[AFRI-Discuss] FW: My Issues with the At-Large Election Process
Badru Ntege (NFT)
badru.ntege at nftconsult.com
Wed Nov 3 05:59:51 UTC 2010
Having read the email by Danny Younger one can only conclude that he raises
some pertinent questions that I would suggest need a response from Nom com
if only to give the process credibility. If mistakes and oversights have
happened I do believe we have built a healthy and mature entity that can and
should stand up and make some rectifications where they are needed.
However the high numbers of failure should highlight a need for more
outreach and sensitization in the community. We should also build a
process that allows for the process to ensure a certain number of candidates
are presented and also maybe a mixture of new and old (some kind of positive
discrimination for new members).
> -----Original Message-----
> From: afri-discuss-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:afri-
> discuss-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Heidi Ullrich
> Sent: Wednesday, November 03, 2010 12:24 AM
> To: At-Large Worldwide; alac-announce at atlarge-lists.icann.org; afri-
> discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org; apac-discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org;
> euro-discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org; LACRALO discussion list; NA
> Cc: ICANN At-Large Staff
> Subject: [AFRI-Discuss] FW: My Issues with the At-Large Election
> Dear All,
> Please see below a message sent by Danny Younger on the subject of the
> At-Large Board Director selection process.
> Kind regards,
> Heidi Ullrich
> Director for At-Large
> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
> Telephone: + 1 (310) 578 - 8647
> Fax: +1 (310) 823 - 8649
> Cell/Mobile: +1 (310) 437 - 3956
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Danny Younger [mailto:dannyyounger at yahoo.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 02, 2010 6:11 AM
> To: ICANN At-Large Staff
> Subject: My Issues with the At-Large Election Process
> [Please forward to all the appropriate at-large and RALO lists]
> Dear members of the At-Large community,
> By now you are aware that in the At-Large Board Director selection
> process 43 Statements of Interest (SOIs) were received by the Board
> Candidate Evaluation Committee (BCEC). Three of those SOIs were from
> current and sitting members of the ALAC; forty were not. By an amazing
> coincidence only current and former ALAC members were selected for the
> candidate slate. On this basis alone, there are some that might wonder
> whether the at-large director selection process has, in fact, been
> Others will look at the fact that the BCEC was entitled to select as
> many as 7 candidates (which would have allowed for more than one gender
> to be considered, or would have allowed for some "non-insiders" to be
> considered), and yet the BCEC for some unfathomable reason decided to
> narrow the field of otherwise qualified candidates down to only the
> three that were sitting or prior ALAC members... still another reason
> to suspect capture.
> We know that the ICANN Board Governance Committee had concerns about
> capture; their meeting minutes state: "Reviewed the proposed At-Large
> Board member selection process and potential risks of capture
> identified within the process." While their assessment was that the
> risk of capture was low, the preliminary election results tendered can
> readily lead one to a different conclusion.
> One also has to look at the fact that 49% of all SOIs were rejected
> before the process even began (ostensibly because they were deemed to
> be too incomplete to proceed further). In what other election process
> are that many candidates rejected out of hand before the election even
> begins? Clearly there is something seriously wrong with this picture.
> If the Statement of Interest application form was so poorly written
> that almost half of all applications were improperly completed, then it
> is an inescapable conclusion that the process itself was seriously
> We know as well that ICANN Staff has provided a certain degree of
> support to some of the 22 candidates that hadn't fully completed their
> SOIs. At issue is why Staff didn't offer comparable support to the
> other 21 applicants who were initially rejected.
> Additionally, we are confronted with the fact that the at-large
> director selection process was announced on the internal ALAC-related
> lists on 21 July, but press releases in Arabic, Chinese (Simplified),
> French, German, Portugese (Brazilian), Russian and Spanish weren't
> issued until 26 August -- you will note that the deadline for
> applications was only 11 days thereafter (on 6 September). One has to
> wonder how many SOIs weren't received owing simply to the the short
> time span between the international press release date and the final
> application deadline.
> One also has to wonder about how much of an advantage was thereby given
> to "insiders" that were aware of the process for a full month longer
> than applicants who first heard about the election when the Press
> releases were issued in languages other than English.
> Recently, the ABSdt announced a revised timeline that requires the RALO
> petition process to be completed on or before 7 November, yet no e-mail
> notices have gone out to any of the candidates to advise them of the
> timeline changes. Is this fair to the bulk of the candidates that may
> not even know of the existence of the ABSdt mailing list?
> All of us intuitively understand that a flawed process can certainly
> yield a flawed outcome.
> So what do we do at this point?
> While I understand the rush to have an at-large director seated (just
> as I understand the rush to have new gTLDs launched), I also understand
> that as a community we are better served by "doing it right" than by
> adhering to the results of what may be perceived as a tainted or
> seriously flawed election process.
> Yes, I recognize that it is always exceedingly difficult to stop a
> moving train, but I remain of the view that this election process has
> already been damaged to the degree that it should be stopped dead in
> its tracks for the good of the at-large community.
> I understand that these views may not be popular with some, but this
> election process, in my opinion, has proven to be not as fair and
> properly orchestrated as it could have been.
> best regards,
> Danny Younger
> AFRI-Discuss mailing list
> AFRI-Discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> Homepage for the region: http://www.afralo.org
> Posting guidelines to ensure machine translations of emails sent to
> this list are more accurate:
More information about the AFRI-Discuss