I believe that democracy, whether direct or representative, means that individual people must resolve among their various interests. Sometimes that means electing representatives, for short terms (a few years max) who they believe will reflect their general choices. Stakeholder based systems, such as ICANN, are in conflict with that kind of human-based system. Stakeholderism violates the notion of one-person-one vote by giving multiple roles to some people. For instance in ICANN I'm a commercial business owner, intellectual property owner, domain name registrant, partial owner of several registries, am a member of technical bodies, have protocol numbers, and even part of the at-large - so I can assert my interests through multiple "stakeholder" forums. And because stakeholderism recognizes corporate forms, I can multiply my role by acting via my corporate personas (yes, plural) in addition to my human one. As an experiment in political systems, ICANN is a throwback to the era of trade guilds than a harbinger of some great new thing of human empowerment. ICANN's system is paternalistic, based on assertions that people do not have the time or knowledge to think for themselves, to decide for themselves, and that consequently they must be protected by presumed well-meaning guardians who are chosen by other guardians. Regarding DNS - What you propose is a significant technical change to the way that DNS works. There are several proposals I have seen for that kind of thing. But so far I have not seen working code that scales and is resistant to attack. By-the-way, I do see that some of this problem is solving itself - domain names are slowly losing their value as application level naming - think of twitter names or facebook names - and context sensitive lookups - such as personal contact apps or things like Amazon Alexa - are increasingly becoming the tokens and machinery that users utilize to indicate things they want. (DNS would usually still be lurking underneath.) Regarding prices: You want to use fiat, regulatory high pricing as a way to hinder something you don't like: "speculation". It appears that in your philosophy speculation is always bad. However for most of us (at least here in the US) routinely speculate in everything from homes to coins to retirement plans to life insurance (and also in the US, unfortunately, to medical care.) You cite ticket scalping and advocate high initial prices - which means that every patron gets scalped, not just the people who buy from speculative scalpers. In my own transactions I've found the best way to deal with abusive scalping or speculation is to simply say "no" and not to buy. Speculators can lose their investment and that will, in turn, reduce the fuel that drives abusive speculation. If we are honest in ICANN we should give a name to that difference between actual registry costs and the price registries charge - we should call it what it is, a tax. And that tax should flow into the coffers of ICANN rather than into the accounts of the registries. That way that money - which aggregates to well more than a $Billion each year - could be used for some public services rather than paying dividends to corporate shareholders. (PIR, at least, distributes a chunk of its registry fee profits to support internet technical entities.) --karl--