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

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

Barbara and all former DNSO GA members,

  Dialog, as you pointed out yourself in an earlier post on this thread
is important for any potential ICANN BOD member.  As you know,
such dialog has often been very lacking in the present ICANN
BoD members, as well as with ICANN Staff members with the
stakeholders/users.

  However I am puzzled that if you don't have time for such
dialog, than why you sent this post, and why would you in your
earlier post on this thread, acknowledge that such dialog/communication
is important Barbara?

( Further comments below Barbara's )

Barbara Simons wrote:

> As I said earlier, I do not have the time to engage in further dialog.  I
> have only one comment to make, which is that computerized voting systems
> without voter verified paper ballots represent the greatest threat to our
> democracy that I've seen in my lifetime.  While is may be true that most
> email voting systems are simple to implement (I would not agree with Jeff's
> comment that they are moderate in cost vs return - in fact, they tend to be
> quite pricey), I strongly disagree with the statement that they are quite
> safe.

  Vote.com has offered to provide the service for ICANN for free.
We [INEGroup] have also offered our voting system to ICANN
for cost of implementation.  That's really cheap!

>
>
> The bottom line is that computerized voting systems that do not have voter
> verified ballots make no sense.

  Very much agreed here.  Verification of ballots is not that difficult
to achieve and has been done in several systems currently in use.

>  There is absolutely no way of knowing if
> your vote is appropriately counted, and there is NO BACKUP.

  Can you prove that?  I can prove the contrary...  Are you able to
except that challenge?  If not, than I would have to say that you are
simply opposed for other yet to be known reasons to evoting.  Yet
it is here, growing, and shall be more widely used.

>  Think of what
> it means to do a recount in this environment.

  Not a problem with several systems presently being used.

> You ask the computer what its
> counts are, and it responds "the same as what I told you last time, dummmy,"
> unless it is grossly broken.

  What!!??  ROFLMAO!  This is pure silliness here Barbara.  I also think
you know it is, or I hope you do anyway.  Rolling tally's is a mathematical
computation algorithm built into most good evoting systems.

>
>
> This means that elections can be subverted by buggy software, hackers, or
> insiders, and no one will be able to prove that this has been done.

  Buggy software, yes in some instances, Hackers, also yes this too is
possible, but with good systems very improbable.  Insiders, sure, this too
is possible.  But there has to be some oversight during said elections.

>  At
> least with butterfly ballots (incidentally, the Democrat who approved them
> was a Republican before the election and reverted to being a Republican
> after the election) we all could see what was happening.

  Oh we could?  What happened to the 18,000 ballots in the two northern
counties in Fl.?  No one to this day knows.  And in Dade county, what
about those ballots that were discarded before being reviewed or even
originally available for counting?

>  While it's a nasty
> business to observe an election being stolen without being able to stop it,
> it's even worse if it is stolen and no one knows for sure.

  I agree completely with you here.  And that is much less likely with
good evoting systems.  ANd that is why in Florida, that several types
of evoting is being implemented to replace the butterfly balloting system
because it is SO much more reliable.

>
>
> ICANN is important, but the computerized voting issue is far more important,
> as far as I'm concerned.

  Both as far as electing ICANN BOD members are intertwined and must
be dealt with unless ICANN chooses to become less relevant to Internet
governance than it has degraded to already...  This will be the challenge
to the new BoD members to step up to, or face becoming illegitimate.

>
>
> Jeff's comment that http://verify.stanford.edu/evote.html contains "scare
> tactics and being panned fairly broadly on some aspect" is absurd.

  Oh?  How so?  It was panned in several publications as you well know.

>  The
> webpage was created by David Dill, a Stanford computer science professor who
> has no financial interest in any e-voting system and who is concerned only
> with trying to preserve democracy.  I urge anyone who is reading this email
> to check out the website.

  Yes you and I exchanged some ideas with David as I think you recall.
He does however have another agenda, as you also know.  He of course
is entitled to his opinion.  Other experts, including myself have a somewhat
different opinion.  I agree that "DRE" and touch screen voting machines
are a very weak and insecure evoting system.  Other evoting systems
are much different and better as David well knows...

>
>
> I believe that computerized voting machines without appropriate backup
> represent an enormous threat to democracy in any country in which they are
> employed to elect governments.

  Very strong blanket statement here Barbara.  To bad it is a bad position
to take as it is broadly unsupported.

>
>
> Regards,
> Barbara
>
> On 3/11/03 11:00 PM, "Jeff Williams" <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> >> 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...

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