Re: [ga] More thoughts on a Registrants Constituency

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Roberto and all,

  Why should we "attract sympathies to the constituency itself", i.e.
a registrants Constituency, even be considered by any registrant
when it is self evident and has been for more than 5 years now,
that registrants should have a voice and a vote and seats on the
Bod?  From where I sit, a "Registrants Constituency" and
registrants having seats on the Bod is a 'no brainer'!

Roberto Gaetano 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 <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
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