<HTML><BODY style="word-wrap: break-word; -khtml-nbsp-mode: space; -khtml-line-break: after-white-space; "><BR><DIV><DIV>On 1 okt 2007, at 15.51, Lee McKnight wrote:</DIV><BR class="Apple-interchange-newline"><BLOCKQUOTE type="cite"><P style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px"><FONT face="Helvetica" size="3" style="font: 12.0px Helvetica">I understand the auction method we advocated has been rejected for a</FONT></P> <P style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px"><FONT face="Helvetica" size="3" style="font: 12.0px Helvetica">beauty contest approach of picking winners and losers. <SPAN class="Apple-converted-space"> </SPAN></FONT></P> </BLOCKQUOTE></DIV><BR><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV>as far as i know, or hope. no method has been thrown out. all methods seem to have problems.</DIV><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV>- beauty contest as you mention involve the eye of the beholders.</DIV><DIV>- auctions favor the rich.</DIV><DIV>- lotteries have legal constraints. (my favorite - when something is already unpredictable might as well let the fates decide. personally i think that if people knew it would be subjected to luck they would be quicker to find a compromise solution)</DIV><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV>and there may be other methods, including other possible mechanisms for randomized selection.</DIV><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV>but who knows what will be the right method, or whether one method will fit all. i think the recommendation itself did not favor any particular method.</DIV><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV>a.</DIV><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV></BODY></HTML>