Re: [ALSC-Forum] Authentication Technology -- Please try it out

[Adam PEAKE]

Mr Pindar Wong wrote:
> 
> Dear Bruce and Eric,
> 
> Apologies that I have to keep this somewhat short as I've to prepare the
> Sunday dinner before dawn ...
> 

Pindar, 

Thanks for this very helpful note.  Hope your dinner was perfect.

 -- details snipped--

> 
> The Short Answer?
> 
> The ALSC, in recommending that the core of an At Large Membership, for those
> that are interested in issues surrounding 'representation' (i.e. voting for
> At Large Directors for the ICANN Board) be based on 'Individual Domain Name
> Holder', IMHO,  is that it can be argued that Individual Domain name
> holders:-
> 
> * Have a clear stake in the DNS, which is relevant to what ICANN mainly
> deals with today
> * Can contributed to the common interest of having the DNS continue to work
> 
> furthermore, by leveraging  the existing  global infrastructure provided by
> the TLD registrars and registries, that
> 
> * there is cost-effective and scaleable  infrastructure  to assist with
> implementation of a global At Large Membership
> * there there is a financial mechanism to collect and clear membership dues


Are you saying that registrars are willing to handle the fees people
will pay for membership: on top of the charge for the domain name, they
will separate a stream of money from the individual to ICANN (ALM). 
They will aggregate, do the currency conversion and send to whatever
bank account ICANN or the ALM organization specifies?

If so, how many ICANN accredited registrars have agreed to this?  How
many ccTLDs have agreed to this?

One advantage of the domain name holder idea seems to be that the
registrar would handle the money and so remove the problems of
transaction costs and other out of pocket expenses, significant problems
with the fee system (at least for those without credit cards.)

But I think we agree that transferring money (credit card, wire
transfer, etc.) will generally provide as much information to help
identify a member as the domain name registration system (at the present
time.)  Paying money is also an indication of demonstrable interest (and
I note you say creating informed participation is as important as any
election, and you do not require a domain name to participate, just to
vote.) So unless there is near universal agreement among registrars
(ICANN accredited and ccTLDs) to handle the fees for the individual I
don't see how domain name holder model adds value?  It might be one more
option for registration and expression of interest, but does not seem
suitable as the default entry requirement to voting rights.  

And of course the domain name holder model still has problems with
equity (developing nations), with definition of individual (most names
are hold by businesses), with the different registration practices among
ccTLDs (some have encouraged individual registrations, some have
restricted/prevented), with timing/registration cycles. Focusing a
membership around domain names would likely shift the organization even
further away from the issues of the ASO/PSO. During the White Paper
process many of us wondered if it was a good idea to lump the stable and
well function IP registry and protocol actives of IANA with the
controversial, politicized problems of domain names (I don't mean to
teach you to suck eggs...)  It bothers me that domain name holding as
entry point to membership will make things worse in this regard.

Kind regards,

Adam




> * that collection of membership dues will enable a stable ALSO that will
> have resources to encourage informed participation (ideally from a much
> wider audience)
> * that such collection of membership dues can create greater confidence in
> membership uniqueness
> * that financial clearing can be done in a currency that is most convenient
> * that effective participation mechanisms  within a local internet community
> are encouraged
> * that there is the possibility of having local resources that have some
> clue as to what the DNS, IP addresses, protocol identifiers are all about
> * that membership dues might be able to be contained and reasonable
> * that familiar distributed database and registration technologies used in
> the DNS can also be used to help create the electoral roll  (effectively a
> voting registry) (e.g. using whois, EPP etc.)
> * that stands some chance of actually being implementable
> 
> This is, of course, assuming that the TLD registries and registrars actually
> buy into this whole process and what we are talking about is implementating
> a global At Large Membership of a non-trivial size.
> 
> Does this mean that using Individual Domain Name Holders should be the
> *only*  entry point into the At Large Membership?
> 
> This again  really depends on what your view of what ICANN is actually all
> about ( I guess the 'root' of the problem ;) -- and perhaps, as others have
> argued,  ICANN needs to further clearly limit what activities it engages in
> (using 'picket fences' or whatever ...)
> 
> Nevertheless, as Carl mentioned at the ICANN AGM, we continue to look for
> other mechanisms that can constitute 'domain name plus'.
> 
> i.e. while it may be debateable what constitutes a 'stakeholder' and what is
> 'the public interest in ICANN' depending on your view of the ICANN world,
> other mechanisms should address issues of
> 
> 1) Demonstrable Interest
> 2) Authentication
> 3) Payment
> 
> Using Individuals Domain Name Holders is a starting point ... it may not
> necessarily have to be the only one... given the confusion of what ICANN is
> all about.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> p.
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Eric Dierker" <eric@hi-tek.com>
> To: "Bruce Young" <Bruce@barelyadequate.info>
> Cc: "Denise Michel ALSC" <dmichel@atlargestudy.org>;
> <forum@atlargestudy.org>
> Sent: Sunday, February 17, 2002 11:48 AM
> Subject: Re: [ALSC-Forum] Authentication Technology -- Please try it out
> 
> >
> > Let us make damn sure that the ALSC understands this question.
> >
> > What is your primary reason for suggesting that domain name registration
> has
> > any thing to do with voting in the At-Large?
> >
> > And what is your reasoning behind that decision?
> >
> > Sincerely,
> > Eric
> >
> > Bruce Young wrote:
> >
> > > Denise wrote:
> > >
> > > >The financial transaction accompanying a domain name
> > > >acquisition can contribute to authentication, but it was not the
> primary
> > > >reason the ALSC recommended this approach.
> > >
> > > Could you illuminate us then as to the primary reason, since the one you
> > > mention above was the primary argument made in your final report?
> > >
> > > Bruce Young
> > > Portland, Oregon
> > > Bruce@barelyadequate.info
> > > http://www.barelyadequate.info
> >
> >