Weisberg wrote:
> In this regard, I could not find any reference to board action on the
> "geographic diversity" proposal. Did the board perceive that both models are
> threatened by single board seat elections in five huge geographic regions?
> Does it perceive that such a scheme "complicates" every thing else we are
> trying to do and would frustrate what you correctly identified as the purpose
> of our governance structure--to avoid capture/(enable representation)? Are any
> means of obtaining geographic diversity without jeopardizing other, more
> meaningful forms of diversity under discussion? Is there a forum in which list
> members may participate in that discussion?
The Board did not act on the Interim Policy for Geographic Diversity, but did
respond to the MAC proposal:
> WHEREAS, the Board reaffirms its intention to establish, as soon as practicable, a
>system that permits individuals to select geographically diverse
> At-Large Directors, but also recognizes that this effort, given the unique context
>of a new form of global consensus organization with responsibility for
> oversight of an important global resource, is likely to be both administratively
>complex and expensive (especially in relation to ICANN's anticipated
> budget);
>
http://www.icann.org/berlin/berlin-resolutions.html#3
I cannot speak for the Board, but the MAC recognized the problems inherent with
geographical diversity requirements. However, our consensus was that if the
registered membership itself was not representational, then no method of vote
tallying would make the election more so. I believe that it is unlikely we will
attract vast numbers of voters in the early years and thus, the greater risk at
this time is that a single special interest may be able to enroll enough members to
capture the election.
Reasonable people can disagree on this, Eric, and we tried to find some objective
criteria by which we could define capture so as to try and inhibit it. For
example, what if 70% of the registered at-large members were from San Jose, CA?
Would that be evidence that the membership itself is not "representative" or would
that just be evidence that Karl Auerbach convinced his entire theater group to
plunge into Internet politics? :-)
I know you've given voting methodology a great deal of thought and we included your
points in the MAC analysis. However, we ran out of time before finding a fail-safe
solution to this conflict, if one can ever be found. Until the Internet population
is more evenly balanced, however, the non-US users have a legitimate concern that
their voices will be drowned out by the heavy American vote. You may argue that
the non-commercial users have as much right to such protection as the Africans, and
you could be right. I just can't say that you are "more right" than Nii Quaynor.
Greg Crew is following through on membership and would welcome any suggestions you
have, I'm sure. The [EMAIL PROTECTED] comment list may still be operational and
ICANN staff have quite faithfully reported on all messages posted there.
Diane Cabell
http://www.mama-tech.com
Fausett, Gaeta & Lund, LLP
Boston, MA
