Re: [ga] More thoughts on a Registrants Constituency

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

George, Karl and all,

  George, you made some very good and interesting observations.
However I disagree with any "Weighted" voting scheme as it
is irrelevant and unfair to the broad registrant community.  Hence
I am in favor for every registrant, regardless of how many domain names
he/she or it has registered, they get one vote only.

George Kirikos wrote:

> Hello,
>
> --- Karl Auerbach <karl@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > So the formula I suggest is this, where Y is the number of years that
> > have
> > elapsed since registration.
> >
> >    Votes = 2**(Y-1)
> >    (i.e. the number of votes is 2 raised to the power Y less one)
> >
> > Thus the registrant would get votes according to the following table:
> >
> >   YEARS     VOTES
> >       0     0
> >       1     1
> >       2     2
> >       3     4
>
> Not a very good formula, IMHO (and I own many old domains, so would
> benefit from this). I'd dub this the "AARP voting scheme" (see
> www.aarp.org for those unfamiliar with that organization).
>
> Continuing that table above:
>
> 4 years ---> 8 votes
> 5 years ---> 16 votes
> 6 years ----> 32 votes
> 7 years ----> 64 votes
> 8 years ----> 128 votes
> 9 years ----> 256 votes
> 10 years ---> 512 votes
> 11 years ---> 1,024 votes
> and so on.
>
> In the real world, 30 year olds don't get 1024 times more votes than 20
> year olds, 40 year olds don't have 1024 times more votes than 30 year
> olds (and rougly 1 million times more votes than 20 year olds) and so
> on. If they did, those 65 years of age and older (the AARP members)
> would rule. :)
>
> Since registrants contribute linearly (per domain) to the current
> funding costs of ICANN, a better formula would reflect this (although
> registrants of different TLDs pay differing amounts).
>
> Assuming all the domains were from .com, a formula that reflected the
> domains per registrant, and percentage of voting domains relative to
> the number of domains might be something like:
>
> R = total registrants
> Q = voting registrants ( Q<=R)
> N(1) = domains owned by registrant #1
> N(2) = domains owned by registrant #2
> N(j) = domains owned by registrant j
> T = total number of domains = N(1)+N(2)+....+N(R)
> V = total number of VOTING domains = N(1)+N(2)+.....+N(Q)
> V <= T
>
> Votes for Registrant J = [N(j)/T]**[V/T]
> Total Votes = sum(j=1 to R, V(j))
>
> If V = T, we have linear weighted voting by number of domains
>
> With V<T, the above should ensure that a single large domain registrant
> can't capture the constituency, because the exponent becomes less than
> 1 and thus their vote becomes less significant the bigger they are.
>
> The above is just off the cuff, though, and other weighted schemes
> could make sense too (although not the AARP voting scheme!).
> Sincerely,
>
> George Kirikos
> http://www.kirikos.com/

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 134k members/stakeholders strong!)
"Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" -
   Abraham Lincoln

"Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is
very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt

"If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B;
liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by
P: i.e., whether B is less than PL."
United States v. Carroll Towing  (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947]
===============================================================
Updated 1/26/04
CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security
IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng.  INEG. INC.
ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402
E-Mail jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
 Registered Email addr with the USPS
Contact Number: 214-244-4827