RE: I Disagree - Re: [wg-review] 3. [Constituencies] Discussion

[Roeland Meyer <rmeyer@mhsc.com>]

Yes, to further drive the point home, I am able to bring over 128,000 users,
to this WG, from human-speed.com, at the touch of a bash script. They would
all vote exactly the way I want them to. SMOP (Simple Matter Of Programming)
combined with a spare Linux box. Any decent systems admin has the
capabilities to do similar.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joop Teernstra [mailto:terastra@terabytz.co.nz]
> Sent: Saturday, January 27, 2001 12:33 AM
> To: Roeland Meyer
> Cc: wg-review@dnso.org
> Subject: RE: I Disagree - Re: [wg-review] 3. [Constituencies] 
> Discussion
> 
> 
> On 23:38 26/01/01 -0800, Roeland Meyer said:
> >You know, from my statements, that I am actually in favor of 
> the idea. But,
> >it will take some time to develop the code, the procedures, and the
> >mechanisms. What I meant by infeasibility is that it cannot 
> be done, at this
> >time. There are a LOT of details regarding eVoting, all of 
> them deal with
> >authentication. You know for fact, that I can send, at the 
> next moment, an
> >email that 95% of this audience will swear originates from 
> you. Many of us
> >watched Joe Baptista do it in the GA. I imagine that you 
> could probably do
> >it yourself. I know about a dozen ways to fix that problem, 
> but they ALL
> >need political acceptance.
> >
> >It is infeasible, at this time, and in this time-frame. It 
> is a decidedly
> >non-trivial issue.
> 
> Roeland is right. 
> While it is relatively easy to make sure that no one votes 
> twice, and that
> only those who get a password can vote, is is not easy to 
> determine if a
> separate identity on the Net is really separate from another entity.
> 
> People may subscribe to this ML with more than one identity, 
> and some do,
> perhaps for purely practical reasons.
> 
> For the moment this does not need to worry us, as there is not enough
> incentive to manipulate the vote.
> The vote largely conforms with the content of the postings.
> 
> If it were different, of if  a lone voice tries to multiply 
> himself into
> something more weighty, then we would have to scrutinize the 
> voters' roll
> more closely.
> 
> What I could do, is to publish the latest voters' roll. (Names Only)
> We actually did this when we had our chair nominations. All 
> subscribers who
> had subscribed with a name (some had not) were listed for 
> nomination ticks.
> If you have a password, you can still access this list in the 
> Archive of
> the Polling Booth.
> 
> Let's not go down this rathole of voter identity.
> Please let's go back to discussing the constituency structure and how
> stakeholder interests can be better represented in the DNSO.
> 
> 
> --Joop Teernstra LL.M.--  
> the Cyberspace Association and 
> the constituency for Individual Domain Name Owners
> Elected representative.
> http://www.idno.org  
> 
--
This message was passed to you via the wg-review@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe wg-review" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html