Joop Teernstra wrote:
With some form of verifiaction process we can minimze the effect such people can have on our votes.At 09:01 a.m. 28/04/2003, Ron Sherwood wrote:All we are asking is for proof that the named person exists.
Agree. Plus some sort of verification that the same person does not appear in our organization under another name.
It is an old trick for a lone saboteur to multiply himself in mailing lists, second his own motions or double or triple the junk-postings.
I disagree. I think we should settle on several alternatives but allow for the possibility that the panel may have to make the odd discretionary decision in extremely exceptional cases.It is not fool
proof and it certainly does not preclude a person having multiple accounts
in different names (or multiple Thawte certificates for that matter) but it
should be close enough for our needs.
I agree. And I also think that an elected membership committee should have discretion in accepting whatever unique method of identification a member can present.
Actually, I had heard that Verisign was interested in acquiring Thawte some time ago, but not that they had done so... Oh well, must have missed the news.
With regards to Thawte, what surprises me is that no-one has brought up that this company is now 100% owned by Verisign.
Did you not know that, Sotiris?