<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 9/15/16 8:09 PM, <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:bzs@theworld.com">bzs@theworld.com</a>
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:22491.25202.735393.518085@gargle.gargle.HOWL"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">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.</pre>
</blockquote>
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.)<br>
<br>
I still see some difficulty in making sure that each voter gets
exactly one voting token.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<span class="st"><br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
</span><span class="st"><br>
I refuse to accept the Orwellian notion implicit in "stakeholder"
based systems that "<span class="st">[a]ll animals are equal but
some animals are more equal than others".<br>
<br>
</span>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.<br>
<br>
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".<br>
</span><br>
--karl--<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>