Regarding the voting of Members to the ASO of ICANN
Dear fellow members, We write this mail because of the latest developments regarding the nomination and voting of three members from the RIPE community to the ICANN ASO. During the RIPE 34:th meeting there was a point on the agenda for the Plenary Session, 6.b - Selection of 3 Address Council Members. Here three candidates where supposed to be choosen by the membership from 8 nominees. And here is the problem. Every nominee had to fullfill the demands that was expected from them. By active participation in the ICANN ASO process and to work for the RIPE communitys best. Those who accepted their nomination was also fully aware that no financial support would come from either ICANN or RIPE. During that meeting there was a change in the openess and fairness of the process. The meeting took a number of descisions regarding selection criteria among the nominees, among one was that the nominee was to participate in person to be able to be elected. It is our view that selection criteria among nominees is something that have to be public beforehand, and especially known by all nominated persons. Selection criteria is something a nomination commitee work with, election is something a group of people do among a number of nominees -- normally outcome from a nomination comittee. During this nomination process there were no information that the nominated person had to be present at the election. This way to handle the voting for representatives to the ASO is not done in the openess and fairness that we all expect from the whole ICANN process. By doing this the sitiuation could arise that some who nominated himself, and only by himself, would have had a bigger chance to have a seat in the ASO than someone that was supported by many but at that moment where not able to attend the meeting. Because of the tight time limit, the reason to not attend the meeting could be anything from not be able to leave their work with such a short notice, to a simple thing as sickness. This also shows a lack in the way that the voting proceedure is performed within RIPE and the membership. We are fully aware that there is a deadline that ICANN has set up that all RIRs and their membership has to follow. But this solution is not done in the best spirit of the Internet. All the ASO representatives should attend all RIPE meetings in order to get input from the RIPE community. And we fully support Sabine Jaume, Hans Petter Holen and Wilfried Woeber. We also wish them good luck in their work. But we only want to make all the members aware of this issue and next time create a process that is more fair. And to follow the voting proceedings that should apply in a important issue like this. Best Regards Per Lundberg Sonera (se.sonera) Amar Andersson Telia Net (se.telianet) Hans Niklasson Tele2 (se.swipnet) Maria Nilsson Telenordia (se.telenordia) Patrik Fältström
I think the chair of RIPE did the best he possibly could given the time constraints put on us by ICANN, which imho are somewhat excessive considering the time the whole establishment of ICANN has taken, but this is another point. The meeting discussed and agreed that *for this initial time* an ad-hoc procedure needed to be used because those present felt that the process needs to move on. Once address council members had been selected those present were asked whether the selection was carried out as well as possible under the circumstances and there was consensus that we had done the best we could. *** It was also agreed that a better procedure needs to be established for the next *** wround of selections. This will be done over the next two RIPE meetings. Those that have ideas in this respect are more than welcome to help with it. Contact Rob Blokzijl in order to participate in the work. So I believe your concerns are already recognised and were recognised by those participating in the meeting. Daniel
--On tisdag 5 oktober 1999 21.51 +0200 Daniel Karrenberg <Daniel.Karrenberg@ripe.net> wrote:
So I believe your concerns are already recognised and were recognised by those participating in the meeting.
Good! Then I am happy. paf
Daniel Karrenberg wrote:
I think the chair of RIPE did the best he possibly could given the time constraints put on us by ICANN, which imho are somewhat excessive considering the time the whole establishment of ICANN has taken, but this is another point.
Well, ARIN has been given another week to select their respresentatives. But even if this extra week was not given, they would choose their representatives from all the nominees that had accepted their nominations. And this shold have been done by the ARIN Board of Trustees. So ARIN is also suffering from a tight time frame, as APNIC. But they would include all the nominees in the voting process. They have clearly stated that they would ask the nominees who can attend to give a brief presentation. But you do not have to be there at this moment. A representative from ARIN would read a short statement from those who can not attend the meeting. But due to the fact that ICANN has given ARIN an extra week the actual voting will now take place at the ARIN public policy meeting on October 18, 1999. But i also fully agree with one comment from ARIN who says that it would be helpful if the ASO AC members and board member could attend the ARIN public policy meetings in order to get input from the ARIN community. This also apply on the RIPE ASO representatives.
The meeting discussed and agreed that *for this initial time* an ad-hoc procedure needed to be used because those present felt that the process needs to move on. Once address council members had been selected those present were asked whether the selection was carried out as well as possible under the circumstances and there was consensus that we had done the best we could.
I fully understand that RIPE and it's membership was under the pressure to present 3 representatives to the ASO as soon as possible. But was this the best solution? Could in not be done by ordinary voting instead of the decision to take out four names from the list of nominees? What is wrong with show of hands?
*** It was also agreed that a better procedure needs to be established for the next *** wround of selections.
This is a must, and i support this initiative. And is a vital part of the ICANN process. We have to ask ourself why we want to participate in the whole ICANN business. Is it not because we want to protect the stability and the openess of how things is done regarding the "regulation" of the administrative part of the Internet that affect us all? If so, should we not live of to our own expectations first. By following best practice and have an openess and fairness in our way we perform the voting of people to the seats that will do this work for us. If we not do this, how can we then expect that other would do this? Just a thought.
This will be done over the next two RIPE meetings. Those that have ideas in this respect are more than welcome to help with it. Contact Rob Blokzijl in order to participate in the work.
Great. I will follow this development closely ;-)
So I believe your concerns are already recognised and were recognised by those participating in the meeting.
A final clearification: I am not trying to get the voting "disqualified" and call for another round. What is done is done. Also, i have the biggest faith in those that have been chosen. I wish them good luck and i have the biggest trust in them that they will perform their duty in the best way for our members and the Internet community. The reason that i signed this mail is to make everyone aware of what i see is a strange way to perform a nomination and voting within a membership. To clearify my aim, i hearby withdraw my acceptation as a nominee. Not that this would change anything regarding the voting of the representatives to the ASO. Only to show that this issue is something that must be solve before the next selection of representatives within the RIPE community. And my personal part of this is not of any importance comparing to the much bigger issues we will front. I wish Sabine Jaume, Hans Petter Holen and Wilfried Woeber the best. Good luck! Regards /Amar Andersson Telia Net
participants (4)
-
Amar -
Daniel Karrenberg -
Patrik Fältström -
Sico Bruins