[ncdnhc-discuss] Online elections can be extremely cheap
James Love
james.love at cptech.org
Tue Jun 11 13:21:56 CEST 2002
Is Stuart open to indirect popular elections? I had the impression he was
not.
Jamie
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kent Crispin" <kent at songbird.com>
To: "NCDNHC-discuss list" <discuss at icann-ncc.org>
Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2002 1:07 AM
Subject: Re: [ncdnhc-discuss] Online elections can be extremely cheap
: 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
:
: _______________________________________________
: Discuss mailing list
: Discuss at icann-ncc.org
: http://www.icann-ncc.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
:
:
More information about the Ncuc-discuss
mailing list