Thomas Roessler suggests that the idea of 'a Shadow Board' is a "far less interesting exercise than it may seem." I'm not so sure. The idea of a publicly elected Board that debates the issues put before ICANN actually has an equivalent within the current structure: the ALAC. Rather than make this a purely academic exercise, the ALAC might think of tracking the issues before ICANN and making its own judgment about whether the Board, and its individual members, are supportive of the ALAC's views on the substantive issues. In other words, what's the "ALAC rating" of the ICANN Board? How often does the Board vote the way the ALAC thinks it should?

In the United States, interest groups do similar things for elected politicians. Groups like the National Rifle Association and the Sierra Club rate policiticians on their votes -- how often do they vote the way you would like to see them vote? That sort of information would be interesting, and I think we'd see some surprising results.