[Comment-Geo] Does this mean ICANN't?

[Eric Weisberg <weisberg@texoma.net>]

I just learned of and read the proposed policy on geographic
diversity <http://www.icann.org/geo-diversity.html> to be
considered by the initial ICANN board.  Its authors have raised
this concern (geography) above all others and to their exclusion.
Is this wise?  Or, could it be a tragic mistake?

Geography would be a minor influence on my vote for directors. I
think the same is true for everyone, here.

The primary "geographic" concern is language, and that won't
change when you get people from five regions on the board speaking
English (which remains the "universal solvent").   <In what other
languages does ICANN currently publish its information?> So,
language is not the issue.

The proposed policy on geographic diversity
<http://www.icann.org/geo-diversity.html> provides
for a director from each of 5 regions and four
elected at-large.  Thus, geography trumps all
other forms of diversity (especially if the four "at-large" seats
have staggered terms). There will be no proportional
representation and no cumulative voting.

As a result, the general assembly
will be neutralized.  There won't be any way for interests
or coalitions to organize or affect policy through
the electoral process.  It will be "winner take all" in
5 of the 9 races if the 4 at-large seats are elected
in the same year.  If the "at-large" contests are staggered over
three years,
all races will be head-to-head, winner take all.

We will just be electing names, not representatives of our various
interesets.

If people do not believe they have a realistic means of affecting
policy, they will not bother to join nor vote.  We will not have
100,000 members which some said would protect us from capture.

Is that what the community wants?  Is that what the board wants?