The Nominating Committee: The Nominating Committee was constituted at the same time as the Election Committee, tasked with naming qualified candidates to the At-Large ballot on behalf of the Board. However, the Committee was basically unaccountable for its decisions and opaque in its process, raising critical questions about the Board-nomination process as a whole. Concerns about Committee process evoked suspicion among many in the community both about nominees' qualifications and about their legitimacy. This probably affected the election differently in different regions, but seems likely to have led to greater dependence on the member-nomination process in Europe and North America.
As is discussed below, the Nominating Committee's additions to the ballot ranged from only two candidates in Africa to five in Europe, though the Committee did not volunteer the reasoning behind such differences. While the ultimate consequences of this, and of a ballot limited to seven participants total, varied by region, questions remain. Since it added candidates to the ballots before the end of the member-nomination process, and because ballot size had already been capped (by Election Committee rules) at seven candidates, the Nominating Committee effectively controlled the number of member-nominated candidates on the ballot.
Member-Nomination: Although not every region was able to name the same number of candidates through member-nomination, the process worked well within its limits. As discussed above, potential candidates were required to show support from at least two percent of their regional electorate. Such a level proved reasonable, and at least one member-nominated candidate appeared on every ballot.
Member-nomination took place on members.icann.org, where all would-be candidates were provided Web space and the opportunity to describe their platform. Users visiting members.icann.org during the nomination period were also offered statistics on how many endorsements each candidate had so far received. While this may have helped voters gauge candidates' relative levels of support, it may also have unintentionally favored those candidates who made strong early showings in the member-nomination process. Voters endorsing candidates late in the process would have been more likely to support candidates already near the 2% line, leaving candidates who submitted their names for member-nomination just a few days late out of the running.
ICANN did not provide candidates in the 2000 election with direct access to the rolls of the At-Large Membership. This was basically due to strong privacy statements made early in the voter registration process regarding the ways that registration data - particularly e-mail addresses - would be used by ICANN. The Board and staff generally felt that providing candidates with access to voter rolls would have violated its privacy policy, diminishing voters' trust in the election process.
As an alternative, ICANN presented a web site, members.icann.org, as the online home of the At-Large Membership during the 2000 election. [ 18 ] The site served a functional purpose as a central locus for voter registration and member-nomination, but ICANN also encouraged candidates to post their positions and answer questions posed by members. The site included election-related material in eight languages , [ 19 ] though candidate question-and-answer forums were mostly in English - ICANN's working language. As is discussed below, candidate use of the question-and-answer forums was uneven, and several candidates expressed dissatisfaction with their inability to contact At-Large members directly.
Membership Implementation Task Force: The At-Large election's expansive scope - ultimately including voters from over 190 countries - indicated a need for voter education and outreach on a global scale. The Board attempted to address this need through the Membership Implementation Task Force, but the effort's lack of success stemmed from problems in both definition and execution.
The Board called for the convention of a Membership Implementation Task Force in November 1999. The initial resolution indicated a broad set of tasks regarding election implementation, outreach, and fraud protection, [ 20 ] but the Board later indicated that most of the real policy discussion would occur at the Board level. This had the effect of limiting the MITF to a mission of near-pure outreach, frustrating both MITF members, who felt that their expertise in policy matters was not being appreciated, and outreach experts, who may have had more of an interest in the MITF had they known its specific purpose in advance. Further complicating the issue was the MITF's tremendous size and resultant unwieldiness. [ 21 ] Members' activity in the task force flagged. and consequently both discussion and action by the MITF were hamstrung, leaving ICANN in the lurch for an effective outreach program.
This lack meant that ICANN missed an opportunity to take a leadership role in positioning the 2000 election. As the regional reports below show, the election was cast in different, sometimes wildly different, ways by the media organizations, companies, and interest groups that played a part in promoting it to voters. This contributed to inconsistencies and problems later on.
Third-party outreach and education: As is discussed in our look at the election on a region-by-region basis, substantial responsibility for outreach moved outside ICANN to (in varying degrees) media outlets, corporations, non-profit organizations, and even governments. While the tenor and effect of third-party outreach varied considerably by region and by nation, the lack of a strong, centralized outreach effort meant that third-party efforts could exert significant influence over the number and character of registrants.
ICANN did not offer overt support to these outreach efforts. A number of them complain that ICANN declined even to link to their online resources from members.icann.org. Given the electorate's large size and decentralized character, placement on a high-visibility page such as the official members' site could have energized some of the self-organizing efforts of groups worldwide, particularly regarding voters new to the ICANN process. Concerns about favoritism could likely have been defused by offering equal space to all outreach efforts.
| 2.1.3. Decisions Regarding Election Rules | 2.1.5. Decisions Regarding Technical Provisions |
© 2001 NAISProject.org
Privacy Policy
webmaster@naisproject.org