On 19 July 1999, Weisberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Kent Crispin wrote:
>
>> > Assuming that there is no question about the authenticity of the voters,
>> > the voting website could be duplicated , or even triplicated at several
>> > trusted third-party locations.
>>
>> That's a good idea. Right now the IDNO voting software is *not*
>> being run by a trusted third party at all -- it is being run by a
>> partisan to the debates.
>>
>
>Please expand upon these two issues (including proposed implementation):
>
>1. Use of "trusted third parties;" and
>
>2. Use of multiple vote counting sites.
And while you're answering questions Kent, would you explain why you
hold the IDNO to a higher standard than the working groups and the
pDNC? Both have held votes administered by partisans. WG-C will
be electing its chair by a vote administered by a partisan. WG-C
does not even have an accurate roll, or even a current list of the
candidates. For that matter, I'm unclear as to the date, time,
duration, and methodology to be employed in this vote. And yet,
Mr. Sola's nomination period closes this evening.
And if you're going to trot out the issue regarding differences
between voting software and open roll-call votes, I'll point out that
many of us sat and watched a fiasco of "open roll-call voting" during
the 6/25 San Jose meeting. No actual roll was called, and Michael
miscounted the vote no fewer than 3 times, as I recall.
--
Mark C. Langston Let your voice be heard:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.idno.org
Systems Admin http://www.icann.org
San Jose, CA http://www.dnso.org
