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

Fri Jul 4 11:49:57 PDT 2014

Richard,

we have gone through this exact same discussion several times over the
years. It was thought at those many times that you were following ICANN
issues closely.

The design constraints have not changed so it is unlikely that a new result
will emerge.

The "poll tax" factor appears when you remember that that you are talking
about the representation of all stakeholders. Domain name registrants are a
subset among users and their participation is already funnelled through the
GNSO, ccNSO, etc. To become a registrant in most cases you have to pay so
that makes the "poll tax" analogy which was utterly strongly resisted. The
double vote factor counts a lot too. Plus, registrants, as others have
already said, are not only individuals. Vint also has correctly underlined
the difficulty of defining the electorate, leave alone the identification,
authentication and running the election. Evan's description of the history
both trivializes and omits a ton of key factors.

If you find a working group within our subset (ISOC chapters) or more
broadly I will be happy to discuss when they roll their sleeves and get to
work seriously; I'm not saying this absolutely can't be solved but remind
you that there was a very strong process to think it through at the time.
Otherwise please read the record and start with something new.

Yours,

Alejandro Pisanty

On Fri, Jul 4, 2014 at 9:52 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
>

-- 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
     Dr. Alejandro Pisanty
Facultad de Química UNAM
Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico
+52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD
+525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO SMS +525541444475
Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty
Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn,
http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614
Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty
---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org
.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/private/chapter-delegates/attachments/20140704/463c95d5/attachment.htm>