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

[Roeland Meyer <rmeyer@mhsc.com>]

You are correct. But, there are ways to do this without having globally
unique identity cards, using public-key technologies, combined with
one-time-passcodes, and locally-issued ID (drivers licenses, state cards,
credit-cards, etc.). A side-effect is that everything is encrypted as well
(personal fav). Yes, there is an up-front cost of voter registration. But,
it is a one time cost. Remember, all you have to do is to certify that an
entity is not the same as another, using the current infrastructure as a
starting point.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Miles B. Whitener [mailto:mbw@i-theta.com]
> Sent: Monday, January 29, 2001 8:25 AM
> To: wg-review@dnso.org
> Subject: Re: I Disagree - Re: [wg-review] 3. [Constituencies] 
> Discussion
> 
> 
> 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
> 
--
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