Re: [atlarge-discuss] $1 verification.

["James S. Tyre" <jstyre@jstyre.com>]

Thanks for your response, Sotiris,

One reason why I did not initially self-identify as Karl's lawyer is that I 
realize that puts me in somewhat of a unique situation, as I assume most 
everyone here would accept Karl's word that I am who I say I am, and my 
point never was intended to be about me.  Rather, it was the broader point 
that if the analog option is available, why foreclose it?

I may not always agree with you (as I said, I've not posted here in ages, 
but I've never unsubscribed), but if you were to vouch that Alice is a real 
person whom you know, I would accept your word, you've established your 
bona fides well enough even though we don't know each other.  Same for 
Joop, for example, though certainly not for all who post here.  There are 
reasons why I will not use PayPal, and the cost and time of getting a 
digital certificate seem unnecessary if there are other, perhaps even 
better, means of establishing that a person is a real person - which is all 
I'm talking about here, not whether that person is worthy of office.

At 12:39 AM 5/25/2003 -0400, Sotiris Sotiropoulos wrote:


> James S. Tyre wrote:
>
> > Yes, indeed you were one of the folks from this list who spoke to me on 
> > the telephone (not the only), and yes, indeed I was Karl's lawyer in his 
> > rather successful lawsuit against ICANN.  (I do not assume that most here 
> > know that, and it wasn't especially relevant to my initial point anyway; 
> > though it would be pretty funny if, for example, I asked Louis Touton to 
> > verify my reality, he knows it all too well.)
> >
> > I did not mean to suggest that all forms of digital verification are 
> > invalid, and at the same time, I fully recognize that not all here could 
> > get someone such as Karl to vouch for their bona fides as a real 
> > person.  My purpose only was to express a concern over what I have been 
> > reading about using digital to the exclusion of analog.  I suggest only 
> > that whatever is best in the particular circumstance should be allowed.
>
> James,
>
> In truth, your point would be a lot stronger if this organization were 
> about anything BUT the Internet. Unfortunately, I don't believe that the 
> 'analog' model scales very well on the global Web. So, in order to make it 
> an even playing field for all prospective members, it is a whole lot 
> simpler to have a uniform verification process, whether that be Paypal 
> transactions or digital certificates, take your pick.
>
> Be Well,
>
> --Sotiris Sotiropoulos
>
> --
> -----------
>
> "The science of jurisprudence regards the state and power as the
> ancients regarded fire- namely, as something existing absolutely.
> But for history, the state and power are merely phenomena, just as for
> modern physics fire is not an element but a phenomenon.
>
> From this fundamental difference between the view held by history
> and that held by jurisprudence, it follows that jurisprudence can tell
> minutely how in its opinion power should be constituted and what
> power- existing immutably outside time- is, but to history's questions
> about the meaning of the mutations of power in time it can answer
> nothing."
>                                      --Leo Tolstoy, "War and Peace"

--------------------------------------------------------------------
James S. Tyre                               mailto:jstyre@jstyre.com
Law Offices of James S. Tyre          310-839-4114/310-839-4602(fax)
10736 Jefferson Blvd., #512               Culver City, CA 90230-4969
Co-founder, The Censorware Project             http://censorware.net


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