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

[Derek Conant <dconant@dnsga.org>]

The primary reason I raised questions regarding this WG voting process
is because this WG is relying on votes to give this WG direction.

It is apparent to me that for several weeks only a handful of the 25 WG voters appear to participate in the WG comment process here.  Several comment contributing WG participants clearly objected to certain of the WG current direction and agenda here.

Comment contributing WG participants suggestions and productive ideas here appear to have been blatantly disregarded by the WG because it relies on an apparently flawed and unfair voting process and system.

I can understand that votes can be manipulated and duplicated, etc., however, giving this WG the benefit of the doubt that no one here would be so low as to engage in such dirty activity, I was trying to suggest that this WG identify if any of the voters were representatives of ICANN/NC or representatives of any other ICANN policy making body first.  I refer to this in my comments yesterday, see, http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg02152.html; and, see,  http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg02159.html.

This WG should first make sure that there is integrity in its fundamental process of which it relies on for direction.

It would be reasonable for the WG to accept that the its voting process is legitimate until information and proof shows that it has been manipulated.  Eventually, this WG may have certain participants who organize to closely monitor the WG voting process.  The technology and code is certainly available to better register and identify e-voters and e-votes.  However, for now, I was only suggesting that representatives of ICANN/NC or representatives of any other ICANN policy making body should not vote from within this WG voting process.

[QUESTION]  Have any representatives of ICANN/NC, or representatives of any other ICANN policy making body, vote within this WG voting process?

Let's answer the above-mentioned question and move forward.

Derek Conant
 

Roeland Meyer wrote:

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.

> From: Sotiropoulos [mailto:sotiris@hermesnetwork.com]
> Sent: Friday, January 26, 2001 10:37 PM
>
> 1/26/01 7:45:18 PM, Roeland Meyer <rmeyer@mhsc.com> wrote:
>
> >That is a rat-hole. Sotriris, you know that this is
> technically infeasible.
> >Derek may be ignorant, but you're not.
>
> Roeland,
>
> Thank you for the compliment.  However, I personally do not
> feel it's "technically infeasible".  I happen to be of the
> opinion that technology is at the disposal of human beings
> and not the other way round.  If another member of this
> WG expresses an opinion, which I find agreeable to my own
> ideas, I will not balk at the "technical infeasibility" of
> the idea.  There are plenty of things in human history and
> Being which were once considered "technically
> infeasible", yet today we have lightbulbs. (thanks namely to
> Thomas Edison: A Truly Great American)
>
> Amiably,
>
>
>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Sotiropoulos [mailto:sotiris@hermesnetwork.com]
> >> Sent: Friday, January 26, 2001 2:41 PM
> >> To: Derek Conant; Greg Burton
> >> Cc: wg Review list
> >> Subject: Re: I Disagree - Re: [wg-review] 3. [Constituencies]
> >> Discussion
> >>
> >>
> >> 1/26/01 4:54:57 PM, Derek Conant <dconant@dnsga.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> >If the WG is going to use votes for its direction, voters
> >> should be identified so
> >> >that WG contributing participants know that the votes and
> >> voters are legitimate.
> >>
> >> I fully concur and second this motion (that is, if it is one!?!).
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Sotiris Sotiropoulos
> >>           Hermes Network, Inc.
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> 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
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> Sotiris Sotiropoulos
>           Hermes Network, Inc.
>
>
> --
> 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