Jonathan Zittrain wrote:
>
One conception of ICANN has it performing
> functions that affect all internet users, and that therefore should take
> the needs of all internet users--including the lazy, time-deprived, or
> confused--in mind. (Not to mention future internet users, who may not
> currently be in a position to know about or want membership.)
Just because most people are affected by IP and DN allocation
policies doesn't mean they will participate. We already know THEY
WON'T! That is why I question the wisdom of registering them
automatically. They will only serve as a pool of potential
problems.
> Another says that the "stakeholders" to whom ICANN should be responsive
While not directly relevant to the discrete point of this
exchange, we should note that "people affected" and "to whom ICANN
should be responsive" are not opposing sides of the coin.
> aren't all those
> simply affected by a decision, but rather only those who are affected and
> who go to the trouble to identify themselves as members, participate in
> discussions, vote, etc.
Yes.
>
> I worry that ICANN needs to be thinking the first way,
Normally, that would be my preference, as well. But, I do not
think that model fits the ICANN situation.
and yet even the
> most open conceptions of membership favor the self-selected, and
> particularly lend themselves to "registration drives" inspired by a
> particular cause or interest. If you believe that the voice of the
> at-large membership should belong to that kind of passion, the system that
> can be readily tweaked by registration drives of a few very interested (but
> numerically small, compared against a silent majority of "lazier" internet
> users) stakeholders is a system that works.
You describe what happens in all electoral systems--campaigns for
votes. The dichotomy is different. We must strike a balance
between the concern for "improper" manipulation and discouraging
or burdening participation. Both sides of this equation must be
considered. But, I agree that the concern for participation
should carry the greater weight.
If you believe that the point
> of the at-large membership is to represent the whole group of internet
> users--including the quiet--requiring self-selection could create a
> battlefield for control for which victory could be the company that manages
> to register all its employees, or the interest group that rallies enough
> registrations by its constituents. (This is wholly apart from any
> fraud/multiple registration issues.)
Isn't that more of a problem if the whole world is automatically
registered than if self-selection is required?
If you have a swamp of potential voters from which to drag a
"manipulated" majority (in the sense that they are not exercising
any independent decision making process but are simply proxies for
some other power), we will be more subject to "take over" rather
than less.
I do not believe the "general public" has any interest in joining
our group nor in voting for our board. Thus, there must be some
other way of protecting their interests. Perhaps there should be
a "public interest" SO (given that "we" have chosen the SO
structure to address such concerns). But, we will never
accomplish that purpose through automatic registration or
inscription. We will only increase the burdens of management and
the potential of manipulation.
