Re: [atlarge-discuss] 003 WG-ID membership criteria

["Ron Sherwood" <sherwood@islands.vi>]

Good afternoon, All:

    I am not a member of the WG - ID, but do have an interest in finding a compromise between the need for ID verification and the legitimate need that some may have for anonymity.

    Suggestion:  If a verification committee were to be legally bound and sworn to secrecy (bonded, perhaps), why could they not retain custody of the verified identity of all members (essential for voting purposes) but allow a linked alias (protected with a suitable passcode) for all public exposure to that member? An encrypted database would limit access to the custodians.

Ron Sherwood

There are two different kinds of people in this world: 
those who finish what they start...



----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Joey Borda **star*walker**" <starwalker@gay.com>
To: "Joanna Lane" <jo-uk@rcn.com>; "Joop Teernstra" <terastra@terabytz.co.nz>
Cc: "Atlarge Discuss List" <atlarge-discuss@lists.fitug.de>
Sent: Sunday, August 18, 2002 1:09 PM
Subject: RE: [atlarge-discuss] 003 WG-ID membership criteria


Joanna & Joop (et al):

At 11:08 AM 8/18/2002 -0400, Joanna Lane wrote:

>Concerns have been expressed to me offlist about why I would want to
>discourage anonymous contributions in this way, so maybe an explanation is
>needed.

It's good leadership Joanna that you bring from off-list to on-list things 
that are material to our effort. Bravo. I commit, and I hope all of us 
commit to do likewise. The operative word is "material" which this matter 
most surely is.

>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.
>
>First, a voter is not a voter without a name and some ID, it doesn't matter
>who you work for, or what democracy you live in.

Exactly.

Whether and how we might want to protect the anonymity of a real person, if 
at all (I can imagine good reasons, but currently fear it too "sticky"), 
after verification they cannot remain anonymous to our verification and 
certification as a real, singular, identifiable human being.

So far as I know now all are free to use fictitious names for the purposes 
of debate and discussion, but actual voting is another matter entirely. I 
believe volunteering requires the same substantiality.

You are quoted back below as previously having written:

>Although we have yet to go through the process of developing a policy for 
>verification of members, I think it's safe to assume that we do not and 
>will not be giving out votes to people who put down generic job 
>descriptions rather than identify themselves as a real person with a real name.

I think indeed your assumption is safe and correct. As our interim 
"leaders" as well as panelists you have a fiduciary duty to keep us safe 
from the very harm we've been fighting all this while. It is a simple 
matter of common sense and self-preservation.

My druthers are that we establish "Identification & Verification" by 
whatever means necessary and sensible as soon as possible and before any 
more votes on anything, and in the meantime trust in the common sense and 
wisdom of the panel to get us there through acting as a committee of the 
whole and pass on every last new membership application for voting. You are 
certainly showing me you are worthy of MY trust.

Otherwise we risk having a "stuffed" ballot box before we even get to vote.

I am paranoid enough to appreciate we are being watched, and reported on. 
Whether directly through a current member(s) or by folks simply reading our 
lists. And I can tell you that right about now we are scaring the hell out 
of some people!

They are witnessing the determination, energy, intelligence, commitment and 
the means and wisdom to birth a democratic Internet!

And "they" hain't liking it one bit! No sirree. And they will waste no 
effort, no energy, and no trick of foul play to STOP us!

I would go so far as to say that right now, this every second, we ought to 
close and bar the doors to our "Democratic Internet Convention Hall" to any 
new representatives or voters until we have agreed to our constitution, 
corporate structure (I like Jefsey's thoughts on the subject; much akin to 
my own thoughts and experience as to being the least hierarchical) and 
verification process.

As good old Ben Franklin would remind us, let's hang together folks, and 
not let ourselves be infiltrated. We are so close, so close to success I 
can taste it!

All we have to do right now is to "keep on keeping on."

I am one of the most inclusivity-seeking people I know and I have learned 
and know for certain one sure thing. If I insist on "fair play," as I am 
inclined to define it, 100% of the time, then what I end up with is being 
fairly "played" 100% of the time by folks who DON'T define it as I do. 
Let's not be "played" people.

I AM a really, really nice guy and really DO "want to buy the world a Coke 
and keep it company," and no one, but no one, should mistake me for a fool 
for even a second! Now that's the Real Thing! And, at long last, WE are 
fast becoming the  REAL THING.

>Second, it would be extremely foolish to go down the road of asking private
>corporations who have a vested interest in the process elsewhere to verify
>our membership database for us.

I really like your SUBTLE understatement Joanna. ;)

>Third, we have been elected by people who have had the courage to stand up
>and be counted, real living breathing human beings with names and faces. And
>as demonstrated in 2000 elections, there are tens of thousands of them out
>there more than willing to be identified in order to get a vote and who,
>right now, are very, very angry indeed to have their votes stolen from them
>by ICANN, not only in the At Large, but also the DNSO GA, in fact
>everywhere.

Amen sisters and brothers! Go Joanna. You GO girl!

>Fourth, it's also not a good idea to stand in the front line, only to be
>accused of fighting for a bunch of anonymous corporate employees (nothing
>personal intended). The smart move is to use our personal ID as our
>ammunition.

STRATEGIC!

>We really don't need to know the kind of detail that Joey Star
>Walker is giving out in his entertaining personal diaries,...

ROTL - LMAO ;-())

:) :) . Yes, I think, by now and quite understandably, most recognize that 
with me every thing personal is political and everything political is 
personal. I'll be dead soon enough for it to be otherwise. :)

Plus I really like to tell stories. Mine is the one I know best. :)  And I 
do like to entertain the folks I traveling with.

I'm rather fond of having people -- who when they've had enough -- in the 
same real space, as well as in the same virtual space, tell me, a la George 
Burns and Gracie Allen, "Say 'Goodnight' Gracie." ;-)  On this point then, 
"Goodnight Gracie."

>...but if you're
>asking me to voluntarily fight for you without even Identifying yourself to
>me, then you're being unrealistic. This has to be a two way street or it's
>not going to work in my opinion.

INSANE, not unrealistic.

>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.

Because of this incredibly important work to be done I have bristled at 
Vittorio's crack about my having the time to check E-mails three times a 
day, and given him a good "what for."

Joanna, in your post I'm reacting to here you have made it as clear as it 
can be made the urgency for our WG work on this.

Now, the fact of the matter is that I DO have lots of time over these next 
several weeks to give nearly 24/7 to this work. I know I am fortunate in 
that regard.

I don't have a day job, nor even a night job. The job I do have is building 
my own house AT MY OWN LEISURE. [See 
http://207.36.60.225/salt_box/index.htm. soon to be updated]

By the evidence I see on our lists I see that so many of you, if not all, 
do have jobs and yet it seems that likewise many of you appear to be giving 
24/7 as well.

This inspires me to want to do even more. This is why I said above "I can 
taste it!" I do not fear burn out, or loss of enthusiasm. I've been there, 
and done that already, and learned how not to, ever again. I know when and 
how to recreate and take vacations. I know how to socialize.

[Aside: I will have something published to the list by the end of this day 
on my jump-start of the FUN!!! WG. WE can all use it.]

While at times it may not appear like it I pace myself, I DO pace myself. 
It's just that I'm a Ferrari in a mostly Yugo world. I see clearly here 
that I'm not the only one. :) :)   (I love rally driving!)

Joanna I give you my 100% support. YOU HAVE EARNED IT!

>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.

Spoken to above and still worth another BRAVO.

>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

I would like, if you can, you to give me the earliest possible heads up on 
the top contender name, earliest today if possible and ethical. That has 
been the primary thing holding me back on setting up the social space; 
wanting to possibly weave the name in, or maybe not.

Name suggestions anyone? For the fun space?

Thanks for reading... Cordially... /s/ Joey

Sunday, August 18, 2002 * 1:09 PM EDT USA

=====
Power is not only what you have but what the enemy thinks you have.
---
Saul Alinsky (1909-72), U.S. radical activist. Rules for Radicals, 
"Tactics" (1971).
=====

> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Joanna Lane [mailto:jo-uk@rcn.com]
> > Sent: Sunday, August 18, 2002 4:21 AM
> > To: Joop Teernstra
> > Cc: Atlarge Discuss List
> > Subject: [atlarge-discuss] 003 WG-ID membership criteria
> >
> >
> > Hi Joop,
> > I was just reviewing the website quickly and noticed,"*
> > Webmaster, Validweb
> > Limited. From London, United Kingdom" as one of the latest
> > additions to the
> > Membership List. Although we have yet to go through the process of
> > developing a policy for verification of members, I think it's
> > safe to assume
> > that we do not and will not be giving out votes to people who put down
> > generic job descriptions rather than identify themselves as a real person
> > with a real name.
> >
> > Please remove this and any other similar entries from the Voting
> > Roster and
> > Announce lists, and send me a note offlist of the contact name(s)
> > (if known)
> > with email address, so that I may send a note to each of the individuals
> > responsible, inviting them to join properly using their own names.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Joanna
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
> > For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de
> >
>
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
>For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de