Re: [atlarge-discuss] Panel Mandate options

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Abel and all,

  Abel is quite right here for the most part.

  Joop, you should not be using the members of ICANNATLARGE.ORG
for purposes of your ICANNATLARGE.COM.  If Abel or any other
member of ICANNATLARGE.ORG that is listed on the
ICANNATLARGE.COM's membership list that has requested
their name be removed, you Joop should comply with that request
ASAP.   Failure to do so is legally actionable, and MAY result
in a legal action.  However that should not be necessary if
YOU JOOP will comply as requested.

  Abel,I can see where you arrived at the conclusion that Joop
is " impersonating ICANN here with topdown decisions".
However such a term as " impersonating"  seems a little
strong to me personally.  In any event, Joop is attempting
to be persuasive in a forceful manner, which is ok, but
is also a two edged sword, and now again seems to be
swinging in a direction that is not in Joops favor nor
a benefit to his or ICANNATLARGE.ORG's efforts
as a fledgling organization.

  My own interpretation of what Joop seems to be trying to accomplish,
is that he actually is trying too hard, and as such having a negative
effect on his own efforts. This is also as you may know, not new
for Joop.  The IDNO suffered allot from this same sort of
politicking...



Abel Wisman wrote:

> Joop,
>
> As a member of the atlarge.org I still protest you putting my name on
> the atlarge.com list or website.
>
> If and when you get a mandate from the atlarge dot org to run an
> election, or another straw-poll, then I suggest you use the official
> membership list of that organisation, instead of your own.
>
> I also suggest you go to an agreed upon or to agree upon method of
> establishing that mandate, and publicly state you will abide by that
> mandate.
>
> Any other way, like pushing this down the throat of this organisation
> without some form of agreement is nothing but following your own agenda
> and works negatively for this organisation or what is left of it.
>
> Feel free to poll the atlarge dot com "members" but then please do so
> via your forum or own maillinglist.
>
> There is still a semblance of a panel, if they hand it over, a straw
> poll can be run with one simple question: list x names you want to
> organise the new elections.
>
> Then those people setup rules and regulations for that vote and propose
> (straw-poll) how to vote and with what rules.
>
> You are impersonating ICANN here with topdown decisions, again, you can
> do such in atlarge dot com, but please not here, where every member has
> as much rights as you do.
>
> Kind regards
>
> Abel
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joop Teernstra [mailto:terastra@terabytz.co.nz]
> Sent: 26 February 2003 01:10
> To: espresso@e-scape.net
> Cc: atlarge-discuss@lists.fitug.de
> Subject: Re: [atlarge-discuss] Panel Mandate options
>
> At 06:37 a.m. 26/02/2003, you wrote:
> >Hi, Joop,
> >
> >Before I volunteer to watch the Polling Booth, I need to know what is
> >really involved. It's easy enough for me to offer to receive copies of
> >e-mail ballots and count the votes off-line; anything that requires me
> >to be online is more complicated since I have very little time for
> >using Web interfaces and such, especially if there is much of a
> >learning curve -- I have a *lot* of work to do over the next couple of
> >weeks, and all too little brain to do it with!
>
> Hi Judyth,
>
> I did not realize that web access is so difficult for you that you could
>
> not quickly read the Poll Watcher basics put up in the Forum
> http://www.icannatlarge.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=309
>
> I'll copy them here for you.:
> quote
> Pending the election of a Polling Commission, Polls can be undertaken as
> a
> private initiative in a bottom-up fashion.
>
> To add to the credibility of their results, neutral and broadly
> respected
> Watchers need to be engaged.
>
> These watchers need to be able to answer email within 24 hours. These
> watchers should have the following rights:
>
> 1. Get the outgoing Ballot message in advance (for comment and
> amendments) 2. Get copy of all correspondence with voters 3. get Polling
> Options and background story 24H in advance before it goes
> on the PB website (for comment and improvements)
> 4. Get list of all the voters names or email addresses (strictly in
> confidence) as soon as the Ballot goes out.
> 5. Get copy of all actual raw voting results from the database (strictly
> in
> confidence) as soon as the voting closes.
> 6. Get list of all bouncing addresses.
>
> The Watcher's duty will be to report on the Poll and declare the Polling
>
> results reliable or unreliable within 4 days after the closing of the
> Polls. unquote
>
> >Much as I like the idea of using the Polling Booth for gathering input,
>
> >I am still extremely hesitant about conducting official votes on the
> >Web.
> >
> >Given that only one person in two in most developing countries has any
> >Internet access at all, and many of them have limited, intermittent
> >access which can be a problem for dealing with the Web, not to mention
> >that some of them have to pay for their connections by the minute or
> >kilobyte transferred. E-mail tends to be more economical of both time
> >and money, which is a good thing for people in lower-income situations.
>
> I have much experience with poor people in parts of the developing world
>
> (Philippines) and web access is actually easier for most than email-only
>
> accounts.  Poor people do not have computers with email clients. They
> access the internet via Internet cafe's (average cities have HUNDREDS
> and most small towns have a few that are packed with people)  and have
> an
> email account through a web interface (Hotmail, Yahoo, etc.).  Many
> think
> that the web is all there is.
>
> Many do not have telephone connections at home. Many poor people now use
>
> cellular phones, but still do NOT have landlines. (We waited 11 years
> for
> our landline)
>
> >Also, as you've seen, I'm quite concerned about the security and
> >privacy aspects of Web-based voting systems, as well as the
> >difficulties of verifying the identities of voters and of doing a
> >recount when results may be disputed. (BTW, so are most governments and
>
> >other organizations.) Hence my earlier recommendation of a two-step
> >process for e-mail ballots, whereby membership and eligibility to vote
> >are checked first, then identifying information removed before the
> >ballot is passed on for the count.
>
> I think your proposal for a two step verification is excellent and it
> can
> be practiced when handling Booth votes as well.
> I would be more than happy  to let the watchers help me in sorting out
> the
> final full voters' list.
> Should we send ballots to members who indicated that they don't want
> announcements? In case of bounces, should the corresponding names be
> listed
> on the website with a request to update to a working email address?
>
> Maintaining vote anonymity is a much harder thing. If I run the polls
> without watchers, it is only 1 person who has theoretically access to
> confidential data.  To analyze raw results is not easy, but in theory
> database query scripts could be written.
>
> The more watchers there are, the more anonymity can be compromised.
>
> If you use Elisabeth Porteneuve's (Kent Crispin's?) email  votebot, you
> do
> not know how many people will get the confidential data. How watertight
> is
> ICANN's  GNSO secretariat?
>
> An email address, from where the email votes are distributed to watchers
> is
> dangerous, as you cannot know for sure who else is on that distribution
> list.
>
> I regard email voting as less secure than sending votes to a single
> webserver, because emails can be spoofed but  login to a server can be
> made
> secure.
>
> The Booth does the counting and displaying automatically, so that saves
> work and mistakes.
> For verification the PD administrator  sends the raw database output to
> the
> watchers.
>
> Anyway, I can understand that you don't want to commit, but I will
> include
> you in my emails to the watchers anyway, so that you can judge the
> system
> for the next time.
> The members have asked to be polled frequently, so there will be a next
> time.
>
> > From our little test-run of the Polling Booth, during which I myself
> >was unable to vote due to technical difficulties and other members were
>
> >not even invited to cast their ballots,
>
> That had nothing to do with the system. Abel Wisman, Thomas Roessler and
>
> David Farrar were not on my list, because they had publicly requested to
> be
> removed.
> This time, I will add them back, unless they protest now.
>
> >I
> >don't think your system is yet at the point where I'd recommend
> >adopting it as our official method of voting. That's not to say it
> >couldn't be at some point in the future, if provision were made for
> >those who can't vote via the Web, but it would not be my preference
> >now.
> >
> >The topics look good, though I'm too rushed right now to
> >know whether they are what the group as a whole wants right now and I
> >do have some concerns about the process by which the questions were
> >chosen last time around.
>
> The process this time is that I ask appointed  Watchers for their
> approval
> and for amendments, simply in order not to be acting unilaterally.
>
> The *proper* process should be that there is an elected Polling
> Committee
> who will jointly decide on all text and options  used in the Booth and
> in
> the Polling  Notices.
>
> -joop-
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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

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