|
Emerson Tiller, J.D., Ph.D.
- posted on 2000-09-25 01:01:51
|
|
No, they are not adequate. (1) ICANN should not be able to pre-select candidates for the final ballot through its own nominating committee; (2) The at-large members need an easier and more reliable method to register, endorse, and vote.
|
|
Donald Langenberg
- posted on 2000-09-24 13:02:39
|
|
Sorry, but I don't know enough about the details of the current processes to answer this one.
|
|
Harris Miller
- posted on 2000-09-23 18:23:59
|
|
All involved are working with this process for the first time. I support the decision to study and evaluate the election after its conclusion.
|
|
Karl Auerbach
- posted on 2000-09-19 21:33:47
|
|
The current process is awful.
ICANN's procedures for inter-elector communications and candidate-elector communications are crippling.
The current process does not even meet the minimum standards for corporate elections as required by California law - and ICANN is a California corporation.
My cure (this is a quick list and should hardly be considered complete):
- Follow the election requirements set forth by California law.
- Come up with better registration, communication, and voting software. (The existing registration system is so bad that I hope ICANN refused to pay the invoice from whoever wrote it.)
- Get rid of the nomination committee and allow all candidates to come from the membership.
- Review the report of ICANN's Membership Advisory Committee and pick up all the recommendations that ICANN's board has skipped over.
<\P>
|
