Kerry Miller wrote:
>
> > Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 22:29:50 -0500
> > From: Diane Cabell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Subject: [IFWP] Re: list Re: The People's Republic of ICANN?
> >
> > I'm still missing the link between a vote (or non-vote) and
> > identification.
> > How do you know who is casting the compulsory vote? And if the voter
> > lies
> > about that, how will you prove otherwise. (Questions I throw perhaps
> > illogically under the title of "enforcement.")
>
> Suppose that every purchaser of internet service fills out a form
> which is registered at the next higher level of access, be it ISP or
> DN management or whatever. Im not fluent in the terminology here
> (LDAP?), but it does seem like the 'infrastructure' is in place for a
> tree of auditable information.
>
And for a massive invasion of privacy. ISPs will never collect this data on
behalf of third parties, and users will never supply it.
>
> > I can see where it might resolve problems of capture. The idea of being
> > obligated to vote in a campaign in which one has no interest might,
> > however, lead to sales of votes or indifferent voting which might be
> > just
> > as unauthentic as a captured election. Interesting possibilities,
> > though.
> > Requires some thought.
> >
> If you ever solve the problem of indifference, let me know! As for
> 'selling votes,' can *any formulation (afford to) go beyond counting
> 'net entities,' to the meatish folk that presumably lie behind them?
> I think thats none of ICANNs business (gotta draw a line
> somewhere!)
>
> At this point, it seems to me the merit lies in simply letting 'the
> people' know that their 'netizenship' is respected, and that their
> participation is not only welcome, but *essential. (I suppose it
> would be necessary to stipulate that being sent voting notices
> would not constitute spam...)
>
The judges of what does and does not constitute 'spam' are the recipients,
not the senders.
>
> kerry
>
