[ncdnhc-discuss] ISOC to bid on .org

[Dave Crocker]

At 12:45 PM 6/8/2002 -0400, James Love wrote:
>GNSO would be acceptable, because capiture would be unlikely (10,000 voters

You say this, in spite of the fact that the one at-large election ICANN has 
held so far showed massive dominance by two specific groups in Asia.

It would be helpful not continue to ignore the unpleasant realities of facts.


>: anytime soon.) So basically, using domain names adds nothing to the
>: security -- in fact, it is less secure than the postal verification
>: method used in the ICANN elections (which didn't work for other
>: reasons).
>
>    Under Whois policy, a gTLD or a registrar can lose its business if they
>would engage this type of fraud.  I think that is a pretty severe sanciton.

Jamie, this has nothing to do with Whois nor with registrars or 
registries.  It has to do with the fact that domain names have no forced 
correlation with anything.

If you are going to claim that voting is done by anything other than domain 
names -- such as restricting voting to one vote per domain name HOLDER, 
rather than one vote per domain name -- there is no technical way to 
enforce such a rule.

You are free to provide a technical specification to the contrary.  Until 
then, please rely on people with training and experience in this technology.


At 04:12 PM 6/8/2002 -0400, James Love wrote:
>     The GNSO is for the gTLDs.  Here there are much fewer problems.  All
>that is really needed is that someone has a domain, and is a real, unique
>person.

There is no way to guarantee that one PERSON gets one vote.


>The ICANN required whois policy addresses this for gTLDs.

No it does not.

Feel free to provide a technical specification to the contrary.

>      In theory maybe, but what do you  mean, "capture."?

The term capture is a well-established term.  Are you seriously 
participating in these discussions about large-scale voting, while having 
no familiarity with basic issues in voting processes?


>  Does that include people voting for Andy or Karl?  That wasn't capture, 
> it was just an outcome
>the BOD didn't expect or want.

Please try not to trivialize the issue nor make it cleverly emotional and 
polarizing.

You claim to want "fair" elections.  Capture is about a particular type of 
engineered unfairness.

Are you saying that you do not know what the term means?

d/

----------
Dave Crocker <mailto:dave at tribalwise.com>
TribalWise, Inc. <http://www.tribalwise.com>
tel +1.408.246.8253; fax +1.408.850.1850