[governance] Issues concerning standing IGC members list-postal

[Carlos Afonso]

Besides, frankly, what are the grounds for believing this election might 
be rigged???

It is curious, we are based on an informal arrangement of peers, but 
when it comes to deciding something by voting, we start having all 
concerns typical of a formally constituted congress or association???

CGI.br has offered its secure online voting system on a voluntary basis. 
If there are questions even before anyone knows details of the system, I 
will be glad (or sad) to request CGI.br not to offer it (I do not want 
to cause absolutely any trouble to them), and let us go for a 
sophisticated one, perhaps hiring (!!!) Diebold?

We lose a lot of time in silly parlance... :(

--c.a.

Ginger Paque wrote:
> While I understand Yehuda's concern about a physical verification, I do not
> think this situation requires a paper trail in this case, given the level of
> difficulty of implementation (time and expense, deficiency of many delivery
> systems) and the low level of likelihood of gross error. I support the
> decision to carry out email only balloting in this case.
> 
> -----Mensaje original-----
> De: Yehuda Katz [mailto:yehudakatz at mailinator.com] 
> Enviado el: Domingo, 27 de Julio de 2008 12:51 p.m.
> Para: governance at lists.cpsr.org
> Asunto: RE: RE: [governance] Issues concerning standing IGC members list
> 
> In that case, I want to duly note that the request for Authenticate of the
> Vote
> by POSTAL means was denied, with my Objection.
> 
> -
> 
> Having witnessed several of these "On-line" IG-Governance type of elections,
> Those being: 
> 1. Icann's At-large Elections [Wherein 64,000 voters were disenfranchised]
> 2. Icann-at-Large Elections [.Org &.Com / Jeffsey & Joop sites respectively]
> 3. ICANN ALAC Elections [Past]
> 
> -
> 
> In fairness to 'Your' argument please refer to this article:
> 
> International Association for Cryptologic Research
> Secure Online Elections in Practice
> http://eprint.iacr.org/2008/157.pdf
> 
> http://www.iacr.org/
> 
> Wherein the examination of four (4) 'state-of-the-art' e-voting protocols
> are
> evaluated with a number of security objectives.
> 
> -
> Paraminder, does your system meet the criteria set forth by the IACR.Org?
> 
> Again, I offer to offset the POSTAL cost of holding the Vote/Census.
> Secondly, I propose that a POSTAL Census be taken on a 'once annually
> basis'.
> -
> 
> P.S.:
> Honestly I do not understand your objections, what? once a year you have to
> send in a letter. Really is a little dedication to this matter, that much of
> a
> hassle.
> I don't get it.
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> 
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> 
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> 
> 

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance