[ncdnhc-discuss] ISOC to bid on .org

[James Love]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Kent Crispin" <kent at songbird.com>
: >     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.

    What is your "proof" there is a problem.   How are you "addressing" the
issue?   Basically, you ignore the independent expert reports, ignore the
CIRA experience, and just say, in Kent's opinion, elections don't work.  And
then you complain because people don't "address" your concerns.  If your
concerns are that you don't like elections, because something untoward
"might" happen,  there isn't much that anyone can do to address your
concerns.

 You also don't explain what your alternative method is for electing a
board.

: > 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.

     We all lament low voter turnouts....We all think the issue we are
engaged in is so important everyone should pay attention and register their
views.     But that is often not the case.  They still have elected school
boards in Michigan and lots of other places, and while capture is a
possibility, the system is not helpless, or in constant turmoil.  Everyone
once in a while the bible thumping regious fundementalist take a run at a
school board, and when this happens, there is typically a response from
others, and the school board reflects the majority view of the community.

  But more significantly, a domain name organization is not a school board.
Obvioiusly it "works" for the CIRA, and for a GNSO, where there would be
such a large pool of voters, how would anyone "capture" the election, even
with a 1 percent turnout (much lower than CIRA)?


: >   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.

   $60k would buy 10,000 domain name registrations, if the registrar fee was
zero, which it is not.   Next, you would would have to create 10,000 phony
voters, with 10,000 phone names, email addresses, and postal addresses.
And at 1 percent global turnout, how many persons would vote?  How many
millions of gTLD domain holders are there?

    Finally, if you committed a massive fraud like this, you would have to
hope that no one found out.  How likely is all this?   And with staggered
elections, what does all of this fraud get you?

: 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.
:

    What evidence is there from the CIRA or ICANN elections that this was
the case?

: > 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.

     And how did this play out in the end?   If like my community, things
turned out ok.

: 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....

Global elections based upon domain name registrations would not be that
expensive..   But if not a popular election, what?   Kent the real issue
that you fail to address is your alternative.  OK, you want an elitist
system.  I can live with an elistist system too, depending upon the details.
You know that I even presented one.    What is your model?  It's easy to
knock democractic systems.  They have flaws.  But so too have alternatives.
What is yours?

      Jamie

--------------------------------
James Love mailto:james.love at cptech.org
http://www.cptech.org +1.202.387.8030 mobile +1.202.361.3040