Re: [members-discuss] Request to amend the RIPE NCC Articles of Association
On Tue, 24 Jun 2014, Nick Hilliard wrote: No doubt BigPulse are a reputable company
No idea but I don't trust any company that can't also include a plain text body, instead requiring the participant to trust more easily phishable vote email brandon
On 24/06/2014 16:15, Brandon Butterworth wrote:
No idea but I don't trust any company that can't also include a plain text body, instead requiring the participant to trust more easily phishable vote email
that bit doesn't concern me, tbh. They make their business run on trust, so if their trust breaks down, so does their business model. So probably they are trustworthy. Thing is, I understand the paper voting model. It goes like this: - get ballot paper, put mark on paper, get paper collected, lock ballot box in room, count votes according to prescribed formula in the presence of other people, get result. At any stage, people can look in on the process and inspect what's happening. The evoting model goes like this: - identify yourself using email, get authentication token, log on to web site, click some buttons, <magic>, get result. No doubt the magic is the right magic, but I don't understand it. I'm just more comfortable with something I understand, both at each point along the way and in its entirety. It's not a problem that it's really low tech. Sometimes that's good if it means we can all understand how it works. Nick
I have no problem with paper (although a the RIPE region is quite large, that does involve it's own problems) or e-voting as such - I'll use whichever is most convenient to me. What I do require though, is enough time to cast my vote and that is the major failing of the current system. Rob
On 24/06/14 16:38, rob.golding@astutium.com wrote:
I have no problem with paper (although a the RIPE region is quite large, that does involve it's own problems) or e-voting as such - I'll use whichever is most convenient to me.
What I do require though, is enough time to cast my vote and that is the major failing of the current system. Well, this is one thing we were asking about. We currently allow a voting window of 16 hours (which is an improvement on the original 15 mins). How much time do you think would be reasonable?
Nigel
On 24/giu/2014, at 22:24, Nigel Titley <nigel@titley.com> wrote:
Well, this is one thing we were asking about. We currently allow a voting window of 16 hours (which is an improvement on the original 15 mins). How much time do you think would be reasonable?
3 days? A.
I agree. 2-3 days should be sufficient for everyone in all time zones to vote. With Kind Regards, Dominik Nowacki Clouvider Limited is a limited company registered in England and Wales. Registered number: 08750969. Registered office: 88 Wood Street, London, United Kingdom, EC2V 7RS. Please note that Clouvider Limited may monitor email traffic data and also the content of email for the purposes of security and staff training. This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the intended recipient. If you do not believe you are the intended recipient you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify abuse@clouvider.net of this e-mail immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. Clouvider Limited nor any of its employees therefore does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of this message, which arise as a result of e-mail transmission. If verification is required please request a hard-copy version. -----Original Message----- From: members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Andrea Cocito Sent: 24 June 2014 22:17 To: Nigel Titley Cc: members-discuss@ripe.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Request to amend the RIPE NCC Articles of Association
On 24/giu/2014, at 22:24, Nigel Titley <nigel@titley.com> wrote:
Well, this is one thing we were asking about. We currently allow a voting window of 16 hours (which is an improvement on the original 15 mins). How much time do you think would be reasonable?
3 days? A. ---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/ Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses.
Well, this is one thing we were asking about. We currently allow a voting window of 16 hours (which is an improvement on the original 15 mins). How much time do you think would be reasonable?
I'd be happy with 2 days/48-hours Rob
Hello, Most (if not all) information about voting's questions is available prior to the voting beginning, so the only thing that somebody has to "sleep with" is the discussion at the meeting itself. I do not think it takes a lot of time to do so and prefer the voting results to be announced during the meeting course. So I'll be good with 24-36 hours (taking into account that Friday is only half day packed). Regards, Vladislav -----Original Message----- From: members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Nigel Titley Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2014 12:25 AM To: members-discuss@ripe.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Request to amend the RIPE NCC Articles ofAssociation On 24/06/14 16:38, rob.golding@astutium.com wrote:
I have no problem with paper (although a the RIPE region is quite large, that does involve it's own problems) or e-voting as such - I'll
use whichever is most convenient to me.
What I do require though, is enough time to cast my vote and that is the major failing of the current system. Well, this is one thing we were asking about. We currently allow a voting window of 16 hours (which is an improvement on the original 15 mins). How much time do you think would be reasonable?
Nigel ---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/ Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses.
Hi Nick, Op 24 jun. 2014, om 17:34 heeft Nick Hilliard <nick@netability.ie> het volgende geschreven:
Thing is, I understand the paper voting model. It goes like this:
- get ballot paper, put mark on paper, get paper collected, lock ballot box in room, count votes according to prescribed formula in the presence of other people, get result.
At any stage, people can look in on the process and inspect what's happening.
The evoting model goes like this:
- identify yourself using email, get authentication token, log on to web site, click some buttons, <magic>, get result.
To be honest the current paper voting model probably goes like this: - get ballot paper, put mark on paper, get paper collected, lock ballot box in room, clicking on some buttons in the presence of other people, <magic>, get result. So I am not sure how much abandoning the paper ballots would change in terms of understanding the whole process. Keeping the paper ballots does add an extra layer of anonymity for the people in the room even if BigPulse messes up (I do hope they generate random auth tokens and don't just MD5 the membership number or the LIR RegID like https://medium.com/@vijayp/of-taxis-and-rainbows-f6bc289679a1). I personally wouldn't mind if we go to all-electronic voting. Cheers, Sander
Hi Nick, all, On 24/06/2014 12:06, Nick Hilliard wrote:
The bottom line is that if you log into an online evoting system, you need to trust that the system will not associate your authentication token with your ballot.
I think that's fair. On 24/06/2014 16:34, Nick Hilliard wrote:
The evoting model goes like this:
- identify yourself using email, get authentication token, log on to web site, click some buttons, <magic>, get result.
No doubt the magic is the right magic, but I don't understand it. I'm just more comfortable with something I understand, both at each point along the way and in its entirety. It's not a problem that it's really low tech. Sometimes that's good if it means we can all understand how it works.
I actually think this is not so fair. The "magic" is revealed in detail in the voting report and its linked documents. Every single vote is listed with its receipt number (I checked mine) and the result of each count is reported, and itself verifiable. This is linked from the web page for the GM. Best regards, Dave -- Dave Wilson, Project Manager web: www.heanet.ie HEAnet Ltd, 5 George's Dock, IFSC, Dublin 1 tel: +353-1-660-9040 Registered in Ireland, no 275301 fax: +353-1-660-3666
Hi Dave, all, On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 02:59:50PM +0100, Dave Wilson wrote:
I actually think this is not so fair. The "magic" is revealed in detail in the voting report and its linked documents. Every single vote is listed with its receipt number (I checked mine) and the result of each count is reported, and itself verifiable. This is linked from the web page for the GM.
I'd call that a problem, actually. While it is nice to be able to verify that my vote was correctly counted, the secret ballot exists for one reason: to prevent vote buying, as the buyer will not be able to make sure the payee voted as "contracted". If the voting results are publically available, linked to receipt #, this verification is possible... cheers, Sascha Luck
Hi Sascha: I think your point is valued... But for real... The ripe community as I know for past 7 years... Such situation is very unlikely to happen, and on the other hand, if someone have agreed to be bought, I do not understand much of his intention to change his vote during the actual voting with or without being verified. And secondly, vote can be bought, and each cost 1600 euro/ year:) according to current amount of voting, you only need about 200 vote to secure almost anything, so 320,000 euro/year. Just my two second:)
On 2014年6月25日, at 下午10:58, Sascha Luck <lists-ripe@c4inet.net> wrote:
Hi Dave, all,
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 02:59:50PM +0100, Dave Wilson wrote: I actually think this is not so fair. The "magic" is revealed in detail in the voting report and its linked documents. Every single vote is listed with its receipt number (I checked mine) and the result of each count is reported, and itself verifiable. This is linked from the web page for the GM.
I'd call that a problem, actually. While it is nice to be able to verify that my vote was correctly counted, the secret ballot exists for one reason: to prevent vote buying, as the buyer will not be able to make sure the payee voted as "contracted". If the voting results are publically available, linked to receipt #, this verification is possible...
cheers, Sascha Luck
---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/
Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses.
participants (12)
-
Andrea Cocito -
Brandon Butterworth -
Dave Wilson -
Dominik Nowacki -
Lu -
Nick Hilliard -
Nigel Titley -
poty＠iiat.ru -
Rob Golding -
rob.golding＠astutium.com
-
Sander Steffann -
Sascha Luck