Re: [At-Large] On a "consumer" agenda for ICANN
This is a footnote to this thread, particularly with respect to the discussion of consumer vs end-user. In the following article, James Losey and Sacha Meinrath describe the role of the “Digital Craftsperson.” They then use the idea of the Digital Craftsperson as a lens to analyze threats to the Internet’s continued existence as an open system: James Losey and Sacha Meinrath. IN DEFENSE OF THE DIGITAL CRAFTSPERSON. Journal of Peer Production. http://peerproduction.net/issues/issue-9-alternative-internets/peer-reviewed... It occurs to me that, although the phrase is awkward, it points to a particular type of end-user that might better be the objective of ALAC attention. In community networking, we call such people the stewards of the uses of ICTs for community development. In fact, supporting just such people is the primary mission of many ALSs. It certainly is for Telecommunities Canada. Might a narrowing of the idea of the end-user down to those who play an active role in the evolution of end use towards social ends help with framing ALAC’s real role? GG
On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 1:47 PM, Garth Graham <garth.graham@telus.net> wrote:
In community networking, we call such people the stewards of the uses of ICTs for community development. In fact, supporting just such people is the primary mission of many ALSs
Well said! That has been my mission for ages. -Carlton ============================== *Carlton A Samuels* *Mobile: 876-818-1799Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* =============================
Thanks for your piece, Garth. IMO the term end-user still needs to refer to the billions who are impacted by DNS policy even if they never contemplate buying a domain. But it is your accurately-defined concept of "stewards" that need to be the interface between those billions and the multi-stakeholder model. Without using that terminology, the At-Large leadership -- backed up by the RALOs -- has been trying to serve exactly this purpose. I have taken the conversations in this thread to heart and will be trying to put thoughts down in a coherent form. The conclusions I draw myself from this suggest that At-Large needs a massive re-think of how it treats outreach. Rather than brochures and CROPP and Fellows and endless (mostly futile) campaigns to get more outsiders to get involved, I think the stewards need to do more to directly address the needs of the billions. If we are doing our jobs at that -- trying to affect policy while facing inside ICANN, while creating plain-language education programs to explain those policies while facing outside -- the stewards will find us without much effort. - Evan On 14 September 2016 at 22:24, Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 1:47 PM, Garth Graham <garth.graham@telus.net> wrote:
In community networking, we call such people the stewards of the uses of ICTs for community development. In fact, supporting just such people is the primary mission of many ALSs
Well said! That has been my mission for ages.
-Carlton
============================== *Carlton A Samuels*
*Mobile: 876-818-1799 <876-818-1799>Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* =============================
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
-- Evan Leibovitch Geneva, CH Em: evan at telly dot org Sk: evanleibovitch Tw: el56
+1 Garth On 9/15/2016 2:47 AM, Garth Graham wrote:
This is a footnote to this thread, particularly with respect to the discussion of consumer vs end-user. In the following article, James Losey and Sacha Meinrath describe the role of the “Digital Craftsperson.” They then use the idea of the Digital Craftsperson as a lens to analyze threats to the Internet’s continued existence as an open system:
James Losey and Sacha Meinrath. IN DEFENSE OF THE DIGITAL CRAFTSPERSON. Journal of Peer Production. http://peerproduction.net/issues/issue-9-alternative-internets/peer-reviewed...
It occurs to me that, although the phrase is awkward, it points to a particular type of end-user that might better be the objective of ALAC attention. In community networking, we call such people the stewards of the uses of ICTs for community development. In fact, supporting just such people is the primary mission of many ALSs. It certainly is for Telecommunities Canada. Might a narrowing of the idea of the end-user down to those who play an active role in the evolution of end use towards social ends help with framing ALAC’s real role?
GG _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
Might a narrowing of the idea of the end-user down to those who play an active role in the evolution of end use towards social ends help with framing ALAC’s real role?
I'm sorry, but this is a terrible idea. Back when I was on the ALAC over a decade ago, it wasn't clear whether ALAC represented individual vanity registrants (of whom we certainly have a lot on the ALAC) or actual end users. We finally realized that we represent end-users, the billions of people who actually use the Internet but will never register a domain. I would be strongly opposed to anything that back-tracked from that. Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly
Dear Colleague, this has just been published online at CircleID: http://www.circleid.com/posts/20160914_transition_of_oversight_of_the_iana_f... Regards, Jean-Jacques.
On 15/09/2016 03:54, John R. Levine wrote:
Might a narrowing of the idea of the end-user down to those who play an active role in the evolution of end use towards social ends help with framing ALAC’s real role?
I'm sorry, but this is a terrible idea.
Back when I was on the ALAC over a decade ago, it wasn't clear whether ALAC represented individual vanity registrants (of whom we certainly have a lot on the ALAC) or actual end users. We finally realized that we represent end-users, the billions of people who actually use the Internet but will never register a domain. I would be strongly opposed to anything that back-tracked from that.
I do not think we "represent" end users, as none of the people on the ALAC have been elected by end users worldwide, but selected by a subset of organisations that are diverse enough to be a small, balanced sample of interested end users worldwide. Thus, the correct term would be to say that the ALAC represents the interests of end users - with hopefully enough input from the edges so let ALAC members take decisions based on a large enough sample of end users that this indeed if a fair reflection of end user needs. Kindest regards, Olivier
On 15 September 2016 at 08:21, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com> wrote:
I do not think we "represent" end users, as none of the people on the ALAC have been elected by end users worldwide,
IMO the context of this particular corner of the debate -- and why we keep having to revisit it -- comes from the domain industry's speed at responding any time we assert an opinion contrary to their interests, with a loud and hearty "*who the hell are you?*". (Of course when we agree with the industry we're a critical and valued stakeholder whose opinion matters much.) The definitive answer, is within the ICANN bylaws. Article XI <https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/bylaws-en#XI>, Section 2.4a, which states unambiguously: *The At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) is the primary organizational home
within ICANN for individual Internet users.*
That means our role is to represent the interests of, and ensure the informed consent of, "the billions" whether or not they have bought domains. Do we -- that is, the 15 ALAC members, the RALO leadership and the ALSs and individuals that comprise the community -- actually represent the billions? Consider that a full one-third of ALAC is not elected by anyone end-users, but picked by the ICANN Nominating Committee over who *they think* we ought to have. The individial->ALS->RALO->ALAC model is one imposed by ICANN: - ALAC defined in XI.2.4b,c,d - RALOs defined in XI.2.4g,h - ALSs defined in XI.2.4i Now, it can easily be argued that this whole infrastructure is ineffective (by design and/or leadership) at being the "home for end users"; indeed, that issue comprises (IMO) much of the scope of the At-Large Review currently underway (hi Tim!). But the fact remains that this is the structure under which we have had to work from the beginnings of At-Large as a defined community within ICANN. Those who have been involved have tried to represent end users as best we can under the circumstances. And there is no question that -- outside of governments -- At-Large provides ICANN with its most diverse stakeholder group. Of **course** we're not elected by the billions; a tiny fraction of them know ICANN exists, and an even tinier fraction knows that At-Large exists within ICANN. (Often, when ICANN *is* brought to public attention, whether by Ted Cruz or the Russian government or other sources, it is not painted in a public light and the presence of an end-user community as a source of guidance is routinely ignored. Perhaps the fact that At-Large advice is so often ignored is a justifiable cause of our seeming irrelevance -- but I digress....) I like the way Alan coined it sometime back and Olivier has repeated, that ALAC can't possibly say that we speak for the billions, but we can very accurately say that we do our best, given the structural constraints, to represent the *interests* of end users. This is why I like Garth's description of At-Large leadership as "stewards" of the global public interest if not its broadly-elected representatives. It is not an untruth that At-Large represents the billions within ICANN; that is what its bylaws say we are here to do -- and that is indeed the proper answer to "who the hell are you". That we are a geeky elite from the less than 1% of the world's population that knows what ICANN happens to be, is a reality that is unlikely to change unless WE do something about it. And that is why I am working on a re-envisioning of ALAC's stewardship that is more outward focused than inward, spending less time reacting to every stupid ICANN public comment and more on creating an informed public. - Evan
Modestly, I agree a very important priority is creating an informed public and think about how is better outreach. Maybe each ALS in its place can be something about that. The second priority is to react to some public commentaries. If it can do both, in this order, it is better. Regards 2016-09-15 5:45 GMT-03:00 Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org>:
On 15 September 2016 at 08:21, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com> wrote:
I do not think we "represent" end users, as none of the people on the ALAC have been elected by end users worldwide,
IMO the context of this particular corner of the debate -- and why we keep having to revisit it -- comes from the domain industry's speed at responding any time we assert an opinion contrary to their interests, with a loud and hearty "*who the hell are you?*". (Of course when we agree with the industry we're a critical and valued stakeholder whose opinion matters much.)
The definitive answer, is within the ICANN bylaws. Article XI <https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/bylaws-en#XI>, Section 2.4a, which states unambiguously:
*The At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) is the primary organizational home
within ICANN for individual Internet users.*
That means our role is to represent the interests of, and ensure the informed consent of, "the billions" whether or not they have bought domains.
Do we -- that is, the 15 ALAC members, the RALO leadership and the ALSs and individuals that comprise the community -- actually represent the billions? Consider that a full one-third of ALAC is not elected by anyone end-users, but picked by the ICANN Nominating Committee over who *they think* we ought to have.
The individial->ALS->RALO->ALAC model is one imposed by ICANN:
- ALAC defined in XI.2.4b,c,d - RALOs defined in XI.2.4g,h - ALSs defined in XI.2.4i
Now, it can easily be argued that this whole infrastructure is ineffective (by design and/or leadership) at being the "home for end users"; indeed, that issue comprises (IMO) much of the scope of the At-Large Review currently underway (hi Tim!). But the fact remains that this is the structure under which we have had to work from the beginnings of At-Large as a defined community within ICANN. Those who have been involved have tried to represent end users as best we can under the circumstances. And there is no question that -- outside of governments -- At-Large provides ICANN with its most diverse stakeholder group.
Of **course** we're not elected by the billions; a tiny fraction of them know ICANN exists, and an even tinier fraction knows that At-Large exists within ICANN.
(Often, when ICANN *is* brought to public attention, whether by Ted Cruz or the Russian government or other sources, it is not painted in a public light and the presence of an end-user community as a source of guidance is routinely ignored. Perhaps the fact that At-Large advice is so often ignored is a justifiable cause of our seeming irrelevance -- but I digress....)
I like the way Alan coined it sometime back and Olivier has repeated, that ALAC can't possibly say that we speak for the billions, but we can very accurately say that we do our best, given the structural constraints, to represent the *interests* of end users. This is why I like Garth's description of At-Large leadership as "stewards" of the global public interest if not its broadly-elected representatives. It is not an untruth that At-Large represents the billions within ICANN; that is what its bylaws say we are here to do -- and that is indeed the proper answer to "who the hell are you". That we are a geeky elite from the less than 1% of the world's population that knows what ICANN happens to be, is a reality that is unlikely to change unless WE do something about it. And that is why I am working on a re-envisioning of ALAC's stewardship that is more outward focused than inward, spending less time reacting to every stupid ICANN public comment and more on creating an informed public.
- Evan
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
-- Aida Noblia
In any country it chooses whom government. In any case no candidate reaches 100% of the votes. That is, even in election processes or decision maker generates policy was chosen by all but their actions affect everyone. We have millions of users who do not even know that they have rights, we do know that have them. Kind regards alberto De: at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] En nombre de Evan Leibovitch Enviado el: jueves, 15 de septiembre de 2016 05:46 a.m. Para: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com> CC: John R. Levine <johnl@iecc.com>; ICANN At-Large list <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Asunto: Re: [At-Large] On a "consumer" agenda for ICANN On 15 September 2016 at 08:21, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com <mailto:ocl@gih.com> > wrote: I do not think we "represent" end users, as none of the people on the ALAC have been elected by end users worldwide, IMO the context of this particular corner of the debate -- and why we keep having to revisit it -- comes from the domain industry's speed at responding any time we assert an opinion contrary to their interests, with a loud and hearty "who the hell are you?". (Of course when we agree with the industry we're a critical and valued stakeholder whose opinion matters much.) The definitive answer, is within the ICANN bylaws. Article XI <https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/bylaws-en#XI> , Section 2.4a, which states unambiguously: The At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) is the primary organizational home within ICANN for individual Internet users. That means our role is to represent the interests of, and ensure the informed consent of, "the billions" whether or not they have bought domains. Do we -- that is, the 15 ALAC members, the RALO leadership and the ALSs and individuals that comprise the community -- actually represent the billions? Consider that a full one-third of ALAC is not elected by anyone end-users, but picked by the ICANN Nominating Committee over who they think we ought to have. The individial->ALS->RALO->ALAC model is one imposed by ICANN: * ALAC defined in XI.2.4b,c,d * RALOs defined in XI.2.4g,h * ALSs defined in XI.2.4i Now, it can easily be argued that this whole infrastructure is ineffective (by design and/or leadership) at being the "home for end users"; indeed, that issue comprises (IMO) much of the scope of the At-Large Review currently underway (hi Tim!). But the fact remains that this is the structure under which we have had to work from the beginnings of At-Large as a defined community within ICANN. Those who have been involved have tried to represent end users as best we can under the circumstances. And there is no question that -- outside of governments -- At-Large provides ICANN with its most diverse stakeholder group. Of *course* we're not elected by the billions; a tiny fraction of them know ICANN exists, and an even tinier fraction knows that At-Large exists within ICANN. (Often, when ICANN *is* brought to public attention, whether by Ted Cruz or the Russian government or other sources, it is not painted in a public light and the presence of an end-user community as a source of guidance is routinely ignored. Perhaps the fact that At-Large advice is so often ignored is a justifiable cause of our seeming irrelevance -- but I digress....) I like the way Alan coined it sometime back and Olivier has repeated, that ALAC can't possibly say that we speak for the billions, but we can very accurately say that we do our best, given the structural constraints, to represent the *interests* of end users. This is why I like Garth's description of At-Large leadership as "stewards" of the global public interest if not its broadly-elected representatives. It is not an untruth that At-Large represents the billions within ICANN; that is what its bylaws say we are here to do -- and that is indeed the proper answer to "who the hell are you". That we are a geeky elite from the less than 1% of the world's population that knows what ICANN happens to be, is a reality that is unlikely to change unless WE do something about it. And that is why I am working on a re-envisioning of ALAC's stewardship that is more outward focused than inward, spending less time reacting to every stupid ICANN public comment and more on creating an informed public. - Evan --- El software de antivirus Avast ha analizado este correo electrónico en busca de virus. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
On 9/15/16 1:45 AM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
The definitive answer, is within the ICANN bylaws. Article XI <https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/bylaws-en#XI>, Section 2.4a, which states unambiguously:
/The At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) is the primary organizational home within ICANN for individual Internet users./
I am fairly sure that I was the author of that sentence. ;-) Stepping back to the rarely mentioned elephant in the room - under California law ICANN exists for the purpose of promoting the public benefit. And everything it does must be measured by that standard. Yes, that's a standard that is vague. But although vague that standard does suggest a broad scope rather than a limited one. With regard to the notions of representation and "stewardship". First, let's drop that latter word. A steward's job is to preserve and manage, much like a trustee. But ICANN has become a political organization that does far more than merely "preserve" things. So by using the word "steward" we risk imposing mental strictures on ourselves or misleading observers to think that the role is less than it really is. As for representation - yes, it is hard. There is no pure conduit for public opinion short of a full direct vote on all things. That's not very efficient (although in these electronic days it may be easier than it has been in the past assuming that we can resolve the one-actual-person-one-vote problem.) A person who is acting as a representative performs several roles. One of those roles is as a idea-leader: Rather than being a passive reflector of those he/she represents the representative ought to be an active promoter of ideas - and an equally active evaluator of how well his/her electorate (or the broader public) accepts or rejects those ideas. Another role is as a kind of idea-stomach that digests the opinions of the electorate/public in order to synthesize a position on an issue. This is really, really hard. And it is why electorates need the power to replace representatives who are not doing it well. And with regard to the thread about tech people being somewhat disconnected from the broader "emotional" world: I tend to agree with that point of view. The 20th century saw many cases in which technology was considered somehow a more pure source of governance. There were films that advocated that view - the best known was "Things To Come" in 1936. I believe that ICANN was born from the idea that the internet should be governed by clean, pure, philosopher techies rather than dirty, impure politicians. But again and again we have seen the inaccuracy that point of view. For example, here in the US it was technocrats like Donald Rumsfeld and Robert McNamara who led us into some terrible military failures. And ICANN has become as political as any other regulatory body whose decisions to act, or not to act, have large economic consequences on industrial actors. It isn't that we techies can't be good at governance. We just tend to have a bit of tunnel vision and a somewhat less broad base of experience. To leave a thought - consider how the 1956 movie "Forbidden Planet" turned out for the Krell. --karl--
Stepping back to the rarely mentioned elephant in the room - under California law ICANN exists for the purpose of promoting the public benefit. And everything it does must be measured by that standard. Yes, that's a standard that is vague. But although vague that standard does suggest a broad scope rather than a limited one.
That is true, but the public benefit that ICANN claims to provide is "lessening the burdens of government" by doing a job that ARPA and the NSF had previously paid for. (See their Form 990s.) It would be nice if they did other public benefit stuff but they've never promised to do so. More's the pity. Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly
From: Karl Auerbach <karl@cavebear.com>
As for representation - yes, it is hard. There is no pure conduit for public opinion short of a full direct vote on all things. That's not very efficient (although in these electronic days it may be easier than it has been in the past assuming that we can resolve the one-actual-person-one-vote problem.)
One person / one vote is easier these days, it's basically equivalent to the double-spend problem. In essence one sends anyone qualified (e.g., properly registered) to vote one zero-value bitcoin (doesn't have to be bitcoin, but analogous) which they must return ("spend") with their vote submission. Yes there are details with devils, I could list a few, but that's the gist of the idea and it's fairly simple in concept. Papers have been written on the use of blockchain for voting systems, just google "blockchain voting system". This could probably be as good an experimental platform for such a system as one could get since it's starting at zero voting now, no history to carry over such as a former voter feeling they were disenfranchised by the implementation since there are no former voters tho perhaps some new such complaints could arise. And could start with votes of little consequence (advisory, polling, etc) to test the concept. Again, there's no urgency to get to consequential votes since there's no history to drive any urgency. And of course who would be shocked or offended to hear that an arm of internet governance plans to use blockchain technology for an online, global, voting system? -- -Barry Shein Software Tool & Die | bzs@TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: +1 617-STD-WRLD | 800-THE-WRLD The World: Since 1989 | A Public Information Utility | *oo*
Barry, the problem is not so much with how to vote (though you in the US have been informed recently about much of it, it seems). The real hard issue is defining an electorate. That horse hasn't regained a breath and a pulse in almost fifteen years of kicking it. Alejandro Pisanty - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Facultad de Química UNAM Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico +52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD +525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO SMS +525541444475 Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ________________________________________ Desde: at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] en nombre de bzs@theworld.com [bzs@theworld.com] Enviado el: jueves, 15 de septiembre de 2016 22:09 Hasta: Karl Auerbach CC: at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org Asunto: Re: [At-Large] On a "consumer" agenda for ICANN From: Karl Auerbach <karl@cavebear.com>
As for representation - yes, it is hard. There is no pure conduit for public opinion short of a full direct vote on all things. That's not very efficient (although in these electronic days it may be easier than it has been in the past assuming that we can resolve the one-actual-person-one-vote problem.)
One person / one vote is easier these days, it's basically equivalent to the double-spend problem. In essence one sends anyone qualified (e.g., properly registered) to vote one zero-value bitcoin (doesn't have to be bitcoin, but analogous) which they must return ("spend") with their vote submission. Yes there are details with devils, I could list a few, but that's the gist of the idea and it's fairly simple in concept. Papers have been written on the use of blockchain for voting systems, just google "blockchain voting system". This could probably be as good an experimental platform for such a system as one could get since it's starting at zero voting now, no history to carry over such as a former voter feeling they were disenfranchised by the implementation since there are no former voters tho perhaps some new such complaints could arise. And could start with votes of little consequence (advisory, polling, etc) to test the concept. Again, there's no urgency to get to consequential votes since there's no history to drive any urgency. And of course who would be shocked or offended to hear that an arm of internet governance plans to use blockchain technology for an online, global, voting system? -- -Barry Shein Software Tool & Die | bzs@TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: +1 617-STD-WRLD | 800-THE-WRLD The World: Since 1989 | A Public Information Utility | *oo* _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
Dear Barry, On 16/09/2016 05:09, bzs@theworld.com wrote:
In essence one sends anyone qualified (e.g., properly registered) to vote one zero-value bitcoin (doesn't have to be bitcoin, but analogous) which they must return ("spend") with their vote submission.
Yes there are details with devils, I could list a few, but that's the gist of the idea and it's fairly simple in concept. Papers have been written on the use of blockchain for voting systems, just google "blockchain voting system".
You touch on a interesting topic which several of us had a discussion about in late July at the European Summer School on Internet Governance. Those who knew about blockchain technology enlightened those of us who did not (me included) and the conversation yielded several interesting avenue for study including the one your mention above. Kindest regards, Olivier -- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html
On 9/15/16 8:09 PM, bzs@theworld.com wrote:
In essence one sends anyone qualified (e.g., properly registered) to vote one zero-value bitcoin (doesn't have to be bitcoin, but analogous) which they must return ("spend") with their vote submission. I do like that basic idea. (I have also done thought experiments with blockchain technology to do things like represent ownership of a thing - whether that thing be real property or a bicycle or a domain name. The singularity property is so very useful for things beyond its use as a form of money.)
I still see some difficulty in making sure that each voter gets exactly one voting token. But as for the question of who should be voters in matters of internet governance - to me the answer is utterly simple: Every natural/human person who is affected by the internet ought to have a vote. That does not mean that I don't accept representative systems. We don't need nor do we want a plebiscite on every little decision. But it does mean that the community of internet users ought to have the power and authority, even if only on a periodic basic, to change its representatives and, even to change (perhaps with supermajorities or go-slow procedures) the nature or existence of the body of governance. I think it was Even who mentioned in this or a recent thread that over the years ICANN has not been subject to meaningful mandatory direction by those for whose benefit ICANN exists: the community of people affected by the internet. I would strongly agree with such a point of view. One can not argue with a straight face that the community of internet users' interest is too tenuous or diffuse. For a start there is the massive cash flow taken from internet users (via ICANN-declared fiat registry fees) amounting to more than a $Billion per year, every year. And that's just the start of how ICANN has shaped internet privacy, the internet domain name marketplace, and imposed ICANN's private law of strong, superseding trademarks, all without any real step in which the internet community has had a mandatory power to say yea or nay. I refuse to accept the Orwellian notion implicit in "stakeholder" based systems that "[a]ll animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others". When we introduce the concept of "stakeholder" into internet governance we open the door wide to Gerrymandering, electorate-shaping, and outright exclusion so that those (usually corporate entities) with distinct (or large) financial interests are awarded "stakeholder" crowns while every-day human users of the net are relegated to observer status. That is neither right nor just. It is equally wrong and unjust to create a mere toy system in which the public voice, even if aggregated with laser focus, can amount to no more than a breeze to contest against the hurricane force power of industrial "stakeholders". --karl--
Most all of the arguments I've seen in this thread are like left-over food being warmed up. But still delicious! Especially the ones surrounding 'representation'. We know the facts. And we know the official ALAC posture - Evan's given the quotations from bye-law - is the best distillate, context and circumstances dictating. All this aside, Karl's ruminations are always a good read....and enlightening. So, here's Karl On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 3:11 AM, Karl Auerbach <karl@cavebear.com> wrote:
The singularity property is so very useful for things beyond its use as a form of money.)
Singularity, that defining attribute for 'democratic' representation. It had never left my head since 2006 and was reinforced when I read Karl's paper on multistakeholderism. Here's another thought that was generated. In a numbers game, maybe the prospect of say, what...maybe 300M from a certain jurisdiction 'voting' tends to concentrate the mind. -Carlton ============================== *Carlton A Samuels* *Mobile: 876-818-1799Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* =============================
I still see some difficulty in making sure that each voter gets exactly one voting token.
There's the understatement of the week. Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly
I also like the idea, in principle. What worries me is, as usual, the implementation. The human beings affected by the Internet (or lack thereof) are a few billions. How can we reach them all with a ballot of some sort? How many ballots do we expect to be able to distribute to people who are verified? My answer isjust a few millions, even supposing that all countries will cooperate. Of those, how many would actually vote? My take is in the order of magnitude of the hundreds of thousands at the most, and only if the vote is very well prepared. Am I the only one who has doubts about the representativity of this vote about the will of the majority? The matter is even more complicated because the 1 out of 10K that actually asts the vote has not been chosen via a carefully defined statistical sample, but will be most probably biased, geopolitically, by wealth, by instruction, by culture, and more. I don't want to argue that the current system is perfect: quite the contrary. It is complicated, not adequately representative, is biased towards the "usual suspects", and more. However, to my personal opinion, a general worldwide election will not be any better. Actually,for the reasons above, it will be more costly and give poorer results. But, again, itis just my personal opinion, and if somebody has good answers to the questions I raise about the implementation problems and bias, I will be glad to hear them. Cheers, Roberto Inviato da iPad Il giorno 16.09.2016, alle ore 10:11, Karl Auerbach <karl@cavebear.com<mailto:karl@cavebear.com>> ha scritto: On 9/15/16 8:09 PM, bzs@theworld.com<mailto:bzs@theworld.com> wrote: In essence one sends anyone qualified (e.g., properly registered) to vote one zero-value bitcoin (doesn't have to be bitcoin, but analogous) which they must return ("spend") with their vote submission. I do like that basic idea. (I have also done thought experiments with blockchain technology to do things like represent ownership of a thing - whether that thing be real property or a bicycle or a domain name. The singularity property is so very useful for things beyond its use as a form of money.) I still see some difficulty in making sure that each voter gets exactly one voting token. But as for the question of who should be voters in matters of internet governance - to me the answer is utterly simple: Every natural/human person who is affected by the internet ought to have a vote. That does not mean that I don't accept representative systems. We don't need nor do we want a plebiscite on every little decision. But it does mean that the community of internet users ought to have the power and authority, even if only on a periodic basic, to change its representatives and, even to change (perhaps with supermajorities or go-slow procedures) the nature or existence of the body of governance. I think it was Even who mentioned in this or a recent thread that over the years ICANN has not been subject to meaningful mandatory direction by those for whose benefit ICANN exists: the community of people affected by the internet. I would strongly agree with such a point of view. One can not argue with a straight face that the community of internet users' interest is too tenuous or diffuse. For a start there is the massive cash flow taken from internet users (via ICANN-declared fiat registry fees) amounting to more than a $Billion per year, every year. And that's just the start of how ICANN has shaped internet privacy, the internet domain name marketplace, and imposed ICANN's private law of strong, superseding trademarks, all without any real step in which the internet community has had a mandatory power to say yea or nay. I refuse to accept the Orwellian notion implicit in "stakeholder" based systems that "[a]ll animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others". When we introduce the concept of "stakeholder" into internet governance we open the door wide to Gerrymandering, electorate-shaping, and outright exclusion so that those (usually corporate entities) with distinct (or large) financial interests are awarded "stakeholder" crowns while every-day human users of the net are relegated to observer status. That is neither right nor just. It is equally wrong and unjust to create a mere toy system in which the public voice, even if aggregated with laser focus, can amount to no more than a breeze to contest against the hurricane force power of industrial "stakeholders". --karl-- _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
Roberto, the most basic principle of an election is that you have an electorate, assume most of it votes, and what you want is to classify, count and order their preferences. "Bring your own voters" is the extreme form of gerrymandering, already proven to be flawed and deeply antidemocratic, whether it be bringing in truckloads of peasants to the polling stations or any electronic/online equivalent. You have captured this well in your arguments yet it is necessary to state concisely this basic point. Alejandro Pisanty - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Facultad de Química UNAM Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico +52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD +525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO SMS +525541444475 Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ________________________________ Desde: at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] en nombre de Roberto Gaetano [roberto_gaetano@hotmail.com] Enviado el: viernes, 16 de septiembre de 2016 11:37 Hasta: Karl Auerbach CC: at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org Asunto: Re: [At-Large] On a "consumer" agenda for ICANN I also like the idea, in principle. What worries me is, as usual, the implementation. The human beings affected by the Internet (or lack thereof) are a few billions. How can we reach them all with a ballot of some sort? How many ballots do we expect to be able to distribute to people who are verified? My answer isjust a few millions, even supposing that all countries will cooperate. Of those, how many would actually vote? My take is in the order of magnitude of the hundreds of thousands at the most, and only if the vote is very well prepared. Am I the only one who has doubts about the representativity of this vote about the will of the majority? The matter is even more complicated because the 1 out of 10K that actually asts the vote has not been chosen via a carefully defined statistical sample, but will be most probably biased, geopolitically, by wealth, by instruction, by culture, and more. I don't want to argue that the current system is perfect: quite the contrary. It is complicated, not adequately representative, is biased towards the "usual suspects", and more. However, to my personal opinion, a general worldwide election will not be any better. Actually,for the reasons above, it will be more costly and give poorer results. But, again, itis just my personal opinion, and if somebody has good answers to the questions I raise about the implementation problems and bias, I will be glad to hear them. Cheers, Roberto Inviato da iPad Il giorno 16.09.2016, alle ore 10:11, Karl Auerbach <karl@cavebear.com<mailto:karl@cavebear.com>> ha scritto: On 9/15/16 8:09 PM, bzs@theworld.com<mailto:bzs@theworld.com> wrote: In essence one sends anyone qualified (e.g., properly registered) to vote one zero-value bitcoin (doesn't have to be bitcoin, but analogous) which they must return ("spend") with their vote submission. I do like that basic idea. (I have also done thought experiments with blockchain technology to do things like represent ownership of a thing - whether that thing be real property or a bicycle or a domain name. The singularity property is so very useful for things beyond its use as a form of money.) I still see some difficulty in making sure that each voter gets exactly one voting token. But as for the question of who should be voters in matters of internet governance - to me the answer is utterly simple: Every natural/human person who is affected by the internet ought to have a vote. That does not mean that I don't accept representative systems. We don't need nor do we want a plebiscite on every little decision. But it does mean that the community of internet users ought to have the power and authority, even if only on a periodic basic, to change its representatives and, even to change (perhaps with supermajorities or go-slow procedures) the nature or existence of the body of governance. I think it was Even who mentioned in this or a recent thread that over the years ICANN has not been subject to meaningful mandatory direction by those for whose benefit ICANN exists: the community of people affected by the internet. I would strongly agree with such a point of view. One can not argue with a straight face that the community of internet users' interest is too tenuous or diffuse. For a start there is the massive cash flow taken from internet users (via ICANN-declared fiat registry fees) amounting to more than a $Billion per year, every year. And that's just the start of how ICANN has shaped internet privacy, the internet domain name marketplace, and imposed ICANN's private law of strong, superseding trademarks, all without any real step in which the internet community has had a mandatory power to say yea or nay. I refuse to accept the Orwellian notion implicit in "stakeholder" based systems that "[a]ll animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others". When we introduce the concept of "stakeholder" into internet governance we open the door wide to Gerrymandering, electorate-shaping, and outright exclusion so that those (usually corporate entities) with distinct (or large) financial interests are awarded "stakeholder" crowns while every-day human users of the net are relegated to observer status. That is neither right nor just. It is equally wrong and unjust to create a mere toy system in which the public voice, even if aggregated with laser focus, can amount to no more than a breeze to contest against the hurricane force power of industrial "stakeholders". --karl-- _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
Whether or not some sort of broad voting is possible really depends on the goals and standards. I think people get ahead of themselves on this, imagine some system they are accustomed to, and wonder how that could possibly work in this case? I don't know what you are accustomed to. How are voters registered (enfranchised) in the US? Italy? China? Lower Slobbovia? Not that they would provide a model necessarily but it's nearly impossible to guess what model the people who are commenting believe would be difficult to achieve. We haven't even agreed on what the unit of enfranchisement should be. Is it one person one vote? One internet user one vote? One domain ownership one vote? One locally verified local RALO "membership" (remote vouching) one vote? That could reduce it to some definition of a valid "RALO" or sub-RALO etc. Here's a straw man: Call it "Let Billions of Flowers Bloom." If you can get to a web site form you can vote. Ok, you compare that to your mental model of a legitimate vote and find problems such as individuals voting multiple times. But it is a vote. The results can be tallied and pondered. And it is simple to implement. The criteria are transparent. It is what it is. This is the internet. One might have to be imaginative in their criteria. And whatever improvements are suggested every improvement will bring with it security and privacy concerns. Another big issue. No doubt somewhere it will be illegal or dangerous to even vote on such a web site. But first one has to begin to outline broad criteria to even debate whether or not such criteria can be achieved. -- -Barry Shein Software Tool & Die | bzs@TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: +1 617-STD-WRLD | 800-THE-WRLD The World: Since 1989 | A Public Information Utility | *oo*
participants (14)
-
Aida Noblia -
Alberto Soto -
bzs＠theworld.com -
Carlos Vera -
Carlton Samuels -
Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch -
Evan Leibovitch -
Garth Graham -
John R. Levine -
Karl Auerbach -
Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond -
Roberto Gaetano -
Subrenat, Jean-Jacques -
Winthrop Yu