Re: [ga] ICANN Board: Do you hear the people sing?

[Rick Wesson <wessorh@xxxxxx>]

we should give domain owners the right to vote on issues that effect
*their* dns much like I have described in the attached document.

see (attached) draft-internet-ballot-01.txt

-rick



On Wed, 17 Sep 2003, George Kirikos wrote:

> Hello,
>
> Does ICANN have any comment to the petition at:
>
> http://www.petitiononline.com/mod_perl/signed.cgi?icanndns
>
> It's adding 10+ signatures per minute, many from very large companies,
> ISPs, small business, and individuals who recognize Sitefinder to be a
> fundamental abuse and subversion of the DNS by Verisign. ICANN doesn't
> need "2 or 3 days to make a comment" as suggested by Mary Hewitt. Call
> a Board meeting today, and put this to an end.
>
> I hope others will link to the petition, and thanks to those who
> already have spread the word via websites and forwarding emails to
> friends and colleagues. Let's keep up the pressure until ICANN does the
> proper thing, and either forces Verisign to stop (and repay their
> ill-gotten gains), or redelegates to a more worthy registry operator.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> George Kirikos
> http://www.kirikos.com/
>

Abstract

This document describes a method for voting among owners of domain
names. The primary intended use for this is to allow identifiable
participants in the domain name system to vote on matters that affect
the whole domain name system in an easy (and easily-verifiable) fashion.
The method for voting is specifying a string in the whois data for
a domain name.

Introduction

   In 1999, ICANN attempted to create a mechanism for the bottom-up
   development of Internet policy. A major drawback to the balloting
   process was the high cost and the inconvenience of paper
   authentication. In this paper, I describe a method to disseminate a
   single ballot, a framework for identification of participants, a
   mechanism for collection of votes, and a methodology of validating
   the results.

   The intent is to provide a low-cost, reasonably accurate gauge of
   the desires of domain name holders. The proposed result is a light
   weight, non-anonymous representation of the opinion of domain name
   holders on policy that may effect their domain names.

   Two of the main non-goals of this proposal are anonymity or
   individuality. While these are desirable goals for a national
   voting system, I have identified these as problems that are too
   hard to solve in this context. Also, while it might be desirable to
   identify the opinions of individual registrants, the proposed
   solution is optimized geared towards individual domain names.

   By applying the 80/20 rule, this proposal is optimized for a system
   more like that of a corporation where shares are identified by
   domain ownership. While this may in some ways be similar to
   land-ownership being a requirement to access of voting privileges
   in the US in the 1800s, it still gives representation to a group
   that is fundamental to the domain name system. Later improvements
   (or different methods) can be added to address different groups of
   people affected by the domain name system.

   This document is heavily slanted towards the com/net/org registries
   and registrars.  The maintainers of these zones have contracts with
   ICANN to use registrars, who in turn have their own contracts with
   ICANN. The method described can be used by any zones, but are
   currently tailored towards com/net/org.

   Although some thought still needs to be given to how a ballot is
   developed and how and who says when a vote begins and ends, it is
   my desire to enable the public the mechanism for them to express
   their collective voice.

Overview

   The basic idea is that ICANN or a major subgroup of ICANN would
   decide on issues that are important to domain name holders. Each
   issue would be formulated as a ballot, and that ballot would be
   distributed to registrars.  Registrars would then tell their
   registrants about the ballot and explain how registrants could
   vote. One vote may be cast for each domain name owned.

   Each vote is published in the whois for the associated domain
   name. After the voting period, each registrar tallies all the votes
   they received and sends a summary to a summary-counting agency, who
   then totals the votes for all registrars. The votes can be
   statistically validated by doing whois lookups.

   The major limitation of this process is that voting is only by
   those who own domain names, and is proportional to the number of
   domain names they own. This is not a method for voting among
   Internet users.

Identification

   In the com/net/org zones, domain registrants are the only entities
   that are authorized to update the domain information. Membership in
   the group covered by this document is thus defined as a domain name
   owner in com/net/org. A single domain represents a single
   registrant on a one-to-one basis. Although many registrants own
   more than one domain, attempting to develop normalization
   techniques to identify individual registrants are open to
   gaming. Because of this, domain ownership is equivalent to voter
   registration and each domain will be entitled to a single vote.

   Although this process is optimized for com/net/org zones, it will
   work with any zone published under the root for which a registrar
   runs a whois service for.


Voting Process

   A registrar will create a mechanism to uniquely identify the holder
   of each domain and will offer a mechanism that will allow the
   registrant to express their desire within the context of a
   ballot. The interfaces to registrants may be, but are not limited
   to, email, telephone, or the web.

   Once a ballot opens, registrars will receive an XML file that will
   describe the ballot. An example of a ballot might look like:

   [[ insert sample ballot ]]

   Registrars MUST express the ballot exactly as in the XML file with
   equivilant options. Registrars may provide the ballot localized to
   a native language. in text or audio.

   Registrars MUST present the options of the ballot EXACTLY as they
   are in the XML definition. That is, registrars may not reorder,
   rephrase, highlight, or default to an option that supports a
   position supported by the registrar.

   The ballot MUST be represented in a neutral format. Ballots
   positions may not be encouraged in any marketing materials, nor may
   a registrar promote a position on web pages, in email, and so on.
   An example of a undesirable situation is where a registrar promotes
   a ballot position on a web page a registrant see to gain access to
   the pages where votes are cast.

Publishing Results

   Each ballot will be denoted by a ballot identifier. The ballot will
   be published in a well known place.

   Results must be published in the port 43 whois that accompanies a
   domain registration whois output. Registrars may also make publicly
   available lists of domains and the associated ballot ID and vote
   cast.

   [[ insert sample whois output with ballot answer ]]

   After a ballot closes, each registrar will send the summary results
   to at least two vote counting entities. These organizations will
   tally summary results obtained from each registrar.  The totals of
   the summary results will be cross-checked against totals from the
   other vote counting entities.

   Only summary information is sent to the summary-counting
   entities. Since the results are also published in the whois, any
   entity may audit the results by performing a whois on a sample of
   the domains to check the accuracy of the vote.  If a serious
   discrepancy develops, further analysis is available through
   complete reports.


Auditing Results

   One of the requirements is to provide a framework for auditing the
   results of a ballot. Because only summary information is sent to
   the counting agencies, there needs to be a mechanism where a
   statistical study can be applied to the set of domains
   participating in a vote.

   In the ICANN structure, the registrant of a domain is the only
   agent that may modify a domain, specifically the domain's whois
   information. Thus, only the registrant of a domain may vote. Since
   the whois output of a domain is publicly available and may be
   looked up through whois queries, analysis of a vote may be
   preformed in a publicly visible and automateable fashion. Should a
   registrar provide false summary information, anyone may go and
   check the results through a completely open and transparent method.

   Vote counting and auditing can be analyzed to prevent registrars
   from providing skewed results. If a registrar is found to have
   provided inaccurate results, that registrar's customers may want to
   move their domains to a more reputable registrar. However, because
   the results of a ballot are auditable, registrars have little
   incentive to misrepresent results.

   Registrars SHOULD be required to provide reports to the auditing
   agencies and MAY decline requests after providing at least one
   report to three different auditing agencies.

Ballot Development

   After an issue has been identified as worthy of querying domain
   name owners, the ballot of issues is developed in a XML format as
   specified in draft-wesson-xml-ballot-00.txt. The ballot is
   published in a public place and disseminated to participating
   registrars. Registrars would notify registrants that have expressed
   a desire to know about new ballots.


Counting Agencies

   A counting agency will work with the registrars to collect and
   aggregate the summary results of a ballot.  Performing the function
   will incur little cost. The requirement is to accept XML messages
   of totals and sum the results from each registrar into a total
   count for the vote.

   Since all the parties participating in the ballots MAY have an
   interest in the outcome, the use of third-party vote aggregaters
   will provide a necessary role in validating the vote.

   Counting agencies may decide to do further validation of the vote
   by requesting a detailed report which would list each domain and
   the vote, but it is up to the registrar to provide this information
   to a counting agency.



Additional Issues

   ICANN needs to develop a process to develop ballots. A suggested
   mechanism is to allow the GA chair to determine when an issue needs
   to be put to a ballot.

   Balloting does cost time and effort, and registrars will be
   collectively paying the bill as they will need to create, maintain,
   and manage polling areas for their registrants. An initial limit on
   the number of ballots that can be put to registrants during a time
   interval should be considered, such as no more than three ballots
   per year, or one ballot every N months where N may be 4, 6, or
   12. A ballot may contain more than one ballot-issue.

   The whois SHOULD only be used to validate the vote from statistical
   analysis and not from mining the complete results.  Registrars may
   limit access to authorized auditing agencies through the use of a
   AUP.

   A balloting process should be reserved for those issues of
   significant importance, such as representation on the ICANN board
   or major changes in ICANN policy.

   Ballot purchase and sales should be planned for, discouraged, and
   accepted as yet another form of capitalism. Though we may not like
   it, it will happen.

   Ballots needed to be worded in a fair and neutral way.

   We should recognize that we will have failures.  Still, it is
   better to have a voice than have no voice, and the good will
   created by registrars embracing this endeavor is well worth any
   hardship in aiding our customers in their ability to participate in
   the ICANN process.




ICANN Considerations

   While it would be beneficial for all registrars to participate,
   this is not a requirement. Because this process does not constitute
   a regulated service, there are no conditions that require ICANN's
   approval or an update to the contracts a registrar has with ICANN.

   Thou it would be of some benefit to have the vote counting and
   auditing agencies receive some accreditation to some baseline
   specification none is required.

   It would be beneficial if the outcome of ballots were taken as
   consensus from the holders of domain names within the ICANN
   framework.