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

[bzs at theworld.com]

Whether or not some sort of broad voting is possible really depends on
the goals and standards.

I think people get ahead of themselves on this, imagine some system
they are accustomed to, and wonder how that could possibly work in
this case?

I don't know what you are accustomed to. How are voters registered
(enfranchised) in the US? Italy? China? Lower Slobbovia?

Not that they would provide a model necessarily but it's nearly
impossible to guess what model the people who are commenting believe
would be difficult to achieve.

We haven't even agreed on what the unit of enfranchisement should be.

Is it one person one vote? One internet user one vote? One domain
ownership one vote? One locally verified local RALO "membership"
(remote vouching) one vote? That could reduce it to some definition of
a valid "RALO" or sub-RALO etc.

Here's a straw man:

Call it "Let Billions of Flowers Bloom."

If you can get to a web site form you can vote.

Ok, you compare that to your mental model of a legitimate vote and
find problems such as individuals voting multiple times.

But it is a vote. The results can be tallied and pondered. And it is
simple to implement. The criteria are transparent. It is what it is.

This is the internet. One might have to be imaginative in their
criteria.

And whatever improvements are suggested every improvement will bring
with it security and privacy concerns. Another big issue. No doubt
somewhere it will be illegal or dangerous to even vote on such a web
site.

But first one has to begin to outline broad criteria to even debate
whether or not such criteria can be achieved.

-- 
        -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*