Re: An alternative to the "lottery"

[Michael Dillon <michael@memra.com>]

On Sat, 28 Dec 1996, Perry E. Metzger wrote:

> > 3. IAHC members vet the applications. Qualified applicants go into
> >    a random pool. An accounting firm randomly selects applicants from
> >    the pool assigning every applicant a sequence number.
> 
> Since everyone will attempt to get into the first batch, this is for
> all intents and purposes identical to a lottery. I can't see any
> distinction from one at all. There is this feature of "ordering" so
> that the next batch taken are selected at the same time, but there is
> no functional difference between that and selecting batches at
> different times -- either way, the winners of the slots are selected
> purely at random.

In the IAHC lottery proposal many are called and few are chosen. But in
Kent's system, all are chosen but assigned a random position in the queue.
Then the applicants in the queue can make private deals to swap positions. 
This means that there are no out-and-out losers which is a significant
difference to the IAHC proposal. In the IAHC system an applicant could
apply and lose each and every lottery held. In Kent's system even the last
place holder has not lost out. They may be able to buy a better position. 


Michael Dillon                   -               Internet & ISP Consulting
Memra Software Inc.              -                  Fax: +1-604-546-3049
http://www.memra.com             -               E-mail: michael@memra.com