[ga] More thoughts on the ID-by-check-cashing idea

["Mark C. Langston" <skritch@home.com>]

A few of you have raised legitimate concerns surrounding the use of
check-cashing, drawing from or depositing to an account in a single,
possibly foreign, denomination, etc.

First, I'd like to point out that my suggestion of US$1.00 was meant
as an example, and I had intended to convey the idea that each person
would write out a check in a small denomination of their local currency.
So, for example, the French among us would write out a check for 1FF,
the British, one BPS, and so on.  The idea being that the amount would
be in a local currency, and of an amount small enough that anyone could
afford it.

However, some people raised the issue that it's expensive to deposit
foreign-currency checks.  So, how about this:

ICANN is, or is supposed to be, a geographically-balanced organization,
as is the DNSO.  Which means that we should have participation from every
geographical region.

(WARNING:  Those who desipse all structure, stop reading now.  What I'm
proposing is not what you want to make it out to be).

So, for each region, we could find one or a small handful of people that
would manage the "trust" for that geographical region.  Let's call them
the regional trust managers, for lack of any better term.

Within each region, there would be one person selected per country to
manage trust for that country.

These people, one per country, could serve the function of receiving
and depositing the checks from the local populace, drawn on local currency.
This sidesteps the expense of drawing a check for foreign currency, as
well as the expense of depositing it.

The reason I tagged the warning above this is because some may view this
as yet another control or management structure.  I wanted to make very
very clear it's not intended as such, and I'm acutely aware of the
possibility it may be co-opted and turned into such.  In fact, that's
one of my concerns with this in its present form.  But please recognize
this is nothing more than a hierarchical structure of trust rather than
the flat, "card of houses" version we've been discussing to this point.
And I believe this may be the first time a group of people have sat down
and tried to figure out how to uniquely identify any person on the planet
in a way that can be trusted.


My concerns:

1)  This opens the door for this structure to be used to impose further
    top-down control, as well as supplying a pre-fab fee-collection
    structure, should the value of the checks ever move from ridiculously
    small to substantial.

2)  Are there countries in which the citizens would be able to participate
    in ICANN, yet do not have access to some form of personal check-writing
    or a suitable equivalent?  (I can imagine regimes in which personal
    banking is prohibited, but I would imagine these same regimes would
    forbid participation in ICANN at the individual level, and possibly
    Internet access as well.  I can also imagine that indiginies in various
    countries don't have personal checking accounts, but again, they also
    may not have computers or net access, a larger barrier to participation
    than the lack of a checking account.)

3)  If something like this was to be implemented, how do we ensure my
    fears in #1 above don't come to pass?  How would the regional and
    country trust managers be selected?  I believe that the answer to the 
    latter would be a measure of trust using the "house of cards" method
    described earlier.  She who has the most trust gets the position.
    [NOTE:  By "trust" here I mean simply the person who can verify the
    identity of the most people, and whose identity can be verified by
    the most people].

4)  I can imagine some would cite a need for a seperate bank account
    for the funds collected by country managers.  I would argue that as
    long as the monies collected are kept to the ridiculously small 
    level, this just won't be an issue.  But in some instances (GB, USA, EU)
    it may.  Which raises the spectre of:  What happens to the funds?
    My personal opinion would be to donate them to various charities,
    but I wouldn't be upset if they were used to fund open-access
    needs, such as webcasts.  But I would be hesitant to just throw them
    into a DNSO "slush fund", because the monies do, in a sense, represent
    a form of tax.  Being a US citizen, I'm genetically compelled to
    decry taxation without representation.  Taking monies from those not
    represented in the constituencies of the DNSO and putting it to general
    use is taxation without representation in my mind, for those 
    without representation have no say in how the funds would be used.
    Best to specify a specific use, and make sure it's never changed.

Anyway, these are just some further thoughts on the issue, in an attempt
to find some means of verification that's secure, accessible to most 
people, and relatively cheap and quick to implement.

-- 
Mark C. Langston
mark@bitshift.org
Systems Admin
San Jose, CA