[wg-review] an idea...

["Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <mcade@att.com>]

Have you thought about consulting with any of the folks identified by ICANN
as advisors on the last election -- the technical team, I mean?  Some folks
with e-voting expertise were enlisted as advisors. We all know that the
results were not perfect, but it might be that they could share the results
of what they learned in advising on the last election.

Marilyn

-----Original Message-----
From: Roeland Meyer [mailto:rmeyer@mhsc.com]
Sent: Saturday, January 27, 2001 2:01 PM
To: 'Joop Teernstra'; Roeland Meyer
Cc: wg-review@dnso.org
Subject: RE: I Disagree - Re: [wg-review] 3. [Constituencies] Discussion


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
--
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