RE: [wg-review] GA - Member ID and Record keeping rules

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

Sandy, I understand your view about participating anonymously, but I am not
sure that I agree. There has to be some accountability for opinions
expressed when those are being used to guide policy positions which affect
an infrastructure, such as the Internet. 

I do agree that individuals should be able to express their own views; and I
think that there are many who are active in ICANN who do that, and say, my
opinions are not necessarily those of my employer.

However, if we don't have some mechanism to verify/authenticate that a vote
is from a legitimate member, we don't' have a working solution.

Perhaps there can be co-existence, with a place to post anonymous comments.
And votes can be counted, verified that they come from a legitimate member,
but not ascribed.. That is how you voted can be private.  Counted by a
neutral third party.

Are there options like that that make sense to you?
-----Original Message-----
From: Sandy Harris [mailto:sandy@storm.ca]
Sent: Saturday, February 03, 2001 10:51 PM
To: wg-review@dnso.org
Subject: Re: [wg-review] GA - Member ID and Record keeping rules


Joanna Lane wrote:
> 
> Sandy Harris wrote:-
> How do you make the process genuinely representative, given that anyone
with
> some resources and an agenda can create bogus domains and/or users at
will?>
> 
> It is crucial not only to the credibility of DNSO, but also @Large and
> ICANN, that member identity and record keeping rules are put on the agenda
> as a priority.

No.
It is crucial that the system be designed so that it cannot be destroyed by
people manipulating identities.

> Membership of this WG has been granted on a trust basis,

And must be.

>  but it doesn't scale. In the long term, it is essential for membership
identity
> to be verified at local level on a country by country basis ("country" in
> the context of this post also means jurisdiction, region or  territory).

No. There is no reason people should not participate here via an anonymous
service, for example. This might be necessary for someone who wanted to
express
opinions contrary to those of an employer, for example. 

> This is backed up by the Financial Action Task Force Report, published
Feb1.
> 
> The FATF, an inter-governmental body, ...

FATF deals with banking, finance, and money laundering. There is at least an
argument that their identity requirements are necessary as part of a
campaign
against organized crime. Not an argument I'd believe, mind you -- I consider
the whole "War on Drugs" bogus -- but let's not go into that here.

However, there is just no analogy with the ICANN GA. What is organised crime
going to do with votes? Start .dope .hooker and .protection TLDs?
--
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