Re: Is shared generally agreed, then?

[Laurent BERNARD <lbernard@artinternet.fr>]

Hi.

thanks for your comments.
Anyway, as working for an ISP, holding multiple domain names, and
personnally having
or able to create multiple accounts in other companies, with different
names, which I'm
sure is not my very own privilege, I perfectly could, without any way for
anybody
to dig it out, vote under multiple personnalities, including names and
everything different and so on.

Then, as a vote would have an effective influence on the decisions
regarding the topics we are
discussing here, if not MAKING these decisions, this is still, IMHO, a bad
idea.

As the debate is still passionated here, it would make things worse in fact.

Couldn't you, yourself, create fake mail accounts under INE, IEG, netcom,
which already
makes 3 ? (not saying you would do it, peace).
Especially you, having apparently some difficulties to identify yourself
reliably
for some people here, should be very careful with these voting dangers.
(this is not an attack, please, just an observation)

Best greetings.

At 03:41 AM 1/7/97 +0000, you wrote:
>Laurent,
>
>  Please read below your comments.
>
>Laurent BERNARD wrote:
>> 
>> Also :
>> a voting process requires reliable identification and count of voting
people.
>> Even I could vote with at least half a dozen different mail-accounts.
>> Then a vote wouldn't be reliable at all, and certainly not representative.
>
>  This is not really a valid argument.  Each E-Mail id has a name
>associated
>with it.  Not a sound premise.  Therefore invalid argument.
>
>  A simple statment validating each participant on the list for ONE
>E-Mail
>id would suffice for these perposes.  Failier or seccumvention of such
>would
>mean expulsion from the list and their vote under any ID they may have
>use
>not counted.
>> 
>> 'would be nice, but won't work, IMHO.
>
>  Could work, if handled properly by IAHC.
>> 
>> At 12:53 PM 1/6/97 +0000, you wrote:
>> >Dave,
>> >
>> >  I believe that the refrence to voting was in respect to people
>> >on this list.
>> >
>> >Dave Crocker wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >There will be no convincing concensus without a vote, only divided
>> >> >opinions.  I do not understand why this idea was quickly shot down.
It is
>> >> >the only way to find out what percentage of people support each
issue.  It
>> >> >is one of the corner stones of democracy..
>> >>
>> >>         Please review IETF materials concerning voting
>> <http://www.ietf.org>.
>> >>
>> >>         The simple explanation is that voting requires membership and
there
>> >> is no "membership" of the relevant population, from which to derive a
vote.
>> 
>> Laurent BERNARD
>> "Not knowing it couldn't be done, he went ahead and did it"
>
>Regards,
>-- 
>Jeffrey A. Williams
>DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java Development Eng.
>Information Eng. Group. 
>Phone :972-447-1878
>E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
>
>

Laurent BERNARD
"Not knowing it couldn't be done, he went ahead and did it"