Diane Cabell wrote:
> It is geographic because that's one of the few pieces of personal data that we
>believe a member should give us and then because it is part of the authentication
> process (which itself is far from perfect). We did not believe that ICANN
>could/should undertake the expense of verifying other capture criteria (e.g,
>employer),
> even if it could. Besides, the issues will change over time and you can't redefine
>your membership for each issue.
Geography does not define a member nor her interests. And, capture will not be
"geographic." If everyone on the board were from San Jose, but represented different
stakeholder interests, we would not have "capture" in the sense of our concern.
However, we can have a board members from nineteen different countries who all vote
alike. That is what we are afraid of.
> So we more or less left the definition of capture at the corporate level and the
>least expensive way to track that is through physical location. Not the best way
> by a long shot.
This is false economy. How will we save money by holding single winner elections in
five hugh and arbitrary areas of the globe? It will be INCREASE our cost of
verification of RESIDENCE (which would not otherwise be necessary) and cause
confusion (people are moving around, have multiple "residences," and will be at
different places for varying reasons and amounts of time). Passports and drivers
licenses will not verify "residence," btw. Furthermore, this approach opens us up
to constant argument over district lines. It offers almost no benefit at very high
cost.
If this is not "the best way by a long shot," lets at least CONSIDER what might be
better.
