Well, I have some coments:
You write: As to your comment about electronic signatures: yes, there are
techniques that could be used to better identify people. However:
1) deploying those techniques has a cost;
Comment: The phrase, "You get what you pay for" is useful here because of
course, If necessary, you must pay to obtain what you need. This is true for
Icann also. The question can be : Do Icann need?
2) they are not easy for people to use;
May I disagree with this? Day to day the tech world is more complex to make
the user's life easier.
3) it is not clear that there *should* be any identification requirements --
this is supposed to be open to general public participation from anyone who
can connect to the Internet.
This is also true. BUT (there's always a but) if you need legitimate your
position, then the should change to a must.
Regards
CTIT UPADI
Carlos Vera Quintana
Presidente
Ecuador
http://www.upadi.org
Kent Crispin wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 18, 2000 at 06:52:02AM -0500, Carlos Vera wrote:
> > well there should be one way. What about electronic signature?
>
> You should be aware that the message from "Jeff Williams" is actually
> from me -- If you examine the headers of the mail message it states
> quite plainly that it is from "[EMAIL PROTECTED]". The crude forgery
> (anyone can change the "From: " header on an email) was sent partly as a
> joke, and partly as an example to remind us that "identity" on the
> Internet should not be taken for granted. [*]
>
> I don't know if Bill (if it was really Bill) was joking or not, but it
> is clearly absurd to accuse ICANN of "padding" an unverified (and
> unverifiable) attendence list -- the list has no formal value for good
> or ill, and is just presented as is for informational purposes, as a
> courtesy to participants. Besides, I haven't noticed any press releases
> from ICANN saying "Look everybody, we are OK: Bill Lovell engaged in
> electronic participation with us."
>
> As to your comment about electronic signatures: yes, there are
> techniques that could be used to better identify people. However:
> 1) deploying those techniques has a cost; 2) they are not easy for
> people to use; 3) it is not clear that there *should* be any
> identification requirements -- this is supposed to be open to general
> public participation from anyone who can connect to the Internet.
>
> [*]
> For those whose mail readers may not give them easy access to the
> headers, here are the headers of the message I sent as "Jeff Williams".
> Also, there may be some people who are not aware that "Jeff Williams" is
> a fabricated persona managed by a person or persons unknown. The fact
> that the persona is fabricated has been established beyond a reasonable
> doubt -- the internal inconsistencies alone are sufficient proof.
>
> The headers:
>
> > From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sun Jun 18 00:59:05 2000
> > Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Received: from ns1.vrx.net (ns1.vrx.net [204.138.71.254])
> > by songbird.com (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id AAA28846
> > for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Sun, 18 Jun 2000 00:59:04 -0700
> > Received: by ns1.vrx.net (Postfix)
> > id 33EF0F045; Sun, 18 Jun 2000 03:58:59 -0400 (EDT)
> > Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Received: by ns1.vrx.net (Postfix, from userid 1074)
> > id C721BF100; Sun, 18 Jun 2000 03:58:57 -0400 (EDT)
> > Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Received: from songbird.com (songbird.com [206.14.4.2])
> > by ns1.vrx.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C366F045
> > for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Sun, 18 Jun 2000 03:58:54 -0400 (EDT)
> > Received: (from kent@localhost)
> > by songbird.com (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id AAA28838
> > for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Sun, 18 Jun 2000 00:58:49 -0700
> > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> --
> Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] lonesome." -- Mark Twain
