DNSO Mailling lists archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

RE: [ga] Substance over rhetoric - a constructive challenge


Thank you for your long speech, but my question did not imply in any way 
that the election mechanism could not be improved. It was just meant to be 
an opportunity to clarify to the community if you would accept membership 
rules by which a "lobbyst of ATT", for instance, could become member and run 
for office (provided, of course, that he/she solves potential 
incompatibilities in the Bylaws, if this were the case).


>From: Joanna Lane <jo-uk@rcn.com>
>To: Roberto Gaetano <ploki_xyz@hotmail.com>, ga@dnso.org
>Subject: RE: [ga] Substance over rhetoric - a constructive challenge
>Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 18:37:21 -0500
>Roberto wrote:-
>From my part, before providing an opinion, I would like to have her answer
>to a simple question: "At Large membership and eligibility to office will 
>open to any individual, with no additional restriction versus the set of
>rules given for the 2002 At Large elections. Agree/Disagree?"
>I disagree to the extent that, as a practical matter, there is no point in
>electing an individual that ICANN cannot accept for reason of its own
>Bylaws, or those of a successor agency whichever is applicable. However, 
>things considered, I thought the 2000 elections were a success. I had never
>heard of ICANN prior to those elections, yet I not only heard about them, I
>was able to familiarize myself with candidates, learn about various issues,
>candidate positions, given the ability to interact with them directly and
>make an informed choice. I personally had no problems registering on the
>site, obtaining my pin and voting. Would I vote for repeating the procedure
>even if nothing was changed? Sure, I would. Would I change some things 
>the choice? Yes, that also, including but not limited to:-
>1) Citizenship/ Residency Anomaly - the internet community is full of 
>like myself and Joop, whose citizenship and residency fall into different
>regions. Currently, I have started to co-ordinate the New York Working 
>for the At Large, a practical effort that one would think might result in a
>person sitting on a local Committee of some sort in due course, that in
>turn, could lead to State, then Federal Committees and ultimately the top
>job, an At Large Director for the North American region. (This is an
>example, not a pitch for anything!)  However, as a British citizen and
>permanent resident of the United States, under current election rules, I 
>only stand for election as representative of the European Union (which in
>fact I did last year), where I cannot even have a photo opportunity at the
>ballot box casting my own vote. Not only can I not stand for election in 
>same region in which I cast my vote, I cannot vote in the region in which I
>have citizenship. This does not fit with normal voting rights in the real
>world, is a barrier to entry, and all the more unacceptable when one
>considers that the rule only came about for ICANN's convenience, (it was
>deemed too difficult to verify residency of a candidate),
>http://www.icann.org/committees/elcom/recs-07jul00.htm, My sense is that a
>person who works tirelessly for a particular At large Region over a number
>of years and understands the issues thoroughly is more than sufficiently
>qualified and verified to climb the ladder as high as they would want to 
>2. At Large Directors must be able to communicate with their electorate:
>This is vital, and would extend to candidates, who need access to the email
>addresses of those who contact them with questions during the election
>cycle. The structure of the message Boards last time denied that ability, 
>was a frustration on both sides and it showed.
>Finally, I am not avoiding Esther's question, but I'm still not sure 
>I want anything more to do with ICANN. David Farrar makes some compelling
>arguments for working towards a successor agency, and he is by no means a
>radical. Can anybody convince me one way or the other?

Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com

This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>