RE: [at large-discuss] Identity WG and limiting posts.

[espresso@e-scape.net]

I think this outlines what we need quite neatly. 

People hoping to be officers or directors (4) are obliged to make full disclosure of who they are, where they live, and what qualifies them for a position of trust anyhow.

People (like myself) who have little to fear from divulging our identities generally do so pretty freely anyhow, so membership in category (3) is no problem.

People who are in countries or positions which make their situation more delicate can avail themselves of (2) to become legitimate members by providing their true identities to the eventual secretary of the organization in private using some form of encryption, or be considered "associate members" without voting privileges if they choose not to. 

[I'd suggest, in fact, that "associates" could be anonymized well enough for general purposes if their registration were done by fax and their comments and votes validated by the use of their registered membership numbers and the e-mail address specified in their registration. In other words, the use of a legitimate member number from a validated address would enable us to distinguish between bona fide members in sensitive situations and people who simply chose not to be members at all.]

Meanwhile, anyone in the world can qualify as a "guest" and find out what is going on without divulging any details, and the organization would remain open and transparent in its operations.

Thank you, Andrew!


Regards,

Judyth



At 14:05 +1000 2002/10/21, McMeikan, Andrew wrote:
>[snip]
>How do people see the following set up.
>
>1. anonymous guest comments in forums, public comment areas
>2. unverified, email address, persistent nyms.  - regular contributors who
>do not wish to disclose private details.
>3. contactable verified persons, able to hold positions
>4. Highly accountable, we know where they live, can successfully get
>arrested if they run off with the cash box.  Need plenty of details. Able >to hold important office and be legally responsible.
>
>Only a dedicated few will want to be in 4, many persistent people who care
>will be prepared to be in 3.
>
>The vast unwashed masses will surely only care for 2, with the paranoids in
>1.
>
>Is such a system practical?
>
>	cya,	Andrew...


##########################################################
Judyth Mermelstein     "cogito ergo lego ergo cogito..."
Montreal, QC           <espresso@e-scape.net>
##########################################################
"A word to the wise is sufficient. For others, use more."
##########################################################



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de