[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[ga-full] Re: [ga] GA Rules don't go far enough
Dave and all,
Well Dave I see you ate your can of "Whip-Ass" today! Mercy!
> Joe Kelsey and everyone else,
> Joe Kelsey, you are a twit and idiot. Most folks here
> already know that, they are just too nice to tell you. Well
> I am in my Taxpayer/Consumer mode right now so I don't
> give a shit if you like me or what I got to say on this post
> to you or not. Is there any part of what I just said YOU
> Joe Kelsey, that you don't understand?
> Your idea stinks to high heaven for several reasons, some obvious
> other not. You must have had a brain fart when you came up with
> this bunch of nasty gas. Because that is about all it is.
> Why you ask? Well there are too many reasons to list here,
> but I will give you a few for a clue! >;)
> First off you would need to charge allot of $$ to get the pikers
> and frauds from participating. That eliminates participation by
> people in less advantaged countries. Thereby ICANN would not
> be able to meet its mandate and requirement to have multinational
> participation in a realistic way and some countries none. But of course
> you being a twit, you didn't think of that did ya? Of course not! :(
> As for well known PKI certificates from well known companies.
> Well I would not except some I have seen from IBM as they
> can generate those at will. Same goes for allot of companies
> Hardly making them any more creditable. than self generated
> ones. So that is just some more hot gas, out of your ass! >;)
> And given that IBM for instance has been busted right here in
> my area for employing illegal immigrants, I would not be surprised
> that for the right price, they would generate any certificate I was
> willing to pay for if the price was right. I would probably get
> some extras for my four dogs as well, just to make it interesting,
> if I wanted to. Which I sure don't.
> So Joe Kelsey, you twit, what you need is two things. First
> and independent Certificate authority to generate Certificates
> PKI, ECC, PGP Keys, or whatever flavor/type. And new ones
> to be created for each member every year or every month issued
> by this same Independent CA. Next, and in addition to, for purposes
> of voting each member should assigned an E-Mail address for voting
> purposes only aliased to their existing registered E-Mail address. These
> should remain permanent or for as long as they are members.
> The last thing you need to do is get proper security installed on the
> site where E-mail list and voting is going to take place requiring
> login and authentication for voting. IPSEC should be use here
> as well or SSLv3/TLS. IPSEC is difficult to implement properly,
> so I would opt for SSLv3/TLS instead with strong encryption.
> Now this is a beginning.... Got that you little twit?
> In a message dated 2/15/00 7:24:12 PM Pacific Standard Time,
> firstname.lastname@example.org writes:
> << Roberto Gaetano writes:
> > Harald wrote:
> > >Because the rules that were adopted say that the proof of identity
> > >iprocess s only invoked when an identity is challenged, and the list
> > >imonitor is satisfied that there's reason to pursue the challenge.
> > >
> > There's also another reason to limit the check to the challenged
> > cases.
> > We will have to move, for a number of reasons, to a situation in
> > which "Membership" is a concept distinct from
> > "Mailing-List-Subscriber", and in which there will be *many* mailing
> > lists, with specific focus. At that point in time, it will seem
> > reasonable to check the identity for "Members" (the more 'stable'
> > population, that will have the right of vote, ....), and this may be
> > done once and for good, while the 'mobile' population (the people
> > subscribing to a general-purpose mailing list) will necessarily not
> > be subject to systematic control (too expansive).
> All professional societies avoid the problemof identity simply by the
> fact that they charge for membership. If you have to pay for something,
> you have to identify yourself and you have incentive to not pay multiple
> times. Unfortunately, this option is not available to a so-called open
> membership group as the DNSO. However, any serious member of the DNSO
> would, no doubt, belong to one or more professional societies, many of
> whom may have network presences. I know that the ACM and IEEE do, and
> undoubtedly some lawyers groups must along with other groups fitting
> most of the members of the DNSO. Maybe we can work out some method of
> validation with these groups. ACM and IEEE offer e-mail forwarding
> services for members-only.
> My idea is really only partially formed, but it might have promise. I
> cannot really come up with any other ideas that do not involve charging
> for membership.
> Of course, a signed PKI certificate from a well-known organization that
> requires physical proof of identity should always be acceptable.
> Certainly, any self-signed certificate is worthless, but a certificate
> from a well-known company (GTE, IBM, etc.) should also be acceptable.
> What it really boils down to is requiring something other than a simple
> e-mail address to be eligible for voting. A specific e-mail address
> from a source that requires membership (ACM, IEEE) would do, or a
> suitable certificate. Both of these are more or less trivial to
> validate, but do not prevent duplication by a determined persona.
> Other ideas?
> /Joe >>
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman INEGroup (Over 95k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
Contact Number: 972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
This message was passed to you via the email@example.com list.
Send mail to firstname.lastname@example.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html