Re: Is shared generally agreed, then?

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

Laurent,

  Please read below your comments/response.

Laurent BERNARD wrote:
> 
> 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.

  This could be done, true enough.  But if you read closely my original
response I said that they would need to AGree to register under only
ONE id on this list.  
> 
> 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)

  I recognize that there are a couple of folks on the list that seem
to be unable, for whatever reason to verify my identity.  But just using
WhosWhere, barefoot, and other E-Mail search facilities that could be
easily rectofied.  I have sent into several of those services that
information
that is verifiable, if those in doubt are inclined to acctually check.

  That being said, I do not see how there could be a problem in voting
if those on this list would use or agree to use an identification
method (Cert) for the perposes of a voting procedure.

  This was done durring the Nov elections this year.  I participated
in that election doing that very thing.  Voting on the internet for
my canadate of choice and other state propositions.  So it is possible
to accomplish without alot of effort.

  You will be seing alot more of this in the next major election
in the US in two years.   So it could also be employed here on this
list without any major problem.  This model has already been used
at IETF in some instances.  I just don't see how or why it would
be a problem here, unless there is some fear of what the REAL
consensus is, or the lack of technical ability within the IAHC to
effect it.
> 
> 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