My own feeling is that the question is not whether ICANN's nominating committee should operate in the open.
(I do believe, however, that long as it exists that it should operate completely in the open - these are political choices being made, not employment decisions. And let's get real about the name: this "nominating" committee does not nominate candidates to be approved or rejected by others. No. ICANN's nominating committee makes the first, only, and final selections.)
I believe the proper question is whether ICANN's nominating committee should exist at all.
Nominating committees are an example of ICANN's excessive paternalism - ICANN (and its nominating committee) implicitly (and sometimes explicitly) assert, that they know the public interest better than do the people who are the public.
That's the principle of oligarchy - the belief that society should be governed by a small body. It is not the principle of democracy.
ICANN had successful worldwide elections in year 2000. Yes, there were a few problems - most caused by ICANN's own insiders who intentionally tried to disrupt the system or who were simply technically incompetent (or both.)
It is time to remember that the atomic unit of "stake" (as in "stakeholder") is the individual living breathing human being.
ICANN should drop the paternalistic nominating committee and revive the method that worked in the past - elections.Posted by karl at September 20, 2006 1:38 PM