[ALSC-Forum] Re: Khyron's Feedback on Draft Report

[Derek Di Matteo]

Hi All,

I too have questions about the draft report, at first some of them were the 
same as Khyron just spoke of, namely, certain domain name aggregators getting 
too strong a voice. Then I read the draft section that defines a domain name 
holder and was relieved to see that although an individual may own more than 
one domain, that individual only gets one vote (so it isn't one vote per 
domain, as it might at first appear). The whole idea is to give a voice to as 
many under-represented people as possible, so this limitation (ie, one vote 
per person or entity no matter how many domains they control) is a good 
limitation. 

Yet, in the interests of giving a voice to as many people as possible, the 
question of financial ability to participate is one that is important to 
consider. Certainly an argument can be made that if you don't own a domain 
then you probably aren't very informed about Internet policies and 
technology, and thus your voice won't be missed. On the other hand, what if 
you are quite technically, politically, and socially savvy (as far as users 
go) and are interested in participating in ICANN's debates and casting a 
vote? What if said person doesn't own a domain? Why should they be excluded? 
Perhaps membership could be offered to those without domains (yes, I know 
this seems to have been discussed and dismissed as too error prone, as 
reported in the draft). 

But let me go further: what if said interested and knowledgeable person is 
not located in an affluent part of the world? What if the cost of a domain 
name is truly prohibitive, not to mention an additional membership fee on top 
of that? Why should poor but enthusiastic and knowledgeable people in certain 
areas of the world be excluded from participating just because of their 
relative economic status? (or for that matter, what about other economicaly 
challeneged people, such as poor students in the US and the world over?)

Derek Di Matteo



On Thursday 30 August 2001 14:26, Khyron wrote:
> I am deeply saddened by the draft report.
>
> If we are to be a free and self organizing body we cannot and should not
> allow a "poll tax" to be implemented because of the very manner that it
> manages to exclude many individuals in favor of companies or organizations
> that can afford to be part of the process.  Because most domain name
> holders are companies, It does not adequately allow for representation of
> individuals.
>
> To suggest that only letting registered domain name holders vote as a way
> to reduce fraud is patently absurd.  In fact it only encourages those that
> have an interest that they would like to have pushed through to acquire a
> second AT-LARGE voting membership.  It would not take a large leap of
> imagination to think that individuals or companies that hold multiple
> domain names would have a larger voice and influence because of their
> unnatural voting advantage.
>
> In the United States, everyone who fits a minimum set of criteria can
> vote.  Many choose not to exercise this privilege.  I would suggest to the
> Drafting board that they look at the US and other governments around the
> world before deciding to condemn the entire existing voting process, and
> replacing it with an absurd non-representative system that does not serve
> the community.
>
>
>
>
> Creativity can sometimes be a curse.
> Ask Dr. Frankenstein.

-- 
-----===------
Derek Di Matteo
ddimatteo@mediaone.net
-----===------