[icann-eu] proposed letter on the at-large study

[Barbara Simons <simons@acm.org>]

All,

Here is a draft letter that I would like to send regarding the study.
I would be delighted to add as many names to the letter as possible.
I realize this is very late, but I have been both traveling an sick,
an unpleasant and not very productive combination.  I am currently
writing from Andorra, and I shall be able to log onto the net only
periodically.  I'll do my best to respond to comments in a timely
fashion.

Regards,
Barbara

-------------------------------------------

Dear Dr. Cerf,

We appreciate this opportunity to comment on the proposed
"clean-sheet" study of the at-large election.

We sincerely hope that the Board will refuse to consider the reduction or
elimination of the number of at-large seats.  We further urge the Board to
reopen registration for at-large membership and to elect at-large
representatives for the four remaining at-large seats at the earliest possible time.

We believe that there is a need for a study to analyze the problems
associated with the recently held election for regional at-large seats on the
ICANN Board.  We also believe that the study should include at least two
people who had the experience of participating in the election, since there
are many insights that can be gained from their unique perspective.  We
strongly support a study that will result in an improvement of the election process.


Eliminating at-large seats is not an option.

The elimination of some or all of the at-large seats should not be a possible
outcome of the study.  Not only would such an act delegitimize ICANN,
but also it would disenfranchise the user community in general and the
158,000 registered at-large members in particular.  In addition, at-large seat
elimination would contradict previous commitments made by ICANN and
key Board members.

The existence of a balance between nine at-large, member-elected Board
members and the nine Supporting Organization members was a fundamental
promise made by the initial Board of ICANN at its inception.  During the U.S.
Department of Commerce proceeding that created ICANN, the final round
of comments on ICANN's Articles of Incorporation were overwhelmingly
critical of ICANN because of the lack of accountability via membership.

Ira Magaziner and Becky Burr sent a letter requiring the initial Board to meet
with the groups that had proposed a membership structure; consequently,
the articles of incorporation were modified to include a membership.
For ICANN to pull back from that commitment would be to renege on a
promise that was critical to its very formation.

If the Board insists on considering the option of elimination of some or all of
the at-large seats, then it must also examine all the other component elements
of ICANN, especially the DNSO.  No seats should be sacrosanct or guaranteed.

If any proposal is made to eliminate some at-large seats, that proposal must
be put to a vote of the at-large membership for ratification.


Suggestions for areas of study.

Given all of the problems that were encountered, we feel that the election went
remarkably well.  These problems should be examined and corrected before
holding the election to fill the remaining four at-large seats.  Some of the areas
that need studying include:

- Nomination
    - Was the threshold that was required to make it onto the ballot reasonable?
    - Did potential nominees have sufficient opportunity to reach the at-large membership with their
messages?

- Registration
    - For how long should registration remain open?
    - Was the software and hardware appropriate for handling the demand?
    - Were adequate techniques used to verify the potentialvoter's eligibility and to avoid multiple
registrations by the same individual?
    - Were lost or misplaced pins dealt with in a reasonable fashion?

- Activation
    - Is activation necessary?
    - Were voters notified of the need to activate their registration in a timely and clear fashion?

- Voting
    - Did voters have adequate opportunity to vote?
    - Was the voting methodology reasonable and understood by the voters?
    - Were the voters given adequate opportunities to interact with the candidates?
    - Were the candidates provided with good tools for communicating with the voters?

- Usability
    - Was the human/computer interface for registration and voting adequately tested and easy to
use?
    - Was the software used by the candidates to post statements and response to questions
adequately tested and easy to use?

- Candidates
    - What kind of demands were made on the candidates?
    - How could the process be improved?


Conclusion.

In summary, we strongly believe that the study should be limited to examining
how to improve elections for at-large members.  However, if the Board insists
on allowing the option of eliminating of some or all at-large Board seats, then
it must also allow the option of eliminating all the other Board seats as well,
especially those of the DNSO.  Everything should be on the table.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,