[Membership] Considering unfamiliar ground

[Eric Weisberg <weisberg@texoma.net>]

Joop Teernstra wrote:


> As the voting for the ICANN board will be a voting for individuals, rather
> than parties (that can have "list members")
> my preferred voting system would be a system whereby people can express
> their preferences, both positively and negatively.
> A Yes or No vote on each candidate and the yes votes are divided by the no
> votes. (rational approval)

I was interested in this concept when you first raised it, but
have a gut reaction and a concern.  Neither represents a studied
or definitive answer. 

My GUTS tell me that this proposal is too great a departure from
the generally known and accepted to be considered by this group. 
We are so inundated with data (much of which is considered "noise"
by the recipients) that we lack the ability to even taste, no less
digest a new food.  We have expended little effort to seriously
consider, no less study a substantive issue, to date.  We tend to
just spout off (myself included).  

My CONCERN:  If it is our purpose to afford each interest group a
chance to elect representatives, why give opposing interests
(especially larger ones) a mechanism for vetoing (or otherwise
affecting) such choices?  

Does this system have a disproportionate and significant effect
upon smaller constituencies, especially if their "representatives"
are vocal or their positions "unpopular?"  Shouldn't each
constituency be free to choose its own representatives without the
"approval" of those who may oppose their interests?  

AN ADDITIONAL THOUGHT and a QUESTION:

THE THOUGHT:  I suspect the nature of the organization and purpose
of the election is significant in determining the propriety of
such a dual test system.  For instance, this mechanism may be
ideal for choosing party candidates to stand for general
winner-take-all election, as it eliminates candidates who will
suffer from negative votes. 

THE QUESTION:  Does this system result in pablum (a board lacking
pointed thought or willingness to question the "popular" will)?