Re: [ALSC-Forum] Comments on "Direct vs Indirect Elections"

[Eric Dierker]

although it is tempting to post a "me too" post I will refrain.

Mr. Young cares about what he writes and we are well and good to acknowledge his
words in our thoughts and decisions.

Truth should be weighed heavily and he gives that.

Knowledge as a base of critical analysis is right and he gives us that.

Attack against perceived evil is always good and he gives us that.

But I must say he gives us not a bit of hell.  That which will occur here in
each and every one of your silences.

Any one of you point out a place where there will be more active involvement in
the shaping of the net, and there I will go like a Net dead head.

Please Activate your Activators and join in the group.

Enjoy your children and your parents.
Eric

Bruce Young wrote:

> Here my comments on Kent Crispin's "Direct vs Indirect Elections"
>
> >But if a choice is to be made, indirect elections provide much more
> >accountability and transparency than direct elections (contrary to the
> >claims made by many), and have significant practical advantages as
> >well.
>
> Well . . . after the last US Presidential election, I'm not a big fan of
> indirect election processes, but we'll see!
>
> >In other words, the report concedes the criticisms, but argues that they
> >aren't important, because the elections aren't important, and
> >consequently we don't need to judge the elections by very high
> >standards.
>
> You misunderstand.  The NAIS report doen't say that ICANN elections are
> unimportant.  It says they are LESS important than government elections (I
> think everyone can agree with this!). And as such, a less-rigorous security
> model is sufficent for them.  This would significantly reduce the cost of
> conducting such an election, particularly if online elections are used. And
> "less" security doesn't necessary mean poor security.  If the Internet is
> secure enough e-commerce, it is secure enough for our use here.  Arguments
> otherwise are only brought forward to shoot holes in the only affordable
> election model that would allow for elections by Internet users, so they can
> justify denying us franchise.
>
> Much has been also made of alleged "irregularities" in the last election.
> However, to date no one has made any attempts to follow up on them or even
> provide us with anything other than their word that such irregularities
> exist. At this point, I imagine few of us are willing to take the current
> board's word for it!
>
> >There are a myriad unelected government agencies that make public policy
> (eg, the
> >National Forest Service in the US);
>
> However, all such agencies serve under the scrutiny of the public and its
> directly-elected officials.  Here in the Pacific Northwest, for instance, US
> Forest Service policies have regularly been challenged and overturned by
> citizen efforts.  ICANN, as an international body, will have no such
> restraint inposed on it, which makes it even more critical that we directly
> elect those on the board who will speak with our voice.
>
> >They both speak of ICANN as having a broad public policy role, but in fact
> the public
> >policy in ICANN's purview is tightly constrained and of very limited
> >scope -- ICANN has a much more restricted range of policy impact than
> >the US Forest Service mentioned above, for example, and probably even
> >less than the AMA.
>
> I disagree.  AMA decisions only directly affect the conduct of a single
> discipline (medical doctors).  Further, compliance with the AMA's policies
> is voluntary.  However ICANN's decisions will potentially effect virtually
> every person who logs onto the Internet.  And it can hardly be said that
> complying with the rules of an organization that can banish you from the
> Internet by taking away your domain name can be deemed voluntary.
>
> >Even when Microsoft engages in monopolistic practices affecting
> >millions of people we don't make a public policy issue out of it -- the
> >policy is already established in anti-trust law, and that is what is
> >being followed.
>
> Not really.  The DoJ deciding *what* to proscecute and against *whom* is
> certianly driven by public policy.  And once again, Microsoft has the entire
> panoply of the US Government allegedly protecting us from their excess.
> ICANN will have no such limitation.
>
> >As far as the UDRP is concerned:
> >
> >  1) most of the details concerning the DRPs are in fact worked out
> >  elsewhere, ie, WIPO;
>
> Only because ICANN chose to cede authority to WIPO.  Besides which, WIPO has
> not proved to be a good venue for such disputes, since it usuially sides
> with trademark holders, even though good-faith domain name holders might
> have prior claim.
>
> >  2) that there be a UDRP was mandated by the USG and not a matter of
> choice
> >  for ICANN; and
>
> The US constitution puts specific limits on, and mandates certian activities
> of, the federal government.  But no one would say that these statuatory
> restrictions mean it is unable to set far-reaching public policy!
>
> >  3) from the perspective of "the public" the DRP has in fact *very*
> >  limited effect: the number of UDRP cases worldwide is of the same
> >  magnitude as the number of people struck by lightning.
>
> Unless, that is, you are one of those put out of business by the WIPO!  A
> lightning strike is a poor analogy, because it implies a random act of
> vilolence without a perpetrator. This is more like a thief going to court to
> have them validate the legitimacy of his theft!
>
> Further, UDRP cases are being treated as case law in many legal venues,
> which gives them an effect far beyond any single case WIPO adjudicates.  To
> use your example, few are struck by lightning every year, but countless
> millions, through a fear of lightning strikes, modify their behavior to
> avoid them! Similarly, WIPO UDRP cases, and the fear of losing a domain name
> outright that they engender, are prompting frequent settlements where
> legitimate domain name holders are caving in to corporate pressure to buy
> their domain name out, on the theory that the deck is stacked against them
> and something (the buy-out fee) is better than spending significant legal
> fees only to have your domain given away by WIPO!
>
> > . . . the ICANN elections were not, and cannot be "properly managed",
> >because the infrastructure and technology to support proper management
> >doesn't exist.
>
> Sure it does.  Just not with the obsessive level of so-called "security"
> detractors seem to demand.  If current technology is good enough to trust
> people's credit card numbers to, it's certianly good enough to secure ICANN
> At-Large votes.  All methods of voting are vulnerable to fraud, because
> there's no such thing as uncrackable security.  What one person can invent
> another can circumvent!  If we use the best security reasonably available,
> that should be good enough.  And assuming that, online elections are very
> doable!
>
> >The base electorate cannot be reliably identified, and therefore,
> >accountability through direct elections over the Internet is
> >an oxymoron.
>
> This is another non-argument. Anonymity is one of the great strengths of the
> Internet, but opponents of Internet voting all seem to have an obsessive
> need to be able to hang a street address and legal name on every At-Large
> voter!  Why?  Does it really matter if we know who the user named Bonzo
> Slasher really is, as long as the same Bonzo Slasher controls his or her
> vote by securing his or her PIN?  We need a user's vote, not their life
> history!  If Mr. or Ms. Slasher wants to otherwise remain anonymous I can
> live with that, as long as they aren't planning to run for a board position!
> And their opinions shoulds not be lessened (or denied!) by their desire for
> anonymity!
>
> >Also, the scale of the directors election is vastly reduced.  This makes
> >the election process used for board elections is open to scrutiny and
> >audit to a degree that global direct elections simply cannot manage.
>
> Just because its easier doen't make it better, particulaly when voices are
> left unheard!
>
> > . . . indirect elections give opportunity for more people to be elected,
> and that in
> >itself is an incentive for larger participation.
>
> How do you justify this statement ('cause you didn't!)?
>
> >The "direct decision making power" is at least one level of
> >indirection away in any case -- it is the directors who have
> >decision-making power, not the electorate.
>
> All the more reason then that we have a voice to choose those speaking on
> our behalf!
>
> >The problems with Internet elections are in fact very well known.
> >Lauren Weinstein, a noted privacy advocate, Co-Founder of People For
> >Internet Responsibility, and moderator of the Privacy Forum, published
> >the "PFIR Statement on Internet Voting":
>
> The PFIR reporrt is directed at government elections, which most would agree
> require a much higher degree of accountability than we require here for
> ICANN At-Large voting.  So concernes noted within it are in many cases not
> relevant here.
>
> >Dan Geer is CTO of a firm specializing in Internet security
> >applications, and very well-known expert in security and cryptography.
> >He says, in a discussion of physical voting booths vs Internet voting:
> >
> >    Internet voting is anti-democracy and those who cannot bestir
> >    themselves to be present upon that day and place which is never a
> >    surprise to do that which is the single most precious gift of all
> >    the blood of all the liberators can, in a word, shut up.
>
> Dan is one of these "ivory tower" types who has never aparently held a real
> job in his life.  We heard from many of them when Oregon was exploring
> implementing "vote by mail."  Many working people in the world don't have a
> position (or an employer!) that allows them to take time off from their job
> to vote.  Many more (like myself!) work a significant distance from their
> home, and therefore from their polling place.  Vote by Mail made voting
> available to millions of working Oregonians who otherwise would be unable to
> vote.  And our last general election, which was the first to allow universal
> "vote by mail," had the largest voter turn-out in years, due primarily to
> the mail-in ballot.
>
> But more to the point here, no sane person would even consider in-person
> voting for ICANN elections, unless doing so solely to use the very
> impracticality as an argument against direct elections.
>
> The remainder of your examples all refer to government elections at the
> state or federal level.
> Once again, what is unacceptable for that venue could possibly be made
> acceptable in ours.
>
> >That is, ICANN decided to accept 1500 possibly fraudulent registrations,
> >because there was no way to check.
>
> Ah yes!  The notorious 1500 Japanese votes!  These votes should be viewed as
> a condemnation of the registration process, not the election!  They were
> only signigficant because so few total voters were registered in the first
> place, due to a wholly inadequate outreach program, and bizarre registration
> rules.  If the millions of users that *should* have been registered had
> been, those 1500 votes would have been insignificant statistically!
>
> >In the logs there were also odd entries
> >from computers that, on inspection, were using email-to-web gateways to
> >register people.
>
> I.e.: you object to others doing a better job at registering people that
> INCANN itself did?!
>
> >Note that the logs were huge, and there simply was no way to examine
> >more than a tiny fraction of them, so it is probably the case that there
> >were many more odd things in the logs.
>
> Really?  Robust log analysys tools are in daily use to mine desired details
> from network and Web logs.  I expect lack of desire, rather than lack of
> software tools, is the issue here.
>
> >Note also that web logs show a
> >dynamic history -- a referral may come from a page that two days later
> >no longer exists.  A web page that implemented some kind of election
> >fraud would likely disappear immediately after the election . . .
>
> Why assume that any vote that came from one of these Web sites was
> fradulent?  And why keep the page up after the election?  Again, we are less
> interested in origin of a vote than its uniqueness.  A simple long-number
> PIN would ensure that.  And if a US PIN holder wants to exercise his vote
> through a Japanese IP address (maybe because he's a US military member
> stationed there?!) should we care?  I certianly don't!
>
> >The fact that this geopolitical competition is
> >based on what many consider a fundamental misunderstanding of ICANN is
> >not really relevant, since that kind of competition does not need a
> >rational motive.
>
> So why care about it.  If one faction in a "voting district" does a better
> job of selling their candidate, gets the voters out, and gets their
> candidate elected, why are we concerned?  That's  democracy in action!  Why
> treat it with suspicion when it happens in another part of the world?  Or do
> you maybe consider Third World citizens' votes less worthy than your own?