RE: [ga] More thoughts on a Registrants Constituency

[Hugh Dierker <hdierker2204@xxxxxxxxx>]

Example of consensus?
   
  Much by accident I ran consensus through Wikipedia (actually i was looking for the proper plural) And I found something they used as an example;
   
  [edit] Examples within computing  Within the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), the concept of "rough consensus and running code" is the basis for the standardization process. It has proven extremely effective for standardizing protocols for inter-computer communication, particularly during its early years.
  In computer science, Consensus is a distributed computing problem in which a group of nodes must reach agreement on a single value. Achieving consensus is a challenging problem in distributed systems, particularly as the number of nodes grows or the reliability of links between nodes decreases.
  "Consensus" may also refer to the Consensus theorems in Boolean algebra.
   
  Food for thought when comparing persuasive consensus versus strict voting.
   
  Eric

Roberto Gaetano <roberto@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
  Sotiris,
Please, don't confuse the issues. The matter on the table was the
distribution of the voting rights in the (to be created) registrants
constituency, and the only relationship it has with enfranchised or
disenfranchised people is the fact that if we discuss the voting rights
within the constiruency instead of focusing on how to attract sympathies to
the constituency itself, we are only creating the best conditions and
excuses for not having a registrants constituency.
At that point we might have a perfect voting mechanism, but no constituency.
Anyway, just MHO.
Roberto


> -----Original Message-----
> From: sotiris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:sotiris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
> Sent: 08 March 2007 16:27
> To: Roberto Gaetano
> Cc: 'Danny Younger'; 'Karl Auerbach'; ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [ga] More thoughts on a Registrants Constituency
> 
> Roberto, you know very well that nobody listens to the 
> disenfranchised. 
> Voting is a necessity for the registrants to be heard. 
> Please don't play cute with us, you are aware of the history 
> of ICANN and you know that the registrants did have a voice 
> at one point: when we could vote for our own Board members... 
> promoting anything less than that is simply patronizing.
> 
> 
> > 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
> >
> >
> 



 
---------------------------------
TV dinner still cooling?
Check out "Tonight's Picks" on Yahoo! TV.