[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [atlarge-discuss] Re: [atlarge-panel] RE: (fwd) [atlarge-panel] draft motion on membership vote
Bruce and all,
bruce@barelyadequate.info wrote:
> Jeff Williams wrote:
>
> | In brief, here are most of the problems that were reported on the
> | DNSO GA E-Mail VOting system:
>
> Thanls for the info Jeff! This is good cautionary history we can use to
> avoid similar failures.
>
> Note that these aren't a failure in the system per se, but rather a failure
> to manage it properly. Here's my thoughts on how we can avoid similar
> "integrety" failures in our voting system:
This is not an accurate statement here Bruce. So pardon me for
being so blunt in again pointing it out. ( More below as to why Bruce
comment above is not accurate ).
>
>
> | 1.) Disallowing DNSO members or participants from registering to
> | actually receive a ballot because of their E-Mail addresses.
>
> First, we need to make sure our system supports mail traffic to/from
> alternative roots.
The problem was not associated only to e-mail addresses that
were of a inclusive root system TLD. I would suggest an
entragal review of the DNSO GA archives of the time frames
in which these inconsistencies and problem occurred would be
in order?
>
>
> We also need to make a point to ensure every registered member gets a
> ballot. This is probably the easiest of our tasks: I recommend that we
> solicit two e-mail addresses from our members if they have one, a primary
> and a back-up. Many folks these days have at least two addresses, one at
> home and one at work. The standby address could be used if the message is
> rejected for some reason. Rejected messages could be automatically routed
> to volunteer members who would resend them to the alternate address.
This comment reminds me again of one of the problems with the
DNSO GA E-mail based voting system as to it's integrity with respect
to multiple E-mail address leading to multiple votes from a single
individual causing the results to be skewed and thereby inaccurate.
We must avoid, not encourage multiple E-Mail addresses to be
submitted for Ballot exception. 1 E-Mail, 1 person, 1 vote, must
be central to any E-mail based voting system to work with
confidence of the members and integrity of the process..
>
>
> | 2.) Multiple ballots sent to the same E-Mail address but were
> | seperate/unique ballots. This is a particular problem as those
> | separate ballots can than be sent to non-members to vote
> | with as they are separate ballot with different and unique
> | ballot numbers on them. This is how the votes can get stacked
> | or double counted.
>
> In a normal automated e-mail system, I question whether multiple messages
> could be *accidentally* sent out.
Well they could. If you wish, I would be happy to demonstrate how
that can occur with IP swapping technique, amongst other techniques
that have been used and are fairly well documented especially using
Automated E-Mail addresses. This can also be done manually as
well by the E-Mail address actual owner or other than the E-Mail
owner.
> Someone would have to do it
> intentionally. That should be one of the watchdogs' responsibilities: to
> weed out duplicate votes.
>
> | 3.) Timely sending of the Ballots.
>
> This would be easily avoided by sending an alerting message to the
> membership and via he Discuss List when the vote goes out. Different
> persons could do this independently. The alerting message would include
> instructions for reporting non-receipt of a ballot.
>
> | 4.) Format of E-Mail ballots was a bit confusing at first glance
> | leading to Inadvertent mistakes. Similar to the butterfly
> | ballots in Florida...
>
> The Panel should be charged with ensuring the format of the ballot is *not*
> confusing. The Panel is diverse enough to ensure that cultural differences
> that may lead to confusion are weeded out prior to the vote.
Agreed that this should be done. But not so easy to get done.
Chicken and egg problem here...
>
>
> | 5.) Selection of the Watchdogs. This was and always will be the
> | biggest problem. This should be done by non-members to ensure
> | integrity.
>
> Most assuredly! To avoid any appearance of impropriety, Panel members must
> *never* serve as watchdogs. They should be volunteer members. (Hint: it
> might be a good idea if they stepped up soon!). :)
Bad idea. Members as watchdogs, such as the DNSO GA did, can
be easily influenced or pressured in various ways. By Independent, I
meant NON-MEMBERS must serve as watchdogs...
>
>
> Bruce Young
> Portland, Oregon USA
> bruce@barelyadequate.info
> http://www.barelyadequate.info
> --------------------------------------------
> Support democratic control of the Internet!
> Go to http://www.icannatlarge.org and Join ICANN At Large!
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
> For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de
Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 129k members/stakeholders strong!)
================================================================
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number: 214-244-4827 or 214-244-3801
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de