[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [atlarge-discuss] enough waiting for nothing



Judith and all,

espresso@e-scape.net wrote:

> At 12:45 -0800 2003/02/05, Jeff Williams wrote:
> >  I personally find it difficult to understand why Judyth or any other
> >member cannot grasp the basic concept that ICANNATLARGE.ORG
> >and ICANNATLARGE.COM as has been already determined
> >are NOT one in the same organizations.
>
> Actually, neither of the two meets my definition of an
> organization -- they're just Web sites, for X's sake!

  Agreed for X's sake!  That was my point in part above Judyth!

>
>
> >And are operated/managed
> >by two entirely different sets or "Individuals", thereby making the
> >"Voting Booth" associated with ICANNATLARGE.COM not
> >in the determined interest of the legitimate members of
> >ICANNATLARGE.ORG.
>
> My point -- and it's a pretty common one in the business world
> as well as on the 'Net -- was that organizations can and do
> arrange to host some aspects of their activities externally
> on another server or even contract out the running of a
> particular application and just provide the link on the main
> site.

  Yes this can be done, but looks odd and suspicious to many.
Not advisable and also does not apply in this particular
instance...

>
>
> The issue of who runs which application how reliably is a
> separate one. At the moment, Joop runs ICANNATLARGE.COM
> unilaterally and Vittorio seems to be running ICANNATLARGE.ORG
> unilaterally insofar as it's being run at all.

 Yes, this about covers it actually.  The game remains the same,
only the names have changed...

>

>
>
> Hence my resolution, which Hugh Blair was kind enough to
> second, called for a vote to accept the Polling Booth as an
> information-gathering tool and as a temporary means by
> which we can break our stalemate and get on with the
> organizing part.

  This is a good use of polling if done honestly and correctly.
However using Joops polling Booth with Joop in charge
or in control of that data and the operation is not
reasonable nor will ti be largely excepted IMHO...

>
>
> >  Although the/Joops "Voting Booth" is a good idea, it is flawed for
> >actual voting purposes as the actual audit records can be hacked
> >too easily and thereby slanting any Poll or Vote according to whomever
> >is in control of the "Voting Booth" which was demonstrated some time
> >ago in the now defunct IDNO fiasco...
>
> It was the ICANNATLARGE.ORG site which was hacked but I'm in
> no position to evaluate the hackability of ICANNATLARGE.COM
> as compared to some other site.
>
> Just recently the New Democratic Party of Canada held its
> leadership convention and for the first time allowed its members
> to cast their ballots electronically using Elections.com,
> which is theoretically professional at running such votes.
> Some joker apparently decided to block access to the
> balloting site and managed to delay things by about 45 minutes;
> there seems to have been no vote-tampering, especially since
> steps were taken to prevent it and to ensure proper scrutiny.

  Good, I am glad that the disruption was only temporary.
But it should not have been unexpected.

>
>
> Call me a Luddite if you like but it's my belief that we can't
> blame the computers or software if we do these things wrong
> or insecurely.

  Your not a luddite at all as far as this goes.  Your spot on here!  >;)

> It's *always* up to the humans who decide how
> a ballot will be conducted using what means, and it is (IMHO,
> anyway) easier to devise a method of assigning unique
> membership numbers offline and conveying them to the individuals,
> letting the computers collect the ballots as they come in and
> transfer them to another location -- not on the same server and
> not easily accessible unless one both knows where to find the
> data and how to hack into it.

  Good point here also Judyth.  This is essentially how
Surevote.com works and basically how INEGroups
voting system works as well.

> It's *always* important to make
> sure that no individual has unmonitored access to the ballot-box
> ... which is why Canadian elections allow each political party
> to send its own scrutineer to each polling-station to make sure
> things stay honest.

  Good point here also.  However when doing this sort of polling
or Evoting online this may not be possible or not feasible...

> You can't stuff a physical ballot-box or
> throw away valid ballots with impunity if people from the
> other factions are watching you, and recounting of the physical
> ballots by somebody else at the same table makes sure nobody
> can fake the count.

  Also a good point here.  However I see no way of making this
sort of a method applicable for Evoting/polling.  A centralized
database of a set of Databases that can be accessed in a
centralized manner of registered voters in an Evoting/polling
system can nearly achieve what you seem to be suggesting here.

>
>
> Electronic voting is a lot trickier, I think, because it leads
> to assumptions about the inherent impartiality and accuracy
> of computers making close human scrutiny unnecessary. I don't
> know how the commercial polling firms tamper-proof their systems
> but obviously they're not always successful. If I were responsible
> for an online voting system, I'd want at least two disinterested
> parties keeping an eye on the incoming votes (and one another)
> and maybe a techie monitoring other activity on the server to
> make sure it didn't interfere with the ballots. BUT that can be
> very expensive and surely we don't need it just to determine
> what our members' priorities are -- this group is simply not
> important enough for anyone outside it to put much energy into
> falsifying the results of a poll!

  Humm?  Not sure about your conclusion here Judyth.  It depends
on what a person thinks he/she can gain by falsifying the results, and
if that gains is worthwhile to them...

>
>
> Some may disagree with me here but the safest, least-manipulable
> method for ballot-counting is to have a couple of humans charged
> with checking that the unique ID on each ballot is used only once
> and its point of origin corresponds to the contact information
> in the membership database.

  Agreed.  And at this point than and only tan is that member
registered to vote and his/her unique ID entered into the
database or databases of voters..

> Once ballots have been validated,
> each should be printed with all identifying information but the
> ID number removed, and the electronic original *erased* so it
> can't be duplicated. The printed ballots can then be counted
> in the presence of several trusted individuals who can, if they
> like, recheck that ID numbers have not been duplicated or
> invalid ones used as well as counting and recounting the votes
> as needed. Once the results have been declared, the scrutineers
> make sure all ballots are destroyed so as to prevent anyone
> from stealing ID numbers to use in a future ballot.
>
> Surveys are another matter entirely -- they are not necessarily
> statistically representative of the public at large but they
> can be useful for gauging "the sense of the meeting".
>
> Yet another mechanism -- an open vote on this list -- is the
> equivalent of asking for a show of hands at a physical meeting
> to see what proportion of those present support a particular
> resolution. However, it's also a means of having the entire
> readership serve as scrutineers with a minimum of fuss:

  I personally like this approach for Polls.  But not for actual Evotes.
Too much chance for last minute e-mail blocking just prior to
as vote, leaving those members unable to vote.

>
> everyone who gets the messages could choose to count the votes
> for him- or herself, and the opportunities for voting twice
> or using somebody else's identity are relatively few when
> anyone can do a "reveal message headers" and see where a
> vote really originated.
>
> Jeff, I know you disagree with me about this but I think this
> group has an immediate need for an interim decision-making
> mechanism before we'd be in any position to collect money
> for hiring non-members to run a properly-conducted vote for us.

  Yes I do disagree respectfully with you on this for Evoting,
but I agree with you on this for Polling only.  The only difference
on the polling side of this issue is that the Polling mechanism
must not be in the hands of any member.  Using Joops
Polling Booth is fine for polling as long as whomever is
managing it is not a member.  This would be an alternative
solution.  I still prefer, as you rightly indicate that for both
Polling and Evoting, a professional organization should be
hired to conduct those polls that we decide upon on issues
that should or need to be taken.

>
> Joop's polling-booth may not be perfect but it's affordable
> and available now. Why not use it for unofficial purposes and
> temporarily for official ones since we've no other means of
> conducting them at the moment?

  For Polls I am fine with this as long as he turns over the
Polling Booth software, the security keys and the database
to a uninterested third party of our choice that is not
a member.

>
>
> Joop, I am frankly thrilled to hear that over 235 members are
> registered for the forum, and I hope most of them are going
> to tell us all what they really want this group to become,
> by any and all means we have available.
>
> I confess I do not understand why "we" don't know how many
> people are subscribed to this list, especially given that there
> is a listowner who must have access to that information since we
> are apparently to be switched over automatically to another ISP.
> However, I would imagine there are some dozens of us involved if
> all the lurkers were counted, and expect there would be quite
> an overlap between the forum and the list.
>
> To me, that means neither the forum nor the list includes the
> whole membership since the previous count we were given was over
> 1000. Therefore, neither the forum nor the list is the appropriate
> means of communicating to the whole membership. Only messages sent
> to each individual member should be used for official purposes,
> and only the Panel or its delegated Webmaster should have access
> to the membership contact information at this point.
>
> We can probably assume that there are between 200 and 300
> members registered who care enough to vote, judging by the
> last Panel election. By my reckoning, that should mean
> that a resolution which obtained support from 20-30 members
> should be added to the Interim Panel's agenda as requiring
> a referendum of the whole membership ... assuming we intend
> to follow the normal practice, which both Michael Geist and
> David Farrar included in the bylaws they recommended to us.
>
> This won't be a real organization until at least 10% of
> us agree to get organized. Are we ready to try now?
>
> Regards,
>
> Judyth
>
> ##########################################################
> Judyth Mermelstein     "cogito ergo lego ergo cogito..."
> Montreal, QC           <espresso@e-scape.net>
> ##########################################################
> "A word to the wise is sufficient. For others, use more."
> "Un mot suffit aux sages; pour les autres, il en faut plus."
> ##########################################################
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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