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

["NameCritic" <chris1@telnor.net>]

The motion I made didn't reflect my feelings one way or the other. I simply
put in many choices from one extreme to the other. I don't feel like many
will choose either extreme if allowed to vote on ALL the choices presented.
But a poll would tell us how the members who choose to participate feel
about it.


Chris McElroy aka NameCritic
----- Original Message -----
From: "McMeikan, Andrew" <McMeikanA@logica.com>
To: <atlarge-discuss@lists.fitug.de>
Sent: Monday, October 21, 2002 6:40 PM
Subject: RE: [at large-discuss] Identity WG and limiting posts.


> Comparison of viewpoints below.
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Jeff Williams [mailto:jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com]
> > Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2002 9:31 AM
> > To: eric@hi-tek.com
> > Cc: NameCritic; atlarge-discuss@lists.fitug.de
> > Subject: Re: [at large-discuss] Identity WG and limiting posts.
> >
> >
> > Eric, Chris and all stakeholders or other interested parties
> > and members,
> >
> >   Actually I agree that my response should have been unnecessary.  I
> > really can't say that it was unproductive or not.  I doubt
> > that you could
> > in all "Truth" could either Eric.  But none the less your point is
> > well taken by me.  I only hope that it is also well taken by Chris
> > and Andrew as well.  But somehow and sadly, I doubt that as well..:(
> >
> > eric@hi-tek.com wrote:
> >
> > > This is unnecessary and unproductive.
> > > e
> > >
> > > Jeff Williams wrote:
> > >
> > > > Chris and all stakeholders or other interested parties
> > and members,
> > > >
> > > >   This statement shows me clearly that either you have a
> > reading impairment
> > > > problem have just plain not been paying close enough
> > attention to what I
> > > > have stated and repeated several times now on this
> > subject/issue. So I will
> > > > state it very simply and clearly for you here again in
> > CAPS so you can
> > > > easily read and comprehend it.
> > > >
> > > >   I BELIEVE THAT IT IS VERY IMPORTANT TO FAIRLY, ACCURATELY,
> > > > COMPLETELY, AND LEGALLY DETERMINE ANY MEMBER OR
> > > > POTENTIAL MEMBER OF THIS ORGANIZATION AND STILL
> > > > PROTECT THEIR PRIVACY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAWS
> > > > OF THEIR RESIDENT JURISDICTION AND PER EACH MEMBER
> > > > OR POTENTIAL MEMBERS PRIVACY/SECURITY REQUIREMENTS.
> >
>
> Just to clarify where my difference of viewpoint is.
>
> Putting all the obligation of identity checking on an organization will be
> expensive, or if done cheaply will be ineffective.  Verifying every member
> to the same extent regardless of their position means either the treasurer
> has a working email/postal address or that Joe Bloggs once a year poster
has
> to disclose his financial interests, background, and criminal history.
>
> All people may be equal but we do not have to have equal involvement.
Even
> allowing for us being in different countries this should still hold true.
>
> If my hypothetical Joe Bloggs (apologies to any real Joe Bloggs ;) is say
an
> undischarged bankrupt with a conviction for stealing as a servant, then
let
> him keep it private and his own business unless he wants to be treasurer
(or
> other such position).  If someone wants to be in an important position
(i.e.
> able to waste time/money of members) then the membership should IMO have
> some positive reason to believe they are trustworthy.  To me that means
open
> disclosure, not just some privacy committee saying he passes some due
> diligence test, but actually having to put up with a reduction of privacy
so
> that those involved can make their own judgements.
>
> So it seems I have a different view to Jeff Williams, that does not mean
> either of us has the perfect answer.  Certainly either way the details of
> what should be disclosed to do what would have to be nutted out.
>
> A background check on every member regardless of level of involvement?  I
> might not be able to stop someone doing detailed checks on me, but I would
> not like it just the same.  Unless someone really needs to trust me, why
> should they want to know such details?
>
>
> I hope I have not misunderstood and have made a valid comparison of views.
>
> cya, Andrew...
>
> This e-mail and any attachment is for authorised use by the intended
recipient(s) only.  It may contain proprietary material, confidential
information and/or be subject to legal privilege.  It should not be copied,
disclosed to, retained or used by, any other party.  If you are not an
intended recipient then please promptly delete this e-mail and any
attachment and all copies and inform the sender.  Thank you.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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