How about this be our governing structure. We have a five member board of governors. Those individuals would be 2 ICS hosts, 1 ACS host, 1 at-large member, and the commissioner for that year (these numbers and the number of board members would be flexible). This Board would then elect the President of the Board for that year. Any of these members would be able to compete and receive points for that year with the exception of the commissioner (that's part of why I think I could do a solid job, I don't want to compete because I don't want to be that guy that can't ever get on and contribute but I still want to be a part of the ICS/ACS). The Board of Governors would oversee the competitions and be sure that all hosts and competitors are following the overall rules of the ICS/ACS. This Board would be especially important between now and and the start of the season because this board would be largely responsible for setting up the structure of the ICS/ACS going forward.
My idea for the final competition wasn't for me to necessarily "host," but rather to be more of a coordinator. If I were to be able to be commissioner, I would name three other people to a special committee comprised of those who had judged and hosted that year but would not be competing in the final competition. This group would come up with the ideas for the challenges for the two rounds. The final competition would be a single elimination tournament between the top four points-getters over the course of the year with the four members being seeded by final rank (1 would play 4, 2 would play 3). For the first round competitors would be given a challenge and a week to complete it. After their completion and posting, the three judges would vote on who should win in each matchup. This process would be repeated for the final round. I wouldn't try to host as much as just coordinate the judges and post the challenges.
