[ncdnhc-discuss] Online elections can be extremely cheap
Kent Crispin
kent at songbird.com
Tue Jun 11 07:07:39 CEST 2002
On Mon, Jun 10, 2002 at 06:58:48PM -0400, James Love wrote:
> Kent, what the context for this comment? (I was searching for your paper on
> the NomCom). Jamie
I recently reposted that paper on the ga list:
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc10/msg01920.html
> http://www.icann.org/comments-mail/membership/archive1/msg00609.html
>
> [Membership] [Comment-Mac] Re: Secret ballots
I see you are doing a bit of research. You will find that I have a long
history with studying election systems -- the gTLD-MoU PAB use an online
voting system (I was elected chairman using it, in fact). Later I
implemented two more online voting systems; using them, I have managed
online elections for NCDNHC and for the ccTLDs; I'm one of the GA
"watchdogs"; and, as you know, I worked on the ICANN election system.
I've studied the problem for a long time, and I have a significant
amount of real experience with online elections.
The discussion you reference below concerned the difference between
secret ballot elections and roll-call voting (which is what, for
example, the ICANN board uses most of the time) -- if you are willing to
give up a secret ballot, things become substantially simpler. On the
other hand, non-private voting facilitates the buying of votes, since
the buyer can be sure that he got what he paid for.
There are two important points about the message below, though: First of
all, it is just a discussion of the voting mechanism itself, and it does
not address the issue of identification/registration of voters; and
second, it was written before I had the practical experience of dealing
with the scaling problems that ICANN has, and today I would much more
carefully delineate the different areas.
For someone with a long time interest in online voting, the experience
with the ICANN election was absolutely priceless. No amount of
theoretical babble can replace it.
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----
>
> a.. To: Eric Weisberg <weisberg at texoma.net>, comment-mac at icann.org
> b.. Subject: [Membership] [Comment-Mac] Re: Secret ballots
> c.. From: Kent Crispin <kent at songbird.com>
> d.. Date: Wed, 19 May 1999 09:32:28 -0700
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----
>
> On Wed, May 19, 1999 at 01:43:09AM -0500, Eric Weisberg wrote:
> [...]
>
> > Nothing else associated with this effort has been or will be cheap.
>
> Online elections can be extremely cheap.
>
> One of the recurring criticisms of ICANN is that it is a rich man's
> game (Roberto Gaetano hypothesizes that ICANN is really a conspiracy
> hatched by the Airline Industry). The undeniable fact is that full
> participation in ICANN is an expensive proposition, and that expense
> leaves many interested parties (such as myself) at a significant
> disadvantage. The only way that such people can effectively
> participate is through online activity; and therefore, I consider it
> a high priority for ICANN to conduct as many of its activities on
> the net as possible.
>
> Hence I much prefer online voting, and I don't want a voting system
> that is incompatible with online operation.
>
> Online operation of a roll-call voting protocol is simple, cheap,
> straightforward, and doesn't require any trusted third parties
> (TTPs). Online operation of a secret ballot is somewhat more
> complicated, and requires the use of trusted third parties. A TTP is
> by definition an entity that all the participants trust. (I should
> point out that A TTP is required for all secret ballots, not just
> online ones -- we have precisely the same problem if the vote is
> conducted by regular mail.)
>
> Coming up with the TTP is the real difficult part. Eric suggests
> something called the "American Arbitration Council" or something like
> that. Joop innocently suggests his votebot. I don't trust either of
> these, and I suspect that there are many other people who won't trust
> them. Of course, we could always just let the ICANN board count the
> votes...or let them pick a TTP they like, right?
>
> I'm not saying that a TTP couldn't eventually be found. The problem
> is that trust is intrinsically something that requires time to
> develop. The vast majority of the at-large members of ICANN, as well
> as the Board and many other players, have to be comfortable with the
> choice. As far as non-USA participants, the "American Arbitration
> Board" is maybe a little more real than the ICIIU, but how do you
> know?
>
> On the other hand, online roll-call voting works, out of the box, and
> does not require a TTP. Verification is instant and essentially
> perfect. No auditing is required.
>
> > Why
> > start skimping with the integrity of the process?
>
> I argue that starting with secret ballots *is* skimping on the
> integrity of the process.
>
> > The privacy of one's vote
> > is a prime value. It is not something I am interested in losing. I doubt
> > there are many who feel otherwise.
>
> You should control your jerking knees and sloganeering, and try to
> think outside your box. "Privacy" is not an absolute, it's not a
> mantra, a religious matter, or a "prime value". It's not even
> well-defined: it exists in many shades of gray, and has to be
> evaluated along with everything else.
>
> In fact, my prime concern is precisely the "integrity of the
> process". However, one can't simply paper over the difficulties with
> secret ballots in the name of "privacy".
>
> --
> Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be
> kent at songbird.com lonesome." -- Mark Twain
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----
>
> a.. Follow-Ups:
> a.. [Membership] [Comment-Mac] Re: Secret ballots
> a.. From: Eric Weisberg <weisberg at texoma.net>
> a.. References:
> a.. [Membership] [Comment-Mac] Secret ballots
> a.. From: Jonathan Zittrain <zittrain at cyber.law.harvard.edu>
> b.. [Membership] [Comment-Mac] privacy and voting
> a.. From: Kent Crispin <kent at songbird.com>
> c.. Re: [Membership] [Comment-Mac] Re: Secret ballots
> a.. From: Darrell Greenwood <darrell_greenwood at mindlink.net>
> d.. Re: [Membership] [Comment-Mac] Re: Secret ballots
> a.. From: Craig Simon <cls at flywheel.com>
> e.. Re: [Membership] [Comment-Mac] Re: Secret ballots
> a.. From: Eric Weisberg <weisberg at texoma.net>
> a.. Prev by Date: Re: [Membership] [Comment-Mac] Re: Secret ballots
> b.. Next by Date: Re: [Membership] [Comment-Mac] Re: Secret ballots
> c.. Prev by thread: Re: [Membership] [Comment-Mac] Re: Secret ballots
> d.. Next by thread: [Membership] [Comment-Mac] Re: Secret ballots
> e.. Index(es):
> a.. Date
> b.. Thread
> --------------------------------
> James Love mailto:james.love at cptech.org
> http://www.cptech.org +1.202.387.8030 mobile +1.202.361.3040
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss at icann-ncc.org
> http://www.icann-ncc.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
--
Kent Crispin "Be good, and you will be
kent at songbird.com lonesome." -- Mark Twain
More information about the Ncuc-discuss
mailing list