Diane Cabell wrote:
Eric Weisberg wrote:UCANN have a "fool proof" system without sacrificing the baby. I suggested that ICANN experiment before its first surgery on a live patient--e.g. hold a plebiscite on new TLDs. I would have been working on the system before now. And, I certainly would not give up the only opportunity we will ever have to elect 9 at large representatives in one election just because I did not want to do my experimentation on a cadaver. If we are serious about diversity on the board, lets do something designed to accomplish that diversity instead of finding excuses for not trying.
> A system can be designed to accomplish a purpose or to fail. ICANN
> must decide whether its purpose is to afford maximum diversity of
> representation or to develop a fool proof system for conducting
> meaningless elections (in the sense of its expressed representational
I am saying that the MAC made a recommendation that it preferred a more
with a somewhat less diverse but hardly meaninglessThe proposed elections are certainly not designed to be meaningful in the context of assuring representation to a broad range of interests. We have previously discussed why holding 9 single winner elections is the best way to mechanize capture we are likely to devise.
Head-to-head elections are not meaningless, they are"Nuanced" is the wrong term. One process can be entirely captured, the other is designed to avoid capture.
simply not as nuanced.
You argue that one particular value shouldOur primary value--representation of diverse interest and the avoidance of capture? Yes.
override all others.
It is a one that the committee also cherishes;I hear the words. I also see the deeds.
but there are competing concerns and the committee tried to balance them.No. It did not balance them at all. It sacrificed the agreed prime value to secondary concerns without offering alternative methods by which all issues could be reasonably addressed.
ICANN may or may not adopt all of those recommendations.What can be done to impact that decision? Can the MAC reconsider the issue and offer the board some concrete proposals which do not sacrifice the patient simply because the surgeon has never tried this surgery before?