[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [registrars] Elections and ICANN & NSI Contract

Amadeu et all,

Regardless of how the voting goes (allowing multiple votes
from the same geographic region) I feel very strongly that
we should stick with the geographic diversity rules.  There
are a lot of issues involved, some of which are out of our
hands, but the diversity objective is one that ICANN, I believe,
has to stick to.

While I agree with Amadeu that the Names Council reps have 
to represent the interests of the constituency at large, 
they should also bring to the table the interests of thier
geographic region.  I realize this system is similar to 
to the US system of equal opportunity hiring quotas with regard
to the voting, but it is necessary.  

For reference, there are over 2500 ISPs in Japan, and Japan
has the second largest number of hosts connected to the 
Internet.  Yet there are very few parties involved in the
ICANN process.  One critical reason is due to the language
barrier.  Thus if I were the NC rep from the Registrar
constituency, I would think it prudent to attempt to try
to bring concerns from Japan, and well as from Asia in general.  

So I think the NC reps should attempt to represent both the
consensus of the constitutency, and the consensus from
their geographic region.  I think the "cost" of not going 
with "best candidate only" should be minimal regardless, as 
I believe there are qualified candidates from all regions.


> There is a further argument. We hav decided to enforce geographcial diversity,
> but we should teswt this option against "best candidates" rule, jsut to know
> what it gives. Pehaps all our preferred candidates come all form NA and AP.
> and even if we will stick to our geographci divrsity rule (which I support,
> btw) we should at least know for future decisions "how much does it cost" from
> efficiency terms.

_/_/_/interQ Incorporated
_/_/_/System Division
_/_/_/Director and General Manager
_/_/_/Richard A. S. Lindsay