2.1 Cross-Regional Elements: Board and staff election administration

As a whole, this chapter focuses on the effects of the 2000 election in each of the five geographic regions. But many decisions governing the election belong to no particular region-e.g. the decision to hold direct elections, or the technical specifications of the election system itself. The implications of these decisions were felt universally, and this section provides an overview of lessons about the common elements of last year's election.

From ICANN's incorporation in 1998 through the conclusion of the 2000 At-Large election, the organization devoted substantial time, energy, and resources to finding a process by which the community "At-Large" would select Directors to the Board. The largest part of that effort came from ICANN staff-Chief Policy Officer/Chief Financial Officer Andrew McLaughlin, Outside Counsel Joe Sims, and Vice President/General Counsel Louis Touton. Staff has historically played a major role both in developing ICANN policies and advising on Board action regarding those policies.

As under-resourced volunteers, the ICANN Directors' reliance on staff is to be expected. However, both the staff's accountability and its operational transparency have been the subject of criticism from a number of sources, and some have asked whether the staff plays too large a role and has too much autonomy in establishing ICANN policy. In that light, the Board's dependence on them raises questions about the nature of decision-making in ICANN.

ICANN's accomplishment in coordinating an election of this scope-on a short timeline and with limited funding-deserves recognition. But ICANN's decisions regarding the 2000 election reveal important lessons for future decisions affecting the entire Internet community.

There are several considerations to bear in mind while reviewing ICANN's election administration. First, both the Board and the community share a responsibility to prevent avoidable mistakes from interfering with future selection of Directors. Second, there are indications that some Board actions regarding public input were inconsistent with the ICANN process as it is generally understood; discussion of the frequency, circumstances, and implications of these instances appears below.

2. Lessons and Challenges: The 2000 At-Large Election

2.1.1 Limitations Faced by the ICANN Election