<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RE: [ga] More thoughts on a Registrants Constituency
- To: "'Danny Younger'" <dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx>, "'Karl Auerbach'" <karl@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [ga] More thoughts on a Registrants Constituency
- From: "Roberto Gaetano" <roberto@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2007 14:24:29 +0100
- Cc: <ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- In-reply-to: <112306.49260.qm@web52213.mail.yahoo.com>
- Sender: owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Thread-index: AcdgSRhOhPSnBLDISMOHDdwQwXkOJABOBy9g
I have a problem with the fact that most of the time when an organizational
issue is put on the table, the conversation ends up in counting votes. Am I
the only one who thinks that with this obsession on voting power we miss
opportunities to make our voice heard?
Regards,
Roberto
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Danny Younger [mailto:dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: 07 March 2007 00:32
> To: Karl Auerbach
> Cc: Danny Younger; Roberto Gaetano; ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [ga] More thoughts on a Registrants Constituency
>
> Karl,
>
> The question is not "how much of a vote does each domain name
> registrant get?" but rather, who within a registrant's
> constituency should get a vote?
>
> Allow me to clarify what I mean by pointing to some text
> drawn from Susan Crawford's "The ICANN
> Experiment":
>
> "The idea that "who shows up" may be taken as a
> representative sample of the rest of the world is part of
> ICANN's history (and that of other more technical groups such
> as the IETF). ICANN has established constituencies within the
> DNSO for business, IP, registries, non-commercial entities,
> and others.
> Because it is impossible to get a cross- section of (for
> example) every non-commercial Internet user, the ICANN system
> treats the Non-Commercial Domain Name Holders Constituency
> (that is, the people who "show up") as the representative
> constituency. This is a practical approach that can be
> implemented with a simple contractual agreement to
> participate, pay minor dues, and adhere to consensus policies
> (to the extent applicable). With this contractual framework
> in place, ICANN's ability to operate with "congruence" - to
> be able to say that those bound by its rules are mostly the
> same groups whose welfare was considered when making them -
> becomes possible."
> http://www.scrawford.net/display/Crawford2.pdf
>
> As a pragmatist, I tend to believe that those of us that are
> both registrants and "show up" through discussion on this
> list and/or on other relevant lists (and are willing to both
> enroll in a constituency and pay minor dues) warrant getting
> a single vote -- the one-man one-vote principle.
>
> I would think that this approach would be more practical than
> the formulaic approach that you have suggested.
>
> My two cents.
>
> Danny
>
>
> --- Karl Auerbach <karl@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> >
> > I've had a couple of more thoughts on what I think is a sub-optimal
> > idea, a constituency for domain name registrants. (The optimal
> > solution is to allow individuals to have the direct vote for board
> > members. These are not mutually exclusive ideas.)
> >
> > Anyway, the question is how much of a vote does each domain name
> > registratrant get?
> >
> > Is it one vote per person/organization no matter how many
> names they
> > have.
> >
> > Or is it scaled according to the number of names.
> >
> > Is that scale linear, i.e. twice as many names gives twice as many
> > votes?
> >
> > Is there a factor for the time that the name has been
> registered? I
> > feel that this is important because it is indicative of how
> much the
> > registrant has invested into the name. Those who have had
> names for
> > many years tend to have a much greater investment than
> those who hold
> > portfolios for short term speculation.
> >
> > So I suggest this - that the number of votes a registrant gets for
> > having a name is scaled according to a simple formula based on the
> > number of years that have elapsed since initially registered. Of
> > course, during the first year, that number would be zero.
> >
> > 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
> >
> > etc.
> >
> > This means that one has to hold a name for at least a year
> in order to
> > get a vote.
> >
> > By-way-of disclosure, I have several names that were initially
> > registered during the 1980's, but whois doesn't go back
> that far and
> > shows 'em as 1994.
> >
> > --karl--
> >
>
>
>
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> ______________________
> Get your own web address.
> Have a HUGE year through Yahoo! Small Business.
> http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/domains/?p=BESTDEAL
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|