Re: [ga] Attention: Frank Risso

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

On 2 December 1999, "Ken Stubbs" <kstubbs@corenic.org> wrote:


>given that mr rizzo may very well be a ficticious character,  i would like
>to challenge his authority to nominate and ask that he submit proof that the
>monitors would find acceptable to legitimize his existance. that could
>easily be done by requiring a scan of his passport with his picture or a
>drivers license with his picture if he has no passport.
>
>i would also think that the same would go for any person nominated not known
>personally to at least 2 of the election oversight committee people.


I would be happy to do so if the following conditions are met:

1)  The fax/data/whathaveyou is destroyed immediately afterward,

2)  Some form of binding contract is signed stating that the information
    will not be redistributed or used in any other manner

3)  There are allowances made for the removal of social security numbers
    and/or addresses or portions thereof

4)  the person's PGP key is signed by every member of the oversight
    committee to preclude the need to do this again,

5)  The requirement is binding for all nominated candidates, and if they
    cannot meet the requirement, they are also removed from all 
    participation within ICANN (since they are not validated as an
    actual person)

6)  The oversight committee submit the same documentation to the individual
    requested to do so (I don't know any of the oversight committee, and
    I prefer to know those to whom I'd be faxing a copy of my driver's
    license.  Other bodies to which I submit this form of ID may be held
    legally accountable for its use;  ICANN counsel has clearly stated that
    the DNSO and its various bodies are not legally accountable.)

7)  We have a serious conversation about the altering of procedures during
    their initial implementation, because this requirement would be an
    alteration to the requirements for candidacy set forth by the NC.  I
    don't believe it's right to alter a finite-time procedure during its
    initial implementation if the results (in this case, an election) are
    going to be used.  

I don't give out full personal information on a whim, and I don't take it
lightly.  Showing my ID to someone is quite different than producing a
full copy of said ID;  identity theft is a real concern here.

I'd also like to point out that faxes make the altering of even a
good-quality photocopy a trivial matter, and the ready availability of
photo-grade image-manipulation tools also makes altering the
information trivial.

Unless the oversight committee plans to check identifying numbers with
the various agencies.  In which case there may be fees and paperwork to
be filled out.  I don't believe the average citizen can legally call up
the DMV and ask them to verify a driver's license number.  Furthermore,
some states use the SS# as the driver's license number.  The social
security number falls under the privacy act of (I think) 1974, and can
legally be withheld, since it may not be used for identification purposes.

If the oversight committee's willing to meet these conditions, and doesn't
expect me to fax this thing outside of the US, I'll be happy to comply.

If anyone has a problem with this, Kent lives within driving distance 
of me.  Since it would be my identity being questioned (by requiring this
of all candidates, you are indeed questioning their existence as
unique individuals), Kent can drive out to meet me.  I'll be more than
happy to provide an address and reasonable directions from I-80, 280, 101,
580, or 680.  If he does drive out, I also expect him to sign my PGP
key so, once again, this becomes unnecessary.

But then, Kent won't see this, since he's filtered me.  And likewise,
I won't see his replies, because I've plonk'd him as well.

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