Eric Weisberg wrote:
> Jon Zittrain wrote:
>
> > Where do you see ICANN about to adopt simple majority, head-to-head,
> > winner-take-all elections? For the at-large board or elsewhere?
>
> I forgot to mention something which may change in light of the recent USG
> demands for ICANN elections. I am told that some members of the ICANN board do
> not favor replacement of the entire "interim" or "initial" board the first year,
> but wish to stage a transition--electing three "at large" directors each year.
> Thus, they would have two "regional" and one "at large" elections in 2,000 A.D.
> Clearly, these would be single winner contests.
>
The MAC recommended staggering the initial elections; mostly to ensure
that the technology works properly, and also to allow time to check
records and make sure there aren't duplicates, spoofs and other attempts
to bend the system. We didn't specify precisely how many testbeds would
be necessary; that would depend on how egregious the errors are. If the
first one is relatively error-free, then there is no particular reason
for further delay, other than a possible desire to keep some
institutional memory on the Board until the newcomers have caught up.
Yes, we will miss the one and only chance to elect all 9 seats at one
time. But we were more concerned about the consequences of having all 9
elected by fraudulent ballots and less aware of how this would
negatively impact any particular group. Yes, there will rarely be more
than 3 directors up for election at one time (that's the way the by-laws
are structured for the permanent board for the remainder of its
existence). Yes, one or more of them will be regionally designated,
further reducing the potential for other minority interests to elect
their preferred candidate. The MAC still recommends a form of
preferential voting, if it can be done online under Cal. law.
Diane Cabell
Fausett, Gaeta & Lund
Boston, MA
