[At-Large] On a "consumer" agenda for ICANN

bzs at theworld.com bzs at theworld.com
Fri Sep 16 03:09:38 UTC 2016

From: Karl Auerbach <karl at 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

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 at 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*

More information about the At-Large mailing list