Re: [council] Some Thoughts on the Elections Process

[Nigel Roberts <nigel@nic.gg>]

Yes, but the technical electoral problem is simply this:

Where there are 3 Board seats elected by each SO, 
and 5 regions, the output of the election process to the
ICANN board is /not/ going to be geographically balanced over
the 5 regions, because at each stage two regions are excluded
from representation and there is no guarantee at all of overall
balance of representation. 

Any such guarantee can only be made by considering the
make-up of the Board AS A WHOLE not in the sub-components.

And as Amadeu now seems to have confirmed my understanding 
that Dennis is indeed the person co-ordinating the sub-group 
considering these matters, is it too much to ask that this 
discussion take place within that sub-group to which, I am 
sure, all submissions are more than welcome.


Nigel


Amadeu Abril i Abril wrote:
> 
> Dennis Jennings wrote:
> >
> [...]
> 
> > My point was that the rules (as I read them) do NOT require a
> > geographically diverse outcome of these particular DNSO elections.
> >
> > The Names Council could decide that a geographically diverse outcome is
> > required - and make this explicit.  But it needs to decide this, not just
> > assume it.  It also needs to make sure that this decision is supported by
> > the Constituencies and the ICANN Board.
> >
> Is this seious, Dennis? Do your really mean that you are not sure that
> "most" NC members and "most" constituenncies really favour
> geographical diversity as an output, or you are making a procedural
> point about how excplicit this should be?
> 
> In any case, in could hardly be more explicit in the Bylaws, and the
> discussions and in our constituency, at least.
> 
> Best regard,
> 
> Amadeu