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

["Joanna Lane" <jo-uk@rcn.com>]

I have updated the Constituencies page of InternetStakeholders.com to bring
forward the following specific issues, 1) Proposal for Reform and 2)
Identifying voters. Miles, if you could expand on your proposal, I will make
a separate page.

The passport idea is a good start, but some people have more than one name,
in particular married women. It would be possible for those people to
provide two valid ID, a passport in one name, then another locally notarized
document in another name.

This seems to me to be going down the road of tightening criteria for
membership of the GA using standardized procedures. If we consider how
financial institutions, immigration departments, marriage bureaus etc.
handle ID issues, then each applicant would have to produce original
documents such as birth certificates, passports and marriage certificates,
which is not a viable exercise on a global scale, neither is instigating a
new electronic form without links to hard copy ID such as these.

The only way forward that I can find would be a *Chain of Custody* approach,
which would require an applicant to submit notarized evidence from a
reputable third party who has already completed checks as part of meeting
their own regulatory requirements. Such reputable third parties would
include bank managers, accountants, lawyers, teachers, doctors who would
need to countersign an individual's application form. One of the questions
on that application form would include "other names you are known by",
which, combined with a date of birth and current address, would seem fairly
secure.

I, for one, would be very concerned about mailing original passports or
birth certificates anywhere and therefore, I am inclined to think that
membership of the GA/ DNSO, must be handled on a country by country basis by
local agencies.

I would like to see this issue carried forward to the GA topic.
Joanna

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-wg-review@dnso.org [mailto:owner-wg-review@dnso.org]On
Behalf Of Miles B. Whitener
Sent: Monday, January 29, 2001 11:46 AM
To: wg-review@dnso.org
Subject: Re: I Disagree - Re: [wg-review] 3. [Constituencies] Discussion


> Individuals in the US,
> except for the Social "security" system, are identified only
> locally.

I will comment on my own post.   Many, but not most, Americans of
course have international passports (there's no such thing as an
internal passport here).  This is a valid international id for
specific purposes.

Also, a locally "notarized" document can be "apostilled", thereby
gaining a level of international validity.

Both of the above are and should be effective only due to
treaties made between sovereign nations.


--
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