Re: [ga] Re: A Question for the Candidates

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

Barbara and all former DNSO GA members,

Barbara Simons wrote:

> Dear Jeff,
>
> I'm going to respond to a couple of key points below.  Then I'm afraid that
> I'll have to stop this conversation, because I am overwhelmed with other
> work that I must get done this week.

  So do most people.  I know I do.

>
>
> Regards,
> Barbara
>
> On 3/10/03 9:10 PM, "Jeff Williams" <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> >> As a Board member, I would attempt to be responsive to all stakeholders and
> >> users, most certainly including members of the public.  Obviously, a single
> >> individual cannot communicate with thousands of stakeholders.
> >
> > Why do you believe that a single individual cannot communicate with
> > thousands of stakeholders?  I do it almost every day.  This very post
> > is going to 10's of thousands of stakeholders for example.
>
> Of course I would do my best to keep people informed of the issues and my
> positions, and the Internet is an excellent tool for doing that. I was
> thinking more of a two-way dialog.

Your positions should be those of the folks you are supposed to represent.
E-Mail is an excellent tool for two-way communication to be sure.
So is VoIP, and internet video conferencing, which I use every day.

>  I could not interact on an individual
> basis with large numbers of people.

  Why not?  Are you not doing so in this very post?

>
>
> > Well  you could have your own poll at a minimum.  See for instance:
> > http://www.vote.com/  Over 51,511,000 Votes Cast!  And that is just
> > one example.  I can of course provide many more if called upon to do so.
>
> I don't know if I would have the resources to conduct an Internet vote.

  Yes you do.  So does ICANN if it wished to avail itself of such.
So than, would you support or do you support doing so if available
and no or little cost?

>

> If
> there turns out to be a way of doing so that does not cost anything and is
> relatively easy to implement, then I might consider holding such a vote if
> there are critical issues on which I would want public input.  I can't see
> holding routine votes, but if it turns out to be straightforward and if
> there is the interest, I might consider it.

  Ok thank you for this reveling position.

>
>
> > THe ACM is a very good organization.  I did notice however that
> > the democratic principal of one man one vote doesn't seem to be
> > well represented in the ACM via the internet.  Do you now, and
> > have you always supported that basic democratic principal?
> > I also recall that You came out recently strongly opposed to
> > EVOTING.  Are you still opposed?  If so, can you perhaps
> > explain why Evoteing (Safely and securely done) is a growing
> > and desired extension or use of the internet for stakeholders/users
> > and your opposition recently?
>
> I have always supported the principle of one person one vote.  But I have
> recently been very involved with fighting against computerized voting
> machines that have no backup.

  Yes I am very aware of that battle, as you know of course.  I agreed
with you on it for similar reasons.  However evoting is here, and here to stay
as well as gaining acceptance.  Indeed some forms are not safe to use
presently, others are difficult to implement.  But most well thought out
evoting systems are quite safe, pretty simple to implement, and moderate
in terms of cost vs return.

> In other words, there is no way to verify
> that your vote is recorded as you think it should be.

  Not true as you recently found out. Barbara.  This answer is very troubling
in your pledge as it indicates that you say you support what you are not willing
to support actualizing...

> The outcome of an
> election can be influenced by machine malfunction, software bugs, or insider
> malfeasance.

  IN some systems, this is very true.  Same is true of paper ballots and any
other form of voting system.  The infamous "Butterfly Ballot" not withstanding.
Yet several good evoting systems are far beeter, more secure and safe,
and far less susceptible to machine malfunction that the old and still used
lever based or punch card based voting machines.

>  This is a very very dangerous situation.  Anyone who cares
> about preserving our democracy should check out
> http://verify.stanford.edu/evote.html.

  Read it.  Mostly scare tactics and being panned fairly broadly on some aspects.

>
>
> I believe that Internet voting may work for obtaining feedback or even for
> elections that are not as critical as national political elections, eg
> Boards of Directors of corporations.

  Good.  That is essentially what I have been asking you..

>  But Internet voting can be subverted
> more easily even than computerized voting.

  True.  But many current systems that have been used now for going on
6 years, have shown to be much less acceptable to tampering or subversion.

>  So I would argue against
> Internet voting for any election that really mattered.  I realize that that
> creates problems in terms of establishing any kind of democratically elected
> ICANN Board members, and I don't know how to deal with that.

  You deal with it by accepting that you view is either dated or not
based in sound technological and factual basis.  Than you step up
to the challenge.  If you are unable to do that, than perhaps
you are unable to really change and help clean up the ICANN Mess
as a potential BoD member.  ???

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 129k members/stakeholders strong!)
================================================================
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number: 214-244-4827 or 214-244-3801


--
This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html