Re: [ga] Re: Proposal for list rules/actions

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

Patrick and all,

Patrick Greenwell wrote:

> On Tue, 25 Jan 2000, William X. Walsh wrote:
>
> > > Requiring a voters home address helps to avoid a situation where one
> > > individual claims to be numerous individuals and that the single address
> > > for all these individuals is a business address.
>
> Not really. I can go sign up for a virtually unlimited number of free
> email accounts right now, sitting at my computer at 1 am. While I might be
> able to scrounge up a few, I lack the ability to "manufacture" an
> unlimited number of free "home addresses" that I could receive mail at.
> If you possess such an ability, please explain it to me. Further, using
> addresses other than ones home address, an address that is not your own
> requires some effort in retreiving the mail.

  William is right sorry to say Bradley.  P.O. Boxes are very easy to
come up with on short notice as are other methods.  Hence using
Home address as an identifier is not a good one.  Digital ID's on the
other hand are.

>
>
> To reiterate I do not believe that the potential for some level of fraud
> can be completely eliminated from this process, nor do I offer this
> proposal as an all-encompassing means of doing so. What the proposal will
> do is provide an extremely cost-effective, low-overhead means of raising
> the bar, hopefully discouraging those thinking of engaging in such
> activity, while making it much more costly, time-consuming, and
> removing the automatic 100% chance of success the "committed fraud"
> currently enjoys. It is important to note that I offer such
> recommendations as a starting point of an iterative process, not
> one that it is intended to be complete and comprehensive from day 1.

  Good point.

>
>
> It's easy to criticize. It's much more difficult to do so constructively.
> If you would like to present a better idea that has the potential for
> the same or similar degree of success at an administrative cost inline
> with the proposal I've made, and one which is as easy for the "voter" as
> this one is, I'm all ears.

  It has already been presented several times and discussed on several
occasions Bradley.  You may want to review the DNSO archives regarding
Roeland Mayer's proposal.

>
>
> Or would you prefer that we continue on the present non-course, where not
> even an attempt at a mechanism has been made in large part because critics
> express their extreme displeasure with any proposal that does not offer an
> absolute or near-absolute prevention of fraud?

  It has already been offered as I indicated above.  You have evidently missed
it in the recent past.

>
>
> Haven't you suffered long enough without any sort of meaningful voice in
> the decisions that may affect you?
>
> /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
>                                Patrick Greenwell
>                        Earth is a single point of failure.
> \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

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