ICANN At-Large Results

troyboy writes: "The ICANN election results are up. Go here for the complete results. The North American election went down to two candidates before there was a majority winner: Karl Auerbach." Only for the North American election was the instant run-off system needed; for all other regions there was an immediate majority. Viewing the election results in practice is fascinating and I can't help but wonder how much the U.S. elections would improve if we used a similar system.

A quote from Auerbach's candidate webpage:

"My candidacy is one that is founded on the belief that the Internet should not be controlled and dominated by those who aspire to nothing higher than mass marketing. It is my position that individual people ought to have a major voice in the governance of this revolution we call the Internet."

See also Auerbach's platform.

Comments

One other interesting thing...

[talks_to_birds]

...to look at is, world-wide, how many of the potential legitimate voters bothered (if that's the right word..) to vote, or at least managed to cast *valid* votes, whatever *that* might be...

In order of greatest eligible, to least:

Asia/Australia/Pacifica: 38,246 eligible, 17,745 voted, or 46%

Europe: 23,442 eligible, 11,309 voted, 48.2%

North America: 10,632 eligible, 3,449 voted, 32.4%

Latin America/Carribean: 3,548 eligible, 1,402 voted, 39.5%

Africa: 315 eligible, 130 voted, 41%

So, in no case could any of this be said to be representative of a majority.

And, once again, the Seat of Democracy® can't even get a third of eligible voters to vote. Are we bored with democracy, or what?

t_t_b
--
I think not; therefore I ain't®

Even more importantly: The European Winner

[at-b]

Well now.

The US has a reasonably well-deregulated telecommunications and internet business. However, the second-biggest Internet market, in Europe, is still dominated by former state monopolies, lack of local flat rate phone fees, badly-developed net infrastructures, and general exploitation of customers.

And into this environment, Andy Mueller-Maguhn was elected 'Region 2 Director for Europe'. Yes, Andy Mueller-Maguhn. The former head of the German Chaos Computer Club, a team regularly posting information about cracking phone cards, cable TV decoders, and computer security information. They're the German '2600' equivalent, reviled and detested by state institutions, telecomms companies, etc. They're the rebels of the underground.

And now their former head is the Director of the European division of ICANN. Imagine Eric Corley (Emmanuel Goldstein) being the head of the US ICANN. Now imagine what important aspect this brings to ICANN in Europe.

Or, to quote Homer Simpson: Woohooo!

Alex T-B
St Andrews

Of course, only the N. American result matters....

[Chuck Chunder]

But for the rest of us, here's the other winners and their profile pages:
Masanobu Katoh - Asia/Australia/Pacific
Nii Quaynor - Africa
Andy Mueller-Maguhn - Europe
Ivan Moura Campos - Latin America and Caribbean

Woo, hoo! Karl won!

[Apotsy]

Yes! The man I rated number 1 is the winner. Karl was the only candidate who seemed to actually understand how DNS works. At one point he actually said, "there's no technical reason why we couldn't have millions of TLDs". Note that he didn't say we should have millions of TLDs, he was just pointing out that it was possible. No other candidate seemed to understand that.

I think this ought to be interesting. Auerbach has been very critical of the ICANN since it's inception. He has some good ideas about how to make the domain system more democratic (like having one or more TLD where trademark holders do not get first pick). It will be good to have someone on the board who represents something besides the corporate interest.

Not only that, but Karl was one of only three member-nominated candidates on the North American ballot. The other four candidates were nominated by the existing memebers of the ICANN board. I'm glad that people decided to thumb their noses at the board's attempt to stack the election with people friendly to their agendas. It ought to send them at least a small message (not that they will care).

Speaking of the U.S. elections (which the article mentioned, please don't mod me down for being off-topic), here is a recent article at policy.com that discusses getting rid of the Electoral College and replacing it with a direct popular vote. It discusses historical reasons for the creation of the current system, and provides some interesting links at the bottom.

Some election data

[Froomkin]

Africa
Region's Total votes 130
% of World Total 00.4%
Votes for ICANN Nominated Candidates 100 ( 88%)

Latin America
Region's Total votes: 1,402
% of World Total: 04.1%
Votes for ICANN Nominated Candidates 1,166 (83%)

North America*
Region's Total votes: 3,449
% of World Total: 10.1%
Votes for ICANN Nominated Candidates 1,114 (32%)
* - N.A. counts 1st choice votes only. Note also that if one counts the three candidates who expressed the most doubts about ICANN (Lessig, Simons, Auerbach), they got about 75% of first round choices.

Europe
Region's Total votes: 11,309
% of World Total 33.2%
Votes for ICANN Nominated Candidates 3,066 (27%)

Asia
Region's Total votes: 17,745
% of World Total 52.1%
Votes for ICANN Nominated Candidates 16,996 (95%)

Comments:

Participation rates did not correlate well with what I'd guess numbers of hosts or estimated numbers of users are, except arguably at the low end.

Five regions fell into three groups:

1. Africa and Latin America: Very low participation, high rates for ICANN-nominated candidates
2. N.America & Europe. Medium to low participation, substantial opposition to ICANN and to ICANN nominated candidates (Lessig is a special case).
3. Asia/Pacific. More than half of the global votes cast. Elected a person resident in the Washington, D.C. area. Most votes went to ICANN-nominated candidates.

Re:Slashdot choice comes through

[Apotsy]

Well, let's see. Accoring to the ICANN at large membership website:

With over 76,000 activated members, ICANN achieved its goal of a large, globally diverse membership.

I don't know about "globally diverse", since there weren't too many people from Africa who signed up, but in any case, there are "over" 76,000 members, but let's round it down to an even 76,000 for the sake of argument (also for the sake of not knowing how many "over" means!) Here's how many people voted in each jurisdiction:

• 17745 - Asia / Australia / Pacific
• 11309 - Europe
• 3449 - North America
• 1402 - Latin America and Caribbean
• 130 - Africa

34035 - Total

Therefore, voter turnout was about 45%, or just shy of half. Not too bad.

I'd like to see a breakdown of membership numbers by region, since the voting results lead me to believe that people in North America are under-voting. Either that or they under-registered. Either way, it's pretty typical of Americans, but kinda surprising that the rest of North America didn't do more to make up for it.

As you mentioned, the Slashdot endorsements reflected the results fairly closely, but for what it's worth, I'll mention that I voted the way I did because I did my research and concluded that member-nominated candidates Simmons and Auerbach were much better choices than any of the board-nominated candidates (basically a bunch of corporate lackeys, except for Lessig).

The results didn't match Slashdot's recommendations that closely, though. Note that Simmons and Lessig are much further down the list than they were listed in the /. endorsements. I also think Auerbach won simply because he was clearly the best choice by far. Just have a look at his website. The guy has some good ideas (even if those annoying and stupid-looking javascript popup windows are one of them!)

Re:Voting Paradox

[Wellspring]

This is a little roundabout, but it gets where its going. So please bear with me.

Labels like 'liberal' and 'conservative' are deceptive. I have seen many who share the same brand name argue viciously over their beliefs, while (and the VP debate last week is a good example of this) people of different political traditions can have similar beliefs. So what is the practical result? Your example was this:

A clearer example: let's say that there are two liberal candidates and one conservative candidate in an election. And let's say that the population is 60% liberal and 40% conservative. The "correct" result with a 60/40 population is that they should elect a liberal candidate to represent them, right? Well, with the U.S.'s current system, they might get a conservative: vote ends up 30%/30%/40%, and the conservative wins. Under the instant run-off, they'll get one of the liberal candidates, the "correct" choice - in other words they aren't penalized for having more than one candidate, and they can express a preference between the two without fear.

In this example, let's remove the labels. There are three candidates. One is supported by 40% of the people, and the other two by 30%. Who should be elected? If none of the three can reconcile their differences to create a majority voting block, the 40%!

Is removing the labels ok? It feels wrong, because we remember the ideologies in the first example, and want to somehow account for the two liberal candidates wearing the same political label. But from an outside viewpoint, it doesn't matter what the particulars of their policies are. The point of the election is to generate consensus whereever possible, minority rights wherever threatened, and majority rule whenever it is needed. If the two 30% candidates can't agree to a common viewpoints, then it doesn't matter what their label is-- they are different political groups. A minor difference is only minor in the eyes of the beholder.

Ultimately, after the election, whoever didn't vote for the winner will have to live with the results of the election. A working majority will have to be formed in the Congress/Knesset/Diet/Parliament. Otherwise, the government would collapse. Once he wins office, the leader must forge a working majority. That means compromising and working with his opponents-- and where that fails, building a majority.

In multiparty systems, the voter sees plenty of labels and badges, but ultimately, once they win, these parties are able to go into a back room and decide what is critical and where they can compromise. In other words, you are rewarded for the fanaticism of your supporters (luring them away from other parties) and then quietly leave the consensus-building to be done in secrecy.

In a two party system, here's what happens in your example: 40% guy wins. But in the next election, the two 30% candidates decide they have more in common with each other, and ONE runs, fielding a selection of issues which represents the best of both (and, often, compromises between the two). Then the 40% candidate loses, until HE can find a enough voters to compromise with that he can build a faction of more than 50%. In this case, leaders compromise BEFORE the election, and their supporters can each judge the quality of their compromise before voting. That's why the two major parties have primaries! Each major party is made up of a thousand minor factions, and the faction which can forge the best representation of the party as a whole gets to be the party's candidate. Each party races for 50% in the general election. And if one faction decides to try to railroad all the others, it will get outrun by its competitors.

Both two party and three+ party systems have this feature of compromise and consensus-building. The difference is that a two party system has this process before the election, and it is conducted in public. In a parliamentary system, it is conducted after the election, and out of the prying eyes of the public.

For something small like ICANN, there is too much overhead for a two party system to be worth it (though the trademark issue would seem to be creating two factions anyway). The ranking system is appropriate for the size and influence of the organization. But when it comes to a whole nation, with a military and police, you need a fairly extensive process.

Two party systems are simple-- if you aren't too involved and only vote at the general election. But if you aren't happy with the nominees from your party (or the party that you are closest to), then just vote in the primaries for the guy who better represents your views. It takes some research, but you are rewarded by a party which is more like you. If you still aren't happy (tough customer!), then volunteer for the candidate who best represents your views. Rough estimates: A campaign for the House takes about 25 people. A campaign to be Senator or Governor (depending on your state's size and population, of course) takes about 25-100 people. One volunteer, even at these heights, makes a huge difference-- especially if you have organizational, technical or writing skills.

Or better yet, help a county commissioner/freeholder or state senator/representative. You are bound to be one of maybe three or four people on the campaign! If you work hard, you are almost certain to win-- and if there isn't any candidates you like, run yourself! It isn't that hard, and it is tons of fun.

Re:Woo, hoo! Karl won!

[Wellspring]

I think this ought to be interesting. Auerbach has been very critical of the ICANN since it's inception. He has some good ideas about how to make the domain system more democratic (like having one or more TLD where trademark holders do not get first pick). It will be good to have someone on the board who represents something besides the corporate interest.

I am very happy that Karl won. One thing we need to remember, though, is that he is only one voice in the board. We all need to be ready to help him if he is going to get stuff done on the board.

Rob, Jeff: what are the odds of getting an interview with him? He was basically /.'s pick!