[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > COMMENT #1 (....) > I'd like to see language indicating that individuals should not be > excluded from membership merely because an SO claims to represent them. > Perhaps the "primarily" in Principle 1 was intended to serve this > purpose, but it remains unclear. See Principle #2 at http://www.icann.org/berlin/membership_rec.htm. It says > Individuals who are members of the SOs or their constituencies > are welcome to join the at-large membership. > > Second, a basic plank of my candidacy would be a commitment to change > the restrictive clause that limits At-large membership to "any Internet > user". > > I'm in favor of universal adult suffrage: All should have a right to > participate in electing the Internet governance team. And, while I > suspect few will avail themselves of this mechanism, its existence will > provide input worthy of our attention. They do, but they have to do it online. That is the basic requirement for membership and the MAC's position is that it is not an unreasonable demand to require people to have access to the technology in order to participate. ICANN intends to do most of its communication and voting online. "Regular user" is not a requirement, only that one has access. > COMMENT #2 > I'm for an "individuals-only" At-large membership. Organizations > may encourage their individual members to join as ICANN At-large > members, but they should gain organizational representation > through SO constituencies. The SOs were designed to focus on particular, limited policy issues. The At-large, on the other hand, is not limited to any one of those issues. Your preference for "individuals only" is shared by a strong minority of the MAC. > > COMMENT #4 > > My homeless friend Raphael (and others with financial, social, > religious, or political pressures) might find this physical address > requirement difficult to fulfill. But for the upcoming election, the > loss of some membership might outweigh the potential loss from fraud. Yes, he might have a problem, but we made a judgment call that the validity of the ICANN election process itself required some way to verify the authenticity of individual members. The technology simply makes it too easy to spoof identity and votes. Perhaps some procedure could be established for hardship cases and some other form of identity could be used. Can you think of anything? > > 7. If desired, ICANN may appoint a committee (a) to assist > in soliciting candidates in regions where there are few > candidates or (b) to oversee election details such as > fulfillment of candidate criteria, however it shall not be a > function of such committee to filter, screen or otherwise > evaluate candidates on any grounds other than for failure to > supply the required campaign documentation of Section below, > in a true, accurate and timely fashion. > > COMMENT #7 > > First, the "or" in "ICANN may appoint a committee (a) to assist in > soliciting candidates in regions where there are few candidates or (b) > to oversee election details few candidates" seems to limit ICANN's power > here to either (a) or (b). I'd eliminate it. Both might be necessary in > a single election. We certainly intended it to be and/or. > Second, "If desired, ICANN may appoint" No. I don't like this. I'd be > concerned here that a nominating committee will seek to supply > "desirable" candidates that meet the goals of the committee or extant > Board. Board recommended / approved candidates will have an undue > advantage. > > I don’t anticipate a paucity of candidates from any region. If there is, > the elected Board should take it up for the second election. Several MAC members from developing nations felt that shortage of candidates would be a problem. They felt that ICANN should take some responsibility to ensure that there were enough candidates. Your concerns about what a nom com might do are valid however and that's why we didn't set up a nom com for general purposes, but only in the particular situations outlined in Principle 7. Diane Cabell MAC
