[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Comment-Geo] Comments from EuroInternet
The European Internet Business Association would like to congratulate ICANN
on the large amounts of work that it is carrying on in such short time and
to help by commenting on the Geographical Diversity document posted for
We believe that the voting mechanism for ICANN should be as simple as
possible for voters, and assure geographical diversity while at the same
time giving each SO freedom to elect its representatives without
interferance from other SOs.
While we see its merits, we believe that this is not the case with the
There are four constituencies for ICANN (at-large plus each of the SOs). In
order to assure geographical diversity and assure that the election in one
of the constituencies are not affected by the election is another
constituency (while still respecting the rule that says that no more than
50% of the directors may come from the same region) EACH constituency must
assure geographical diversity in its elected directors.
Otherwise we may very well reach a case in which an SO, at the time it
elects its directors, finds that, the present number of directors from a
given region forbids that constituency from electing directors from that
- At- large elects:
3 directors from Europe
3 from the US
1 from Asia
1 from South America
1 From Africa
- The DNSO elects 3 directors from Europe
- The ASO elects 3 directors from Europe.
The PSO (supposing it is the last one to elect) CANNOT elect directors from
Europe, because it would break the 50% rule. The other constituencies would
be forcing the directors that the PSO may elect.
We need to return to a rule of simplicity:
If each SO cannot elect three directors from the same region, then the
problem dissapears, as the maximum number from a region would be two from
each SO (6) plus a máximum of three at-large.
It is necessary to start with a limit on the election of SO directors (no
more than two from the same region).
We also consider the election mechanism for at-large directors overly
complicated. We do not expect voters to understand the complication of the
It is very easy to develop a post-election mechanism in which the 5 people
with the largest number of votes from each of the 5 regions actually get
elected, then they are taken out of the list. From the remaining list, we
start again with the largest number of votes and go down. If, from this
remaining list, two people from the same region are selected, all other
candidates from that region are immediatly taken out of the list.. until we
have the correct number of directors.
The result is the same one, but you present to the voters one single list
and make it easy for them, while it only takes ICANN 10 more minutes to do
the selection. Otherwise you have to explain to them the difference between
the two list (hard to explain). Also, you let candidates run for all the
votes, and do not allow "pairs" of candidates running together for separate
votes (organization X pushes candidate A in the regional and candidate B in
the global election).
European Internet Business Association