[Chapter-delegates] Internet Society Appointments to theNTIA/IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group

[Richard Hill]

How is giving voting rights to people/organizations that voluntarily participate a "poll tax"?  Double voting applies also to corporate shareholders and is accepted in that context.

Best,
Richard
  -----Original Message-----
  From: Alejandro Pisanty [mailto:apisanty at gmail.com]
  Sent: vendredi, 4. juillet 2014 18:11
  To: Vinton G. Cerf
  Cc: ISOC Chapter Delegates; Richard Hill
  Subject: Re: [Chapter-delegates] Internet Society Appointments to theNTIA/IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group


  This was rejected by most, years ago, because it is de facto a poll tax and it is a double vote.

  Alejandro Pisanty

  On Jul 4, 2014 4:14 PM, "Vint Cerf" <vint at google.com> wrote:

    separating businesses from individuals might still be a problem. Hard to say whether voting would overcome some preferences for anonymity in the database. 


    v





    On Fri, Jul 4, 2014 at 10:52 AM, Richard Hill <rhill at hill-a.ch> wrote:

      If registrants could vote, then they would have an additional incentive to keep the WHOIS database up to date.  Same as corporate shareholders: if they want to vote, they make sure that the company secretary has their current address.

      Best,
      Richard
        -----Original Message-----
        From: Vint Cerf [mailto:vint at google.com]

        Sent: vendredi, 4. juillet 2014 16:48
        To: rhill at hill-a.ch
        Cc: Evan Leibovitch; Chapter Delegates
        Subject: Re: [Chapter-delegates] Internet Society Appointments to theNTIA/IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group


        The WHOIS database would need to be a lot more solid, I guess, to make that work. There is also the question of users who are not domain name holders which draws me back to ALAC.  I don't have a good answer here except to say that the "election" in the early years of ICANN proved problematic in many respects. 


        v





        On Fri, Jul 4, 2014 at 10:21 AM, Richard Hill <rhill at hill-a.ch> wrote:

          Dear Vint,

          I agree that it might not be feasible to organize a global election of the ICANN Board ty the citizens of the world, or by the users of the Internet.

          That's why I suggest instead that the ICANN Board be elected by registrants (holders) of domain names.  That is quite feasible using existing technologies and databases. I realize that some registrants use anonimity services, but it would be up to them to declare themselves as registrants if they wish to participate in the election, if not they would simply be absentees.

          Best,
          Richard
            -----Original Message-----
            From: Vint Cerf [mailto:vint at google.com]
            Sent: vendredi, 4. juillet 2014 13:12
            To: rhill at hill-a.ch
            Cc: Evan Leibovitch; Chapter Delegates
            Subject: Re: [Chapter-delegates] Internet Society Appointments to theNTIA/IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group


            Richard, 


            the idea that there should be a global election for board members of ICANN by citizens of the world and users of the Internet was then and I think still is unworkable. Qualifying the electorate and running a verifiable election (ie, free of fraud) via the Internet is still out of the question. In places like Estonia where strong authentication is available it appears possible to achieve such an objective but this isn't feasible today on a global scale. I think the At-Large mechanism is about the best one can do along these lines for now.


            vint





            On Fri, Jul 4, 2014 at 1:46 AM, Richard Hill <rhill at hill-a.ch> wrote:

              Dear Evan,

              I fully agree with you that it would be better if ICANN were ultimately accountable to all the world's Internet users (or maybe even to all the world's people, since I believe we all want all people to use the Internet).

              As you say below, the initial structure of ICANN did allow for significant influence by users, but this was later modified to reduce that influence.

              If we can come up with a practical scheme allowing all users to excercise control over ICANN's accountability, I would be all for it.

              If not, then at least let's implement accountability by registrants, which is not perfect (for the reasons you say) but surely better than the current setup which has the drawbacks that you outline below.

              Best,
              Richard
                -----Original Message-----
                From: evanleibovitch at gmail.com [mailto:evanleibovitch at gmail.com]On Behalf Of Evan Leibovitch
                Sent: jeudi, 3. juillet 2014 22:39
                To: Richard Hill
                Cc: Eric Burger; Chapter Delegates
                Subject: Re: [Chapter-delegates] Internet Society Appointments to theNTIA/IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group


                On 3 July 2014 12:09, Richard Hill <rhill at hill-a.ch> wrote:

                  In democracies, the ultimate authority (parliament) is elected by all those affected, it is not chosen by a NomCom.


                That's because the ICANN "Nominating Committee" is misnamed.


                What ICANN has is a selection committee. A true *NOMINATING* Committee would create a ballot of eligible candidates from which an electorate would choose representatives. It's that last little step -- having an electorate -- that ICANN has consciously dispensed with. It's why ICANN has worked so hard to evade the traditional structure of nonprofits (such as our Chapter's) whose Boards are accountable to a membership.


                Once upon a time there were direct elections to ICANN, which were gamed. The response to gaming was to eliminate elections, rather than address the gaming issue. Perhaps that over-reaction needs to be revisited, especially now that e-voting tech has advanced so much lately.


                  My suggestion is that the ultimate oversigh for ICANN's economic regulatory function should be the end-users, that is the registrants of domain names (people/organizations that hold domain name registrations).



                End users != registrants.


                This error occurs frequently within ICANN, and is a constant source of required vigilance.


                End users are the people sitting at screens or on their mobiles, who access the Internet without any need for a domain name or intention to possess one. I reject the assertion by many in the domain industry that everyone needs to own a domain, that each person on earth is just a potential registrant who hasn't yet been adequately marketed to.


                Among the current family of registrants -- owning a substantial chunk of the total domain name pool -- are name speculators and squatters. ICANN's tolerance of their presence creates artificial scarcity, raises the cost of Internet entry to startup businesses, and causes legitimate site and brand owners to needlessly register defensive names. (They also dramatically inflate the total number of extant domains, which is now arguably a source of ICANN's own financial dependence. But that's a different thread.)


                In this family are also those who create domain names with intent to defraud. This is why the Red Cross request for domain name protection came in for special attention at the ICANN Board recently (supported by the GAC and ALAC), why the lack of enforced WHOIS accuracy has become a source of controversy, and why the ALAC continues to challenge the utility of gTLD "Public Interest Committments" over the protests of the domain industry.


                So, Richard, I must take issue with your definition. While the interests of registrants often have much in common with those of end users, they are most certainly not 100% in sync and occasionally in direct opposition.


                Registrants have their own constituencies within the "Non-Contracted House" half of ICANN's GNSO, from which they protect their interests. That's not At-Large, which, like ISOC, exists to assert the perspective of end-users -- the billions outside ICANN's direct revenue stream who are nonetheless impacted by its actions.


                - Evan



              _______________________________________________
              As an Internet Society Chapter Officer you are automatically subscribed
              to this list, which is regularly synchronized with the Internet Society
              Chapter Portal (AMS): https://portal.isoc.org








    _______________________________________________
    As an Internet Society Chapter Officer you are automatically subscribed
    to this list, which is regularly synchronized with the Internet Society
    Chapter Portal (AMS): https://portal.isoc.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/private/chapter-delegates/attachments/20140704/ba0f64cf/attachment.htm>