[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. > > 8. Privacy concerns should be foremost in the collection, > safeguarding and use of a Member's data. Except as may be > required by applicable law, no Director, officer or Member > of ICANN shall be permitted to use such personal data for > commercial or other private purpose nor shall any Member's > individual vote be made public. > COMMENT #8 > As a candidate I'd be concerned that ICANN would inform me that 31,942 > people have registered from country X, and that country X's deep privacy > concerns preclude an audit. Privacy issues must not prevent fair > elections. > > In recent days I've followed the difficult discussion on this issue as > led by Kent. And I'd lean ever so slightly toward openness. The elected > board should review the impact of open roll call in its review of the > initial election process. > > 9. At-large voting shall be on the principle of > one-person-one-vote. An organization shall be limited to > casting one vote on behalf of the entire organization. > Individuals who vote for SO Directors in their capacity as > representatives of SO-member organizations shall also have a > right to vote for at-large Directors in a personal capacity > if they also register as individual at-large Members. > COMMENT #9 > Organizations should not have a right to vote. Although this would > provide me with two or three votes, and there's something desirable > about that, in a shallow way, I think it inappropriate. > > If organizations are allowed to vote, I might find myself requesting > that every prospective voter (of the human type) look to cast additional > organization votes on my behalf. > > No, this is a bad idea. No at-large votes for organizations. > Organizations belong in the SOs. > 10. The at-large membership shall consist of a single voting > class. A Member may not vote in any election that occurs > less than one month after the Member has been registered. > COMMENT #10 > I suppose capture and the time needed verify membership is the issue > here. But I'll need time to get my members/voters signed up. So the > time to election, i.e., the time from announcement to the Election > Day, at least initially, must be at least three months. > > end part 1. -- Diane Cabell http://www.mama-tech.com Fausett, Gaeta & Lund, LLP Boston, MA
