[ncdnhc-discuss] Elections (was ISOC)

[Harold J. Feld]

Alejandro writes:

 >Hi!

 >a salient characteristic of the CIRA election is that all voters have
 >to be domain-name holders under .ca.

 >If I remember well our constituency has strenuously opposed such a
 >condition for the at-large, and I have upheld the objection repeatedly.
 >So any comparison is somewhere between little-relevant and moot at 
 >least on that basis. BTW the condition seems perfectly right to many in
 >the better defined realm of a ccTLD administration.

 >Alejandro Pisanty

Alejandro's message raises several points worthy of discussion.

1) The difference between ccTLD administration, gTLD administration, and 
ICANN administration.

There has been considerable debate on the names council as to how 
seperable these issues are.  Alejandro appears to raise (albeit as a 
final thought) that the question of elections is one which may work in a 
well defined ccTLD, but not a more global system such as ICANN.

There are reasons to justify this.  In a ccTLD with a geographic based 
restriction on registration (and I think CA has some sort of geographic 
nexus requirement), and with a smaller population, the mechanics of such 
an election are easier to manage than for a global organization.  Other 
reasons may also suggest themselves.

But that a method of selection works on a local level may be instructive 
on to decisions on a global level.  I believe Jamie's essential point 
has been that there is nothing inherently impossible about online 
elections.  The counter arguments, if stripped to their underlying 
logical nub, are either to dispute whether the CA election has in fact 
been a success, and, if it is a succes, whether it can scale up to ICANN 
level organizations.

Others have made much of the turn out issue.  This may ormay not make a 
difference depending on how one views the purpose of elections.  If 
elections are urged because only a decision or a representative approved 
by a sufficient percentage of the population to be deemd to hold a 
"mandate" is valid, then low participation makes elections a failure. 
(Some countries employ mandatory elections to counter this, then refusal 
to participate becomes a statement).

OTOH, there are many other reasons to have elections, even with low 
turn-outs.  Legitimacey is a big one.  I feel differently about a system 
if I have the opportunity to vote, even if I don't exercise that right.
My failure to vote becomes an acquiesence in the final result.  By 
contrast, if I cannot vote, then I can properly regard the system as 
coersive, since I have not aquiesced in the process.

Elections are not, of course, the only path to legitimacy.  In my 
comments to the Committee, I have suggested tow other mechanisms ICANN 
can employ in lieu of elections.  1) An Independent Reivew Board 
appointed wholly independently from ICANN (I do not think the 
arbitration and ombudsman proposals by the Board are adequate); and 2) 
regular admission of new TLDs into the root to minimize politicking 
around ICANN (my thanks to Milton for letting me use his piece on that).

Harold