– #1. – It is not such a great idea to call it a “-prediction market institute”-, for the reasons that it excludes the non-market mechanisms and the other collective intelligence mechanisms. (See Daniel’-s comment on the Pennock blog, here.) That said, it should focus on prediction markets —-do you feel the nuance, doc?
– #2. – It shall not be a pure academic endeavor. It shall be a mix between academics, exchange operators, and other participants in the field of prediction markets. The term “-applied research”- conveys it. It is “-applied”- in the sense that it is not research eggheads bottling up in yet another Ivory Tower. The outputs of this PMI should be useful for the prediction exchanges and the software vendors.
– #3. – One of the purpose of regrouping the prediction market forces into a grand consortium would be to seek external alliances with some foundations, think tanks or educational organizations that might share our ideology —-yes, I said “-ideology”-.
– #4. – It is not such a great idea to set up our own organization from scratch. It is more pragmatic to seek out the creation of a “-unit”- or “-department”- within an already existed organization that has a larger purpose than ours —-for instance, one focused on “-derivatives”-, “-wisdom of crowds”-, “-digital business”-, “-knowledge management”-, “-forecasting”-, or whatever meta keyword you can think of and that encompasses the prediction markets and their cousin mechanisms.
– #5. – It shall have a clear strategy, game plan, and way to assess the results.
– #6. – It shall have David Pennock on top. That guy is our common denominator. He is our most sociable element. He never slammed anyone. (The only time he went on being bombastic is when, being a boy, he told his mother, “-I don’-t like broccolis, they taste like fractals.”-)
Who will be the next nominee of the HHS, now that Daschle has withdrawn from consideration? 
