[ga] Discussion Paper: At-Large "Nominations"

[DannyYounger@cs.com]

There are times when the ICANN Board states a reason for a given action that, 
while seemingly plausible, does not appear to truly reflect the actual 
thinking of the Board.   In other words, the stated reason seems to hide the 
true considerations that prompted the decision.

The recent resolution to cancel upcoming elections for At-large directors is 
one such example.  The Board publicly stated that it was prompted by concerns 
about capture, identity verification processes, and by the validity, 
fairness, representativeness, affordability and practicality of global online 
elections... a lot of verbiage outlining concerns that had already been 
sufficiently discounted by both major groups that had investigated the 
At-Large election issues, the ALSC and NAIS.

What is most likely the truth of the matter?  

We know that an election process will invariably draw highly vocal critics of 
ICANN.  We also know that in a climate where it is fashionable to hate the 
ICANN organization such critics have an extremely high chance of being 
elected by the voting members of the general public.  The ICANN Board was 
facing the very real political prospect of having half of their Board 
potentially populated by their worst critics.  There are those on the current 
Board that view such a prospect as destabilizing and "not in the best 
interests of the Corporation" -- essentially they strongly maintain the view 
that such a Board composition would thoroughly paralyze the organization, and 
no way in Hell would they ever allow such a development to proceed unchecked.

The elections were cancelled for pretty much the same reasons that national 
governments on occasion choose to cancel an election cycle -- fear of the 
potential success of the rival opposition party, and the sentiment that a 
government that included in great measure such nefarious elements would 
ill-serve the nation's needs.  The motivation may be misguided but it still 
is, in one sense, almost patriotic.

I will not argue as to the relative validity of the motivations that prompted 
the Board's action.  My intent here is to determine a proper course of action 
that may yet preserve the At-Large while still respecting the Board's 
sensibilities.

Being pragmatic, we have to realize that this Board still wields the power 
and still controls the process.  Yes, there are those that believe that if 
sufficient pressure is exerted upon Congress, a successor agency to ICANN 
will be designated, or at the very least the ICANN contracts will be re-bid.  
I, however, have a different sense of the political landscape... as long as 
ICANN doesn't thoroughly screw up in the days ahead, the Department of 
Commerce will honor the stated attempt to reform/restructure this 
organization as an activity undertaken in good faith, and will convince 
Congress that the DoC is sufficiently diligent in their oversight role to 
ensure that Congress's concerns will be satisfied.  ICANN will survive yet 
another day in an amended form.

The issue we now face is how to obtain the necessary complement of At-Large 
directors in a manner that does not ostensibly "threaten" the currently 
seated Board.   If the Board can feel a necessary "comfort level" with the 
next set of At-Large directors, then the Board's perceived need to reduce the 
level of At-Large representation from that which was originally promised 
evaporates.  

All of us that participated in the "clean-sheet study" process understood 
that the ALSC never had a documented "consensus" to reduce the number of 
At-Large directors -- that recommendation was simply a poorly designed 
subterfuge to conceal the fact that the Committee believed that the Board 
would only accept ongoing At-large elections if the number of At-Large 
directors was reduced to a "controllable" amount.

As it turned out, even that reduced amount of directors proved to be an 
unacceptable risk to the current Board.  The ALSC miscalculated, and 
elections were cancelled.

That brings us to our present state of affairs... 

If we are to have our full complement of At-large directors, we must first 
recognize the risk that open elections pose to the Board, and secondly we 
must craft an alternative process that will both be acceptable to the Board 
and which will effectively meet the needs of the broader At-Large community.  
In an earlier recommendation, I have already proposed an election plan based 
on a quantifiable subset of the At-Large.  In this recommendation, I consider 
the merits of the nomination process as the only other remaining option.

The key issue is:  if we have to resort to nominations of At-Large Directors, 
who will be making the nominations?   The At-Large Community will rightfully 
feel betrayed if such nominations are made by either a Board Committee, or by 
the non-At-Large directors on the Board.  The one solution that is eminently 
logical and reasonable is for all At-large directors to nominate their own 
replacements (with the suggested caveat that no director may select a 
replacement from his/her own country).  

At this point in time, I believe that the Board is sufficiently comfortable 
with the judgement of the bulk of its At-large directors to not feel 
threatened by the prospect that they will select poor replacements (and even 
should such a "poor" selection be made by any one or two At-Large directors, 
such new Board members would invariably become a very "manageable" minority 
element).  The At-large community, by the same token, should be able to feel 
comfortable with the fact that their own representatives will be making a 
well-considered choice that serves to guarantee geographic/cultural 
diversity.  Most obviously, the informed electorate that formerly would have 
voted now becomes able to lobby its representative in favor of certain 
candidates.  No...  a vote is not held, but nonetheless the public can make 
its choice of candidates known and can encourage the At-large director to 
make the "right choice" through open processes.

I recognize that there are always flaws in any proposal, and that we haven't 
accounted for how the currently "non-elected" At-Large directors would 
guarantee that their choices added to the cultural/geographic diversity that 
we require, but that is why this is a discussion paper...
--
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