[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [atlarge-discuss] 003 WG-ID membership criteria
Judyth:
Thanks for the ideas and questions raised in your post. I've put them to my
"WG - Electorate Verification & Elections" folder. My last post followed
yours and addresses some of the same things.
/s/ Joey
Sunday, August 18, 2002 * 3:15 PM EDT USA
==========
Tis true...
--
God didn't make Adam & Steve! God didn't make Adam & Eve either.
Rathe-r-r-r, God made Adam from Eve, as modern science now plainly makes
clear. Steve just naturally showed up, fashionably late (gay time being
what it is) not too long thereafter. God just couldn't see letting go to
waste all that material left over after he was finished making Adam from
Eve. (-:
--
--*star**walker*
==========
At 12:10 PM 8/18/2002 -0400, espresso@e-scape.net wrote:
I agree completely with Joanna.
I've seen no signs that anyone is trying to disenfranchise the corporate
sector, and plenty of signs that some people want very much to
disenfranchise individual citizens -- whether on the Internet or in
meatspace, for that matter.
This organization exists to counter that effort and demonstrate that
individuals can and should have meaningful, democratic participation in
how the Internet is run. That means membership must be restricted to
genuine, identifiable, individual voters or the election process we set up
will be completely meaningless.
Sorting this out is likely to be a bit tricky for several reasons:
- online authentication of identity usually requires a multi-step process
since we can hardly ask people to present two pieces of photo ID;
- some individuals will have legitimate reasons not to want their names
and opinions bandied about on the Internet, whether because their
government takes a dim view of foreign contact or because their own
opinions may not be identical to their employers' or simply because they
do not want to receive a lot of nasty spam or criticism from total strangers;
- a great many people do not have their own personal domain or their own
Internet access account, so we can't use the source of a message or an IP
number as means of confirming identity.
There may well be other reasons I haven't thought of.
Meanwhile, in practice, it is just about impossible to know for sure
whether a given individual is "speaking" freely online or has joined the
discussion at the behest of a company or organization seeking to influence
its direction. We are unfortunately living in a world where it has
suddenly become a "normal" business practice to pay individuals to pretend
they are making personal recommendations when they are in fact shilling
for the party selling the product. Infiltration of an organization by
those with opposite aims, of course, has been pretty common since Biblical
times.
We will never be in a position to guarantee that 100% of the members
casting their votes are using their true identities and are sincere
participants in the organization's mission. Nobody can expect it, though,
since "voting irregularities" do occur in even the best-organized of
modern democracies -- besides which everyone knows that letting a small
group of people make patronage appointments is prone to far more frequent
abuse.
Regards,
Judyth
---
At 11:08 -0400 2002/08/18, Joanna Lane wrote:
>This organization is not a DNSO constituency for corporations. It is
for >the general public at large to obtain a vote in the process,
representation
>through direct participation.
>
>[snip]
>
>So, to recap, the view from here is that at this early stage, only
>individuals who are willing to go through an ID process get votes, and not
>those hiding behind corporations or other organizations, and that WG-ID is
>being set up to help us clarify those issues and develop appropriate
>policies that first and foremost protect the public interest - not the
>corporate paymasters.
>
>That doesn't mean your personal information is going to be published in the
>public domain, but it does mean it has to be known to the current
>administration of this organization, which at this time includes me,
hence >I am going to continue flagging those that appear to be corporate or
>organizational votes that have slipped through net. In that way, the
>integrity of the organization's membership roster is best protected.
>
>I'll be posting something shortly on the Name issue, as I sense we can start
>to wrap that up, or at least move forward.
>
>Regards,
>Joanna
##########################################################
Judyth Mermelstein "cogito ergo lego ergo cogito..."
Montreal, QC <espresso@e-scape.net>
##########################################################
"History teaches us that men and nations behave wisely once
they have exhausted all other alternatives." (Abba Eban)
##########################################################
See the UNESCO OBSERVATORY ON THE INFORMATION SOCIETY!
http://www.unesco.org/webworld/observatory
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de