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

Re: [registrars] Elections and ICANN & NSI Contract

At 07:39 14/06/99 +0200, Amadeu Abril i Abril wrote:
>Michael D. Palage wrote:
>> Point of Clarification:
>> The following excerpt was taken from the minutes of the 6-8-99 Registrar
>> teleconference:
>> Nominations/elections - ......  There was a discussion on how the Names
>> Council representatives would be elected as it is was agreed that
>> would be categorized into geographic regions and each representative would
>> be allowed to cast one vote per geographic region.  There was an objection
>> by the Melbourne IT representative that the representative be allowed to
>> cast their votes for the best candidate regardless of geographical
>> limitations. ...
>I also ex`ressed the view that memers are to vote for their preferred
>candadates, irrespective of their residence and the geographical they belong
>to. Ithought I heard at least Paul Stahura agreeing.
>Those lected will represent the constituency interests as a whole during this
>interim period, NOT their company's or their region's interests. This is why
>we should vote each one for our "preferred three".
>Another different question is who is elected. As we wanted to ensure
>geographical deiversification in the representation, we choosed to "eliminate
>all those form the same region form the nominee with larger number of votes".
>And repeat this with the one at the second place after this operation. This
>menas that we decided NOT to elect two reps from the same region, but dows
>imply that we should vote along geographcial slots (in fact this provision
>would make little if no sense if we were supposed to cast one vote per
>Imagine that I believe that in a given region candidates A and B are great,
>while I don't like candiade C. I have no pinion or preference about cnadiates
>in other regions. In this case, I have a styorng interest in voting for both
>candiadtes A and B, even if thery are form the same region and one of them
>will NOT be elected, simply because I don't know what the rest of them are
>voting and therefore if I could choose only one ther would be a greater risk
>that candidate C, the one I don't like gets elected.
>There is a further argument. We hav decided to enforce geographcial
>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"
>efficiency terms.
>Flr all these reasons I encourage you to state that each registrar should
>for his/her prefereed candidates, making sure we get a broup of good reps,
>letting our charter deal with geographic diversity thereafter.
>I would alos ask you NOT to accept votes thru the list. I htought that you
>got in touch with Dan Busarow in order to use his VoteBot system. In case it
>is not ready, please ask for "double counters": ie, ask people to send balots
>to you AND Ivan Poepe, who volunteered for the jof.

>I wouls also encourage you to accept multiple votes, the newer overruling
>previous. As most of us are not old-time friends, we might better eveluate
>different otptions during this week and therefore, perhaps we could change
>mind. Last vote before deadline counts.
>Finally, I would apreciate you send a separate mail to "voting reps" mails
>clarigying all above points, in one snese or another, and also specifying
>Thanks for all.

Needless to say, I support Amadeu's arguments here, especially the crucial
principle that candidates are expected to represent the whole global
constituency of ICANN registrars, not just their own geographical region.

Peter Gerrand (on behalf of Clive Flory)

Peter Gerrand
CEO, Melbourne IT and
Professorial Fellow, University of Melbourne
T: +61 3 9344 9300
F: +61 3 9347 9473
W: www.MelbourneIT.com.au