Re: [alac] Selecting Our Successors

[Wendy Seltzer <wendy@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

At 11:58 PM 1/25/2006, John L wrote:
> > Interesting, but when you take away even the modicum of direct 
> > control that people might appear to have, what's the point?
>
> To me, the point is that voting would be a sham.

Little disagreement there, yet it seems further that an ALS without a 
vote is pointless.  So we're back to "what purpose is there for a 
group to participate in this pyramid-like scheme?" and perhaps a 
proof by absurdity that it needs reform.

--Wendy

>   I recently sent in ALS applications for CAUCE and CAUCE Canada 
> which together have upwards of 15,000 members, which I believe is 
> far more than all of the other NA ALS put together.  So if we're 
> "voting" weighted by membership, I always win. Or if each ALS gets 
> one vote, no problem, if I cared I could easily round up a dozen or 
> so and stuff the ballot box.
>
> Bret's suggestion leaves the control with the ALSes if they can 
> agree, which they will if they're smart.  Otherwise the nomcom, 
> which has been one of the more functional bits of ICANN, gets to referee.
>
> Regards,
> John Levine, johnl@xxxxxxxx, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet 
> for Dummies",
> Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://iecc.com/johnl, Mayor
> "I dropped the toothpaste", said Tom, crestfallenly.

--
Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@xxxxxxxxxxx
Visiting Assistant Professor of Law, Brooklyn Law School
Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html
http://www.chillingeffects.org/