Re: [council] PLEASE READ - Draft Statement on Election Process

[Nigel Roberts <nigel@nic.gg>]

A couple of points.

I personally have no concerns about the nomination process.
I feel it should be open and inclusive anyhow.

However I do feel that some of the way we are replying here  
may provoke a large counter-reaction from the General Assembly. 

Particularly the implication (which I read in it) that ICANN (i.e. us) 
may change or re-interpret the rules as we see fit. 

I recognise that with the time pressures and constraints we are all 
under that drafting an ideal, and totally diplomatic statement would 
probably take the best part of a day and anyhow, personally.
I would not have objected to something a  little bit shorter and more
robust.

Has a formal allegations of electoral misconduct been made? 
I don't believe they have.

If they have not, then no problem.  That should be our reply.

If they have (and I don't believe they have), then /we/ cannot rule on
it, 
it has to be investigated by an independent third party, such as a
Returning Officer. [Principles of Natural Justice -- no one should be 
judge in their own cause].

And as far as the final paragraph is concerned, I strongly agree with
it, since I have my own concerns (which I would like us to discuss
AFTER the completion of the elections since they relate to the
/process/ and not to any of the candidates. 

So having made those comments which I hope you consider during the
conference,
I will say I am prepared to trust Dennis to make a response along
the lines he suggests, i.e. that we are satisfied with the nomination
process.

Kind regards



Nigel Roberts 
(currently a candidate for election to the 
list for the interim House of Lords !)





Dennis Jennings wrote:
> 
> Dear  Colleagues,
> 
> Here is a draft (I hope final) statement on the election process that I
> would like to release after the start of today's teleconference.
> 
> I have consulted with Andrew on this, and he is reasonably happy with
> it, I think.
> 
> Please read and be ready to discuss briefly today at 15:00 CET.
> 
> Thanks
> Dennis
> --------
> DNSO Names Council Statement
> 
> The Names Council has received several expressions of concern that the
> process of nominating candidates for election by the Names Council to
> the ICANN Board had not followed the Names Council's published rules.
> 
> The Names Council considered this issue during its teleconference on 15
> October 1999.
> 
> The published rules state:  "The Names Council has resolved that a
> candidate, in order to be nominated must have the support of, at least, 10
> members of the General Assembly.  For this purpose, anybody who is
> subscribed to the General Assembly mailing list, the Announce mailing
> list or the list of one of the Constituencies of the DNSO is considered a
> member of the General Assembly.  As the Announce and General
> Assembly list are open, anybody wishing to participate in the
> nomination process may subscribe to one of these lists and be
> considered a member of the General Assembly".
> 
> The Names Council has been asked to verify that all nominated
> candidates were supported by at least ten individuals who qualify as
> members of the General Assembly, as required by the published rules.
> 
> In response, the Names Council resolved the following:
> 
> The rules published for nomination and support of candidates to be
> considered for election by the Names Council to the ICANN Board were
> not intended to be a significant barrier to the identification of candidates
> for this election.  The purpose of the rules was administrative -- namely,
> to ensure that the Names Council was not swamped with an exceedingly
> long list of nominees with only marginal support in the DNSO
> community.  As such, the rules were loosely written so as to allow any
> person on any list of members of any of the component parts of the
> DNSO to support a candidate.  The rules, of their nature, are not strong.
> In addition, the membership criteria in the rules are not verifiable under
> the DNSO's existing Listserv management software, because: (1) the
> membership of all such lists is not fixed and varies from time to time as
> individuals subscribe to and unsubscribe from them, and (2) no formal
> list membership tracking mechanisms are in place at this time.
> 
> In light of the fact that compliance with the rule cannot technologically
> be verified, the Names Council took the view that those candidates who
> received votes during the election were, by definition, thus recognised
> as having support within the DNSO community.  Further, the Names
> Council agreed that any candidate elected as a result of the election
> process undertaken by the Names Council had, by definition,
> substantive support within the DNSO community.
> 
> The Names Council decided that the rules for nomination and support of
> candidates by the DNSO for election to the ICANN Board must be
> reviewed and may need to be revised for future elections.  The Names
> Council committed to conduct such a review in good time before the next
> elections took place.
> 
> <end statement>
> -------------------------------------------------------
> Dennis M. Jennings
> Director, Computing Services, University College Dublin.
> Address:  Daedalus Building, Belfield, Dublin 4, Ireland
> E-mail:  Dennis.Jennings@ucd.ie
> Telephone:  +353-(1) 706 7817
> Fax:        +353-(1) 706 2362