Re: [ga] Raising the number of ballots cast...

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Bradley and all,

  I see several problems with this methodology and "Bot Product"
of Kents.

1. )  Does not provide for secret balloting
2.) Does not provide for non-refutable ballot checking
3.) I not a broad enough method as it only provides for votes to come
     from members of the DNSO GA
4.) Is too easily rigged to produce a certain result.
5.) Does not provide for oversight by a neutral party.
6.) Is untested in a reasonable manner.


  These are just a few of the problems I see.  Does anyone else
have any other concerns or improvements that could make this BOT
of Kents viable are legitimate?


IDNO Bootstrap wrote:

> One small note:
>
> the nice thing about a mechanism such as Kent's VoteBot is that those who
> are members of the list who may not be actively monitoring are reminded
> that there is an election pending, are sent the referendum, actually
> receive the ballot in their hand, and merely have to (I assume) fill it
> out and send it back.
>
> No browsing, or anything, it just goes out with the regular email batch.
>
> I can't think of a simpler method of voting, or for that matter, of
> raising voter awareness and participation - they don't even have to pay
> attention to the cacophany here.
>
> Anyone else have thoughts on this "Type" of methodology?
>
> --Bradley D. Thornton MCSE; MCT.--  , bootstrap  of
> the Cyberspace Association,
> the constituency for Individual Domain Name Owners
> http://www.idno.org  (or direct:)
> http://www.tallship.net/idno

Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman INEGroup (Over 95k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number:  972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208