[ga-full] Re: [ga] GA Rules don't go far enough

[Dnsipv6@aol.com]

Joe Kelsey and everyone else,

  Joe Kelsey, you are a twit and idiot.  Most folks here
already know that, they are just too nice to tell you.  Well
I am in my Taxpayer/Consumer mode right now so I don't
give a shit if you like me or what I got to say on this post
to you or not.  Is there any part of what I just said YOU
Joe Kelsey, that you don't understand?  

  Your idea stinks to high heaven for several reasons, some obvious
other not.  You must have had a brain fart when you came up with
this bunch of nasty gas.  Because that is about all it is.

  Why you ask?  Well there are too many reasons to list here,
but I will give you a few for a clue!  >;)

  First off you would need to charge allot of $$ to get the pikers
and frauds from participating.  That eliminates participation by
people in less advantaged countries.  Thereby ICANN would not
be able to meet its mandate and requirement to have multinational
participation in a realistic way and some countries none.  But of course
you being a twit, you didn't think of that did ya?  Of course not! :(

  As for well known PKI certificates from well known companies.
Well I would not except some I have seen from IBM as they 
can generate those at will. Same goes for allot of companies
Hardly making them any more creditable.  than self generated 
ones.  So that is just some more hot gas, out of your ass!  >;)  
And given that IBM for instance has been busted right here in 
my area for employing illegal immigrants, I would not be surprised
that for the right price, they would generate any certificate I was
willing to pay for if the price was right.  I would probably get 
some extras for my four dogs as well, just to make it interesting,
if I wanted to.  Which I sure don't.  

  So Joe Kelsey, you twit, what you need is two things.  First
and independent Certificate authority to generate Certificates
PKI, ECC, PGP Keys, or whatever flavor/type.  And new ones
to be created for each member every year or every month issued
by this same Independent CA.  Next, and in addition to, for purposes
of voting each member should assigned an E-Mail address for voting
purposes only aliased to their existing registered E-Mail address.  These
should remain permanent or for as long as they are members. 

  The last thing you need to do is get proper security installed on the
site where E-mail list and voting is going to take place requiring
login and authentication for voting.  IPSEC should be use here
as well or SSLv3/TLS.  IPSEC is difficult to implement properly,
so I would opt for SSLv3/TLS instead with strong encryption.

  Now this is a beginning....  Got that you little twit? 


In a message dated 2/15/00 7:24:12 PM Pacific Standard Time, 
joe@zircon.seattle.wa.us writes:

<< Roberto Gaetano writes:
  > Harald wrote:
  > >Because the rules that were adopted say that the proof of identity
  > >iprocess s only invoked when an identity is challenged, and the list
  > >imonitor is satisfied that there's reason to pursue the challenge.
  > >
  > 
  > There's also another reason to limit the check to the challenged
  > cases.
  > 
  > We will have to move, for a number of reasons, to a situation in
  > which "Membership" is a concept distinct from
  > "Mailing-List-Subscriber", and in which there will be *many* mailing
  > lists, with specific focus.  At that point in time, it will seem
  > reasonable to check the identity for "Members" (the more 'stable'
  > population, that will have the right of vote, ....), and this may be
  > done once and for good, while the 'mobile' population (the people
  > subscribing to a general-purpose mailing list) will necessarily not
  > be subject to systematic control (too expansive).
 
 All professional societies avoid the problemof identity simply by the
 fact that they charge for membership.  If you have to pay for something,
 you have to identify yourself and you have incentive to not pay multiple
 times.  Unfortunately, this option is not available to a so-called open
 membership group as the DNSO.  However, any serious member of the DNSO
 would, no doubt, belong to one or more professional societies, many of
 whom may have network presences.  I know that the ACM and IEEE do, and
 undoubtedly some lawyers groups must along with other groups fitting
 most of the members of the DNSO.  Maybe we can work out some method of
 validation with these groups.  ACM and IEEE offer e-mail forwarding
 services for members-only.
 
 My idea is really only partially formed, but it might have promise.  I
 cannot really come up with any other ideas that do not involve charging
 for membership.
 
 Of course, a signed PKI certificate from a well-known organization that
 requires physical proof of identity should always be acceptable.
 Certainly, any self-signed certificate is worthless, but a certificate
 from a well-known company (GTE, IBM, etc.) should also be acceptable.
 
 What it really boils down to is requiring something other than a simple
 e-mail address to be eligible for voting.  A specific e-mail address
 from a source that requires membership (ACM, IEEE) would do, or a
 suitable certificate.  Both of these are more or less trivial to
 validate, but do not prevent duplication by a determined persona.
 
 Other ideas?
 
 /Joe >>
--
This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html