Re: [ga] More thoughts on a Registrants Constituency

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Roberto and all,

  Voices are good and necessary, votes and voting is better,
as in voting, a voice of many is known if not heard.

  What bothers me is that ICANN makes communicating
by stakeholders very difficult and unnecessarily so.  Why?

Roberto Gaetano 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 <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

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
ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402
E-Mail jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
 Registered Email addr with the USPS
Contact Number: 214-244-4827