Jon,
I greatly appreciate your active and gentlemanly participation in this
and other lists. As always, it is difficult to
discuss significant issues without our various differences becoming
(or appearing) personal rather than substantive. You have cleved
to the higher ground. And, while some have faulted you for
taking an "establishment" point of view, I consider that a major benefit
to all involved. You discussion of substantive issues has given others
an opportunity to participate in a meaningful dialog (with you, at least).
The concerns you express, while your own, are probably shared by members of the ICANN board (and others in positions of influence). Therefore, it is incumbent on anyone who is serious about affecting the course of these proceedings to take advantage of the opportunity you have provided and address those concerns, many of which are universally held. The most critical concern is avoiding capture by an electorate (with a "preferred" solution being undefined and, thus, not discussed).
Jon Zittrain wrote:
...The problem goes a level higher with membership, too: make membership open, andIf a "majority" electoral system is too easily subject to capture, should we employ an electoral system designed to represent diverse interests on the board (which I believe is the reason the MAC recommended cumulative voting) and/or resort to supermajorities for resolution of core issues? I have not seen serious consideration of either mechanism by those making the decisions. Indeed, it appears we are headed in the opposite direction. ICANN is about to adopt a system of head-to-head, majority take all, single winner elections.
there's a danger that whoever can push enough people to the ballot box can
take the election, regardless of what the "overall" community preference might be.
What are you thoughts on this?
