Subject: RE: IVTA, Re: internet voting -- ICANN, SmartInitiatives, etc.]

From: Ed Gerck <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001 18:03:11 -0800

[Pls correct my former msg with the additions of "voting" after "Internet" as
given below. Sorry for double posting.]

Paul:

In the interest of dialogue, I wish to remind you that this thread started yesterday
when someone asked what was the IETF doing on voting protocols.  Going further
back, almost one year ago when the IVTA was to be founded to -- quess what --
discuss Internet voting protocols (as the Internet Voting Technology Alliance), 
I sent the following email to this list:

/////////
List:

                  Announcement ivta.org

Internet voting is a case where privacy must be protected, so that
arguments to justify losing voter privacy in the good name of security
are simply not possible.  Which  firmly posits security  as a protection
of privacy -- not as an enemy of privacy -- in the problem-solving
assumptions to be considered.

In this context, an international team of experts and companies are calling for
open discussions on Internet voting technology.  A public founding
assembly will take place February 28 in Washington D.C. at 9 a.m.

Details at http://www.ivta.org
/////////

In the discussion that followed, it was clear that the collective mind of the IETF
did not want to develop Internet voting protocols and that the IVTA was a good move
to take such subject elsewhere, to an application-specific forum.  Of course,
this was all before Florida, when "chad" was likely to be seen as a misspelling
for something else.

So, there is a forum already for discussing Internet voting protocols -- it is the
IVTA. The tech list charter is archived at http://www.ivta.org/tech/charter.txt and
the archives are at http://www.mail-archive.com/[email-masked]/

Needless to say, the IVTA was founded based on some ideas from the IETF,
including open peer review as a mechanism of choice for defining Internet
protocols and the idea of favoring consensus building ove rmajority decisions.

Cheers,

Ed Gerck

Ed Gerck wrote:

> Paul Hoffman / IMC wrote:
>
> > Ed, why do you insist on advertising your patent-pending voting
> > solution on the IETF mailing list? It does not involve any IETF
> > protocol work, does it?
>
> ;-) SMTP, HTML, TLS, PGP, and others, including TCP/IP.
>
> Pls do not be so bent out of shape by the word "patent".  I think we
> have a fair proposal for it, which we call FREE patent, and is much the
> same as FREE software.
>
> However, I respect your disagreement.  Hope we can meet some day.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Ed Gerck
>
> -