Subject: Announcement ivta.org

From: Ed Gerck <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2000 11:40:45 -0800

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

Cheers,

Ed Gerck

---

From: Ross Finlayson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2000 12:25:05 -0800

From the web site:

"The IVTA takes much of its spirit from the Internet Engineering Task Force
(IETF)"

and

"The development of public standards at the IVTA is specific for Internet
voting applications, but otherwise similar to the work at the IETF and
other Internet standards bodies."

That's good, but why not undertake this within the existing IETF process,
rather than trying to emulate it?

	Ross.

---

From: Ross Finlayson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2000 12:25:05 -0800

From the web site:

and

	Ross.

---

From: Ed Gerck <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2000 12:32:53 -0800

> rather than trying to emulate it?

Because it is outside the scope of the IETF.

Cheers,

Ed Gerck

---

From: Ed Gerck <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2000 12:32:53 -0800

Cheers,

Ed Gerck

---

From: Paul Hoffman / IMC <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2000 12:54:56 -0800

>Because it is outside the scope of the IETF.

For once, Ed and I might be in agreement on something. The IETF has already 
done all the technical groundwork needed for the process. They've got 
OpenPGP or S/MIME for the format of the messages, TLS or IPsec for 
transmission of any unencrypted content, and PKIX for certificates. All are 
on standards track. They can give privacy and authentication.

The remaining questions might be what needs to be private or public, what 
needs to be authenticated, and who the authenticating authority is. This 
doesn't sound like a job for the IETF, although I'm sure many IETF folks 
will want to participate or at least watch. We might even pull out our 
sharpened sticks if any of the participants say things like "our 
proprietary technology which is more secure" or such things.

--Paul Hoffman, Director
--Internet Mail Consortium

---

From: Paul Hoffman / IMC <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2000 12:54:56 -0800

--Paul Hoffman, Director

---

From: Carl Malamud <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2000 15:53:41 -0500 (EST)

If it is outside the scope of the IETF, why send the announcement
to the IETF list?  :))

Carl

---

From: Carl Malamud <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2000 15:53:41 -0500 (EST)

Carl

---

From: "Michael H. Warfield" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2000 18:30:48 -0500

> If it is outside the scope of the IETF, why send the announcement

	Common interests?  Notifying those people who think it is with
the scope of the IETF and would bitch that others are doing things behind
their backs?  Defensive action to protect from negative reactions from
IETF stalwarts?

	Announcement was a good move.  Moving the discussion to appropriate
forums would also be a good move.

> Carl

	Mike
-- 
 Michael H. Warfield    |  (770) 985-6132   |  [email-masked]
  (The Mad Wizard)      |  (770) 331-2437   |  http://www.wittsend.com/mhw/
  NIC whois:  MHW9      |  An optimist believes we live in the best of all
 PGP Key: 0xDF1DD471    |  possible worlds.  A pessimist is sure of it!

---

From: "Michael H. Warfield" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2000 18:30:48 -0500

Mike

---

From: Ed Gerck <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2000 16:01:39 -0800

> If it is outside the scope of the IETF, why send the announcement

For several good reasons but mainly because the IETF list and WGs have
many individuals  that have already gone through the learning curve needed
for collaborative work in standards work -- for example, that can reply in a
positive and up-beat way to this type of questions ;-)

We need to cope with diversity, and the old hands know this well, by being
liberal in what we accept while being conservative in what we require -- you
may note that my announcement email was short and that was, of course,
by design.

Also, because there are many individuals and companies in the IETF list
that may very well profit from a *specific* application area that can
immediately help them leverage from IETF work and experience -- which they
know much better than outsiders.  For example, by helping the IVTA avoid to
reinvent the wheel (so to say -- who needs yet another file transfer protocol?).

Last, but not all, because the IETF process is exactly the art (science?) of
transferring to the public domain information which is, essentially, private
-- so that everyone can benefit, including vendors and users.  Which
experience is by itself very useful to the young IVTA.  In elections systems,
the experience is the traditional one of closed systems and this needs to
change in order to cope with the much higher stakes and risks of an eventual
Internet election.

Thanks for the opportunity to explain, in the best IETF tradition ;-)  Iwrote
a bit, you ask ... I have then the opportunity and feel the need to explain
more.

Cheers,

Ed Gerck

---

From: Ed Gerck <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2000 16:01:39 -0800

Cheers,

Ed Gerck

---

From: James Seng <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2000 09:12:46 +0800

> Because it is outside the scope of the IETF.

Why is it outside the scope of IETF? 

-James Seng

---

From: James Seng <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2000 09:12:46 +0800

-James Seng