Re: [ga] More thoughts on a Registrants Constituency

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Sotiris, Roberto and all,

  I am not sure if Roberto is patronizing.  I am sure he is half wrong.

  ICANN's biggest fear sense the Interim Bod members were
seated, is that registrants AND users may get a voice AND a
vote as well a seats on the Bod.  IMHO. ICANN's Bod should
have always been made up of representatives from Registries,
Registrars, Registrants and users, with users and registrants making
up the majority of the Bod.  Had this been the case from the
beginning, many of the problems which have occurred would
have been avoided.

sotiris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

> 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 <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
> >
> >

--
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