that ICANN will fall short
> in some of these areas, but the above criteria provide some measure of
> successes and failures likely in this experimental, first-ever ICANN election.

Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman INEGroup (Over 112k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 9236 fwd's to home ph#
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208