[ALSC-Forum] Restriction of At Large to domain holders?

[Alexander Svensson]

Dear all,

my two cents on this issue:

1. POSITIONS AND THEIR RATIONALE

In his paper, Mike Roberts argues that an "At Large SO for
individual users of domain names and addresses" should be
created. If I understand this correctly (and perhaps Mike
Roberts can correct me if I'm wrong), this does not refer
only to "domain name holders", but to individual Internet
users in general -- with an emphasis on "more informed
participation" by "an explicit membership and an explicit
connection to a recognized and verifiable local
organization" instead of an "open, worldwide At Large
election process with an electorate of all Internet users".

The ALSC draft report argues that "[u]sing e-mail addresses
as the basis for voting rights" has "significant drawbacks"
and is open to capture. Restricting the proposed ALSO to
domain name holders needs "further discussion and elaboration
(e.g. there might be some risk of capture, although less
than in the email-based case)", but the ALSC sees
"the possibility of a pure online election process with
adequate safeguards" and "the possibility of a smooth
integration of the financing of ALSO activities, including
the elections, with the domain name payment system".

The NAIS group argues that "[d]ependence on the Whois
database is flawed". Providing false administrative contact
information is "trivial and hard to detect", and there are
varying policies regarding Whois public access among
TLD managers.


2. ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF A RESTRICTION

The most significant possible advantage is mentioned in
the ALSC draft report: If the payment of a nominal At Large
SO membership fee could be integrated in the domain name
payment system, this would be an easy and cost-efficient
system. However, integration would only be easy if restricted
to the generic Top Level Domains which are registered with
a limited number of ICANN-accredited registrars. If this
would happen on a worldwide basis, all ccTLDs (or, in some
cases, ccTLD registrars) would also have to change their
billing systems and set up mechanisms for transferring
their registrants' money to the ALSO.

The ALSC draft report emphasizes that the risk of capture
would be reduced. I'm not sure whether "abuse" or "capture"
are meant. The ALSC mainly highlights "national capture":
It is unclear how the restriction to domain name holders
could avoid national capture. On the contrary: Differences
between national domain name registration policies could
have a considerable impact on the composition of the At
Large SO. E.g. countries with affordable or even free domain
name registrations would benefit while others with restrictive
requirements may not be adequately represented.

If the ALSC report refers to the risk of abuse, it is partly
right: The combination of a membership fee and the holding of
a domain name increases the cost of abusive multiple
registrations compared to a system based only upon e-mail
addresses. On the other hand, it is very simple to
hold several domain names with different administrative
contact data. If there is no check by sending out PIN
letters to the physical address, the physical address
could be completely fictitious. It would not be easy
to filter out multiple domain holders and domain holders
in multiple TLDs.

Some have argued that restricting the At Large to domain
holders is akin to giving voting rights only to land owners.
This seems a bit too dramatic for many countries in the
Northern hemisphere -- for an additional $10 or less per
year, people could get their domain name if they wanted
to join the ALSO. This is different in many poorer
countries. It is of course possible to set up a compensation
fund (and it may even be necessary), but this obviously
destroys the elegant simplicity of the domain name fee
model.

Some have defended the restrictions by noting that
individual domain holders are a identifiable group of
stakeholders especially affected by ICANN decisions. This
is certainly true: Almost all the issues mentioned by
the NAIS group (section 3.1.) as examples for ICANN's
supratechnical role refer to domain names. Some predict
that IP address issues will become more salient in the
future, but it looks to me as if the group of people
currently interested in IP address policy turn to
other policy fora (e.g. RIRs) and/or are a subset of
the people interested in DNS policy.


3. CONCLUSION

There are good reasons to assume that an At Large SO
with even nominal membership fees will be mainly
composed of domain holders as they feel especially
affected by ICANN decisions. However, there is a
danger that a compulsory restriction to domain
ownership may lead to a bias of gTLD vs. ccTLD
holders, abusive multiple registrations which are not
checked by PIN letters and may exclude informed
participants from poorer countries. Whois database
entries are clearly not sufficient for abuse protection
and not available on a worldwide basis.

On the other hand, "bundling" the membership fee
payments is a good idea to reduce the cost of the
operation of an At Large SO. Instead of focussing
on domain owners (and waiting for gTLD registrars
and 240+ ccTLD registries/registrars to change their
billing systems or even Whois systems), this
should be an *option*. I for one may choose to let
my registrar handle my ALSO membership fee, someone
else may simply use his or her ISP or perhaps a
national research network collecting At Large SO
membership fees for combined transfer.

Best regards,
/// Alexander