RE: [ga] More thoughts on a Registrants Constituency

[Hugh Dierker <hdierker2204@xxxxxxxxx>]

To a degree I agree with you. The difference may only be that I do prefer requesting people to weigh in, in a pro or con fashion.
  But the constant call for vote, seems to table discussion and is not as beneficial as could be.
   
  Eric

Roberto Gaetano <roberto@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
  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 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



 
---------------------------------
It's here! Your new message!
Get new email alerts with the free Yahoo! Toolbar.