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

["Miles B. Whitener" <mbw@i-theta.com>]

Just a comment on identifying voters.  In the US, there's no
national identity number.  The Social Security card is used as
one, but that's only because individuals have accepted this
ad-hoc, risky and often illegal practice.  Individuals in the US,
except for the Social "security" system, are identified only
locally.

Voting is just one of the problems with the idea of the Internet
as some kind of global meta-society.  Americans don't embrace the
idea of even national identity numbers -- and I hope they will
oppose global ones.  And I hope that those in other nations who
do not like the idea of a global hegemony with the _worst_ of
American leaders at or near its helm with think the same way.

Internet governance can't be done as a "democracy".


----- Original Message -----
From: "Roeland Meyer" <rmeyer@mhsc.com>
To: "'Joop Teernstra'" <terastra@terabytz.co.nz>; "Roeland Meyer"
<rmeyer@mhsc.com>
Cc: <wg-review@dnso.org>
Sent: Saturday, January 27, 2001 1:01 PM
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