[ncdnhc-discuss] ISOC to bid on .org

[Kent Crispin]

On Sat, Jun 08, 2002 at 12:45:15PM -0400, James Love wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Kent Crispin" <kent at songbird.com>
> : > What is your point on the turnout?
> :
> : The point has been made; you refuse to address it; that's fine.
> 
>     I do address it.  I assert that a low percentage turnout for a domain
> name election holders is fine.

Proof by repeated assertion.  Sorry, that doesn't qualify as
"addressing" the issue. 

> I suggest an even lower turn out rate for a
> GNSO would be acceptable, because capiture would be unlikely (10,000 voters
> for 1 percent of 1 million domain holders).  I say that with the current
> turnout at CIRA, you have good outcomes. How exactly do I "refuse" to
> address this, but you somehow think you do?

There is nothing at all unusual or controversial about my statements. 
The very paper you referred me to lamented 5% turnouts; 5% turnout means
*by definition* that 5% of the population can capture the election. 
This is completely and utterly obvious. 

>   You offer some half baked
> opinions on turnout and capture

I'm sorry, Jamie, but it is you who are offering half-baked claims,
including the astonishing claim that you think a 1% turnout would be
just fine.  The low turnout issue is a general problem for all kinds of
elections, well understood from elementary civics classes.  The
arithmetic is irrefutable -- if you have a 1% turnout of possible
voters, then the election can be captured by 1% of the population. 
Using your example, it would take no more than $60000 dollars to buy
enough domain names to seat your entire list of candidates.

Moreover, very low turnouts are symptomatic of an important lower level
issue: an uninformed/uninterested electorate.  Another maxim from civics
001 is that an uninformed electorate is a wonderful playground for
demagogues and would-be demagogues.

In any case, you have stated that you think a 1% turnout would be fine;
you obviously don't care if 1% can capture the election.  I think it is
a concern, pretty much everyone thinks it is a concern. 

> for a domain name based election, where
> there is no evidence of capiture, and you don't bother to scale to a larger
> election for GNSO, and you don't look at self correcting mechansims, such as
> staggered elections, which make capture more unlikely, even in theory

On the contrary, I do look at such things -- staggered elections do
indeed require more patience on the part of the capturers.  However,
once they are in, staggered terms also mean that it takes longer to get
rid of them.  There were examples of this in the case of some California
school board elections, where the religious right ran "stealth"
candidates to pack school boards.

However, while it is a serious concern, the issue of capture is actually
only a supporting argument in the context of ICANN.  The real issue is
one you also fail to address, the issue of whether ICANN is a governance
body or a coordination body.  If you believe that ICANN's role should be
limited, as I do, then global direct elections are vastly more than the 
organization can afford, and, even worse, if you do have global direct 
elections, it will inevitably force ICANN into a governance role, at 
which it is ultimately doomed to fail.  Just my opinion, of course....

[...]

> : As you know, in my opinion the ALSC (and the NAIS) simply ignored the
> : issues of difficulties with elections, and I have documented that pretty
> : thoroughly.
> 
>    Ok, we have the ICANN staff critique, or the Kent as volenteer critique?

That is the "Kent as volunteer" critique.  I don't speak for ICANN or
the ICANN staff, and I never have, so you can safely drop your obnoxious
habit of asking me every chance you get.  In the extremely unlikely
event that I am ever in a position to speak for ICANN or the ICANN
staff, I'll let you know. 

>     Is Denise on the ICANN staff?

Not as I understand it.  I don't speak for her, either. 

-- 
Kent Crispin                               "Be good, and you will be
kent at songbird.com                          lonesome."  -- Mark Twain