Joe Sims wrote:
> ...One point I should make: a
> very significant hurdle to any election process is the lack of money to run
> it. It might well be a sensible strategy, especially at this stage of its
> development, for ICANN to have some professional election help, but it has
> no money to pay for that
The cost quoted by the American Arbitration Association for mailed ballot
elections was not very high, especially if the membership is within the range
most of us project. Diane spoke of an electronic ballot, which obviously
involves less expense. The administrative effort mentioned by Roberto will be
the same whether the elections are conducted in-house or through a contractor.
Third-party administration has the appearance of neutrality and professional
competence. It reduces mistrust and takes the staff out of the line of fire if
questions arise.
I don't know what was done in the MAC to analyze various election mechanisms
and costs, but note that its recommendations are couched in very broad rather
than specific terms. For instance, there is no discussion of the election
mechanisms which might be used in single winner contests (e.g. Jon Zittrain's
suggestion of "preferential voting"). And, Diane tells me that the MAC's
recommendation of cumulative voting was not intended to exclude proportional
representation models. I think the board needs a discussion of all the options
in order for it to make an intelligent decision.
I believe the MAC recommended creation of an election committee to provide
information on the various issues and mechanize whatever the board settles
upon. Indeed, I suspect the board needs a detailed analysis of its various
election options before Santiago so it can take meaningful action at that
time. Concrete steps toward elections should have a salutary effect upon the
community's attitudes about ICANN.
