On 15 Jul 2012, at 14:07, Alan Greenberg wrote:
At this point, unless I missed something, we have just one volunteer for the position starting at the end of the AGM, so if that does not change, the past practice would be to acclaim the winner. I Presume there will be a discussion this Monday on whether to try to formally fill the position in the interim, or follow a more ad hoc process.
Although I don't have a vote, and could not even make the last meeting, and thus really have no standing in this topic, I have to say that I would not be able to vote in an election where there was just a single candidate for an office without such an option - and will recommend to the voter in my ALS that he not do so. Now others have offered that this is a reasonable option, but I disagree, as that removes someones ability to vote. If the only way I can vote no is to not vote, my vote has been removed. Aside: Even on local elections, if there is only one candidate, I write in "None of the above." because I beleive that having a choice is more important in the democratic process than any particular choice If people hate the idea of a none of the above option, perhaps we need a write in option. As for the vote versus the consensus, i think this favors the few who actually attend the meeting and does not draw in the rest of the membership. While I think picking an interim chair by consensus of those present is an OK thing, I really think that voting is necessary for leadership positions - otherwise it is always the active few that makes the decisions - shutting out the rest of the membership. No wonder they don't really care about what goes on - it is a 'make the meetings or else' world. One of the major accusations people have about ICANN politics is that it is all done by self-selected cliques. This feeds into that mentality. avri