Re: [IFWP] Why fail on purpose?

[Eric Weisberg <weisberg@texoma.net>]

Diane Cabell wrote:

Eric Weisberg wrote:

> 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
> aspiration).

I am saying that the MAC made a recommendation that it preferred a more
fool-proof system

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.
> with a somewhat less diverse but hardly meaningless
> representation.
The 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
> simply not as nuanced.
"Nuanced" is the wrong term.  One process can be entirely captured,
the other is designed to avoid capture.
> You argue that one particular value should
> override all others.
Our primary value--representation of diverse interest and the avoidance
of capture?   Yes.
>  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?