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

[kstubbs@digitel.net (Digitel - Ken Stubbs)]

Marilyn makes some very good points here

Ken Stubbs


----- Original Message -----
From: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <mcade@att.com>
To: "'Sandy Harris'" <sandy@storm.ca>; <wg-review@dnso.org>
Sent: Sunday, February 04, 2001 1:03 AM
Subject: RE: [wg-review] GA - Member ID and Record keeping rules


>
> 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
>

--
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