[ncdnhc-discuss] HP/Compaq vote and .org reassignment

[Jim Fleming]

From: "James Love" <love at cptech.org>
> 
> It would seem to us to be fairly simple to allow every .org domain holder to
> vote to express preferences with regard to who should get the .org bid.
> Unlike the at large election, there is a known list of potential voters, and
> also a ready and inexpensive way to contact them and to verify who they are.

James,

You are correct, if you look at TLD names as tribal names, each member of the
tribe gets one vote, via an SLD.TLD name. You are also correct that there are
easy ways to contact the members and straw polls could be taken totally separate
from the ICANN beauty contest.

You may be assuming a rather perfect world. Here are some things to consider.

1. The I* society does not like voting, it removes the decision-making from their
small, closed, insular group that has been working together for years to make sure
that only their members benefit financially from such decisions. You would be challenging
the collective wisdom of the illuminati who have their threads linked in all aspects of
government, education and business from birth. They get their funding from the billions
of dollars in welfare handed out each year by the NSF. They are masters at gaming the
systems and have learned how to rig the rules so that only their members win. It is a
one-party system.

2. People could argue that representative government is more informed because
individuals would not really be able to judge the beauty contest. If there are 2 candidates
the vote will split 50/50 if there are 3 candidates the vote will split 33/33/33 if one
assumes that a pure democracy is at play and the candidates are equal. In other
words, a vote only confirms the world is perfect and does not select a winner.

3. The Registrars could enter the picture and become the "candidates". Because many
.ORG owners never registered with one of the new Registrars, they could now have the
opportunity to vote by selecting a Registrar. Then, the Registrars would vote based on
the number of proxies they have from their documented base of registrations. As with the
electoral college, the Registrars would not be required to vote based on their published
choice. They could gain or lose customers because of that. This approach of course ignores
the fact that prior to the smaller group of ICANN approved Registrars there were thousands
of Registrars and the barrier to entry to be a Registrar was low. If the ICANN Registrars
are the only candidates then you are simply voting on their pre-selected winners and
there is no real choice, again it is a one-party system.

4. Another way to vote is to use the IPv4 32-bit DNS and the multiple root-servers to
field a slate of .ORG Registries. This would be similar to the two .BIZ candidates, which
people are still voting on via their selection of Registry. This approach takes time and
because of the U.S. Government endorsement of whatever candidate ICANN selects,
some would claim there is no real contest. In this approach, .ORG people select the 32-bit
Registry they want and their first choice is recorded. Via simple synching software their
entry could then be made in the other 32-bit .ORG Registries to make sure their nameservers
are reached no matter what root is used. This not only acheives a voting record but it
also creates a distributed .ORG Registry run by several companies. That is stronger than
having one company as a single point of failure or acquisition. Acquisition is a larger concern
for some people because it does not make much sense to spread the Registry business out
if after that the winner is bought up by the previous incumbent. Also, it is likely that money
will just be used to pay-off the smaller candidates and make them go away in the middle
of the election.

--

All of this voting can of course be done in the 32-bit DNS. As people are faced with a
migration to 128-bit DNS they are going to find a much wider selection of features and
choices available to them. It is not clear that the average .ORG owner is going to readily
understand all of those choices. Many can not understand the current system of having
two SLD.ORG nameservers, and the various URL redirection options the Registrars
provide. They are now insulated from the details and many vote on price or brand name
or the recommendation of their real Registrar, who is their ISP, web developer, etc.
That is the way the original system was structured prior to ICANN inserting their
Multi-Level-Marketing franchise structure with fees flowing to ICANN.

Looking at the big picture, some would argue that you have to forfeit the entire 32-bit
DNS race or election to the I* society insiders, because there is little chance of changing
their one-party system. Then, via the 128-bit DNS you can consider ways to make the
Internet more democratic. Only the educated .ORG owners will make their way to the
128-bit DNS and protect their names, when they do, they could then be presented with
some real choice and be an informed electorate. An informed electorate voting with
their own free-will to migrate to 128-bit DNS and selecting their Registrar/Registry/Root
would validate the selection of the .ORG tribe, not the I* society tribe.

Jim Fleming
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt