If we were to say "No" to the orgs-of-orgs then we are actually encouraging them to have each of their member organizations sign up individually which would give them an extraordinary increase to their weight in votes.
It's hard for me to have much sympathy for that viewpoint. One of the problems with the ALS model is that different ALS already vary vastly in size. As an example, the candidate ALS in Yonkers has over 7 million members, which is more than 20 times the entire population of Nunavut. That doesn't make any ALS more worthy than any other, but it makes concerns about stuffing the ballot box look pretty silly. The other thing is that the no orgs-of-orgs language is in the ICANN bylaws. I entirely agree that it is arbitrary, and there are good reasons that they might want to change it. The bylaws are not written in stone, and we (the ALAC) have gotten the board to change language that didn't work in the past. But rather than doing that, does anyone really think that it is a good idea simply to ignore bylaws that we don't like? Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://www.johnlevine.com, ex-Mayor "More Wiener schnitzel, please", said Tom, revealingly.