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

[Joanna Lane <jo-uk@rcn.com>]

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 be
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, all
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 given
the choice? Yes, that also, including but not limited to:-

1) Citizenship/ Residency Anomaly - the internet community is full of people
like myself and Joop, whose citizenship and residency fall into different
regions. Currently, I have started to co-ordinate the New York Working Group
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 can
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 the
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 go.

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, it
was a frustration on both sides and it showed.

Finally, I am not avoiding Esther's question, but I'm still not sure whether
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?

Regards,
Joanna


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