In North America, as in the other four regions that held elections for At-Large board seats, obstacles to a smooth election process arose. Some of these were common to each region (due to the centralized nature of the election process) and are dealt with above.
Prior to the vote for ICANN's At-Large board members, there was widespread concern that vested corporate interests would attempt to use their substantial influence and large employee bases to seize control of one or more At-Large Directors. However, the feared "corporate capture" of the North American board seat does not appear to have occurred. Karl Auerbach assumed his seat on the ICANN Board in November without any public suggestions that his victory was somehow illegitimate.
Indeed, despite early fears by many that the At-Large election would be vulnerable to manipulation, in North America there was no evidence of any concerted attempt on the part of any corporate or governmental interests, entrenched or otherwise, to mobilize voters in ways inconsistent with the election's basic aims. Three of the top four candidates emerged from the membership-nomination process, and their success seems to have been the product of well-organized campaigns in the democratic tradition, rather than of any inappropriately organized attempt to manipulate the election.
While many election observers were dismayed to see such low voter turnout-just over three thousand voting in a potential electorate numbering well over a hundred million-some of those interviewed expressed little hope that future elections could bring turnouts high enough to confer traditional political legitimacy on the ICANN process. The technical (and to a certain extent, arcane) nature of ICANN's mission, combined with a relatively low level of sophistication among North American Internet users regarding ICANN's policy issues, seem to make substantially larger electorates unlikely without dramatically greater public education, and perhaps an altered vision of ICANN itself.
Although ICANN offered some outreach, non-profit organizations and academic institutions played significant roles throughout the election process. ICANN engaged in only very limited proactive outreach, mostly because of its concerns about privacy and a lack of resources. Third-party organizations like NGOs and academic institutions played a significant role in the registration, education, and voting phases of the election. North America's well-established NGO community led to a proliferation of voter education and advocacy resources online, highly accessible to interested members of the North American electorate.
We found two main points of view regarding the merits of the fall election in particular (and, by extension, the current representation scheme in general). One view claimed that there were structural flaws in the election process. The system may be vulnerable to capture by special interests; a public election could result in unqualified board members; a worldwide online election is prohibitively impractical; what need is there for directly elected board members of a technical management body, anyway? These were the most common objections from those that generally opposed the concept of the At-Large election from the beginning or did not support the eventual winner.
Another view held that the ICANN election was a qualified success, as (they argued) it resulted in real public representation on a board that had previously been lacking in legitimacy. The technical and procedural objections about the election were seen as overblown and, for the most part, easily remedied. For the most part, those who held these views were supportive of one of the "reform" candidates and, more significantly, their user-advocate agenda.
This dichotomy is troubling because it points to the lack of consensus about the purpose of the At-Large Membership-an important observation about this election as a whole, and a common refrain heard from participants on every side of this debate.
Still, for the most part, even those with different opinions about the election process in general seemed to accept its legitimacy in this instance. While many disagreed about the ultimate merits of the philosophical and practical grounding of the current At-Large structure, most parties seemed surprisingly accepting of the results of this specific election, given the rules of the game as they currently exist. Even critics of the At-Large concept (and of the winning candidate) accepted the result and felt that ICANN was still functioning well despite their misgivings.
Similarly, many of the groups most vocally concerned about the election process (and other aspects of ICANN's operation) took comfort in the ultimate election of an outsider, reformer candidate. This diplomatic tone may have been in part a result of efforts by interviewees to couch comments in objective terms for our benefit, and there may have also been political reasons for not raising major public objections to the election process. Still, taking the general tone of comments at face value, we find room for optimism about the future evolution of the processes that make ICANN run, and for a robust public voice within those processes.
| 2.2.5.2.2 The Election phase | 2.3 Concluding Comparative Themes |
© 2001 NAISProject.org
Privacy Policy
webmaster@naisproject.org