RE: [election-services] OASIS Demo for NASS / NASED

["David RR Webber \(XML\)" <david@drrw.info>]

John,

FYI - background info' - a bill was just introduced in the US senate that seeks to ban all DRE's from 2012.

That's why I'm saying you need a holistic approach here that shows the completeness of the standard - and the applicability to a whole range of solutions - otherwise you run the risk of being labelled a dsig/cert electronic only technology...

Auditing is about alot more than just dsig's.

DW

> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: RE: [election-services] OASIS Demo for NASS / NASED
> From: "John Ross" <ross@secstan.com>
> Date: Mon, November 05, 2007 3:56 am
> To: "'David RR Webber (XML)'" <david@drrw.info>,  "'Zelechoski, Peter'"
> <pzelechoski@essvote.com>
> Cc: "'John Borras'" <johnaborras@yahoo.co.uk>,  "'eml'"
> <election-services@lists.oasis-open.org>,  "'Lori Steele'"
> <lori@everyonecounts.com>,  "'Craig Burton'" <craig@everyonecounts.com>
> 
> Throwing in my ten cents here.
> 
> From the experience of the UK pilots, verifiability is one of the most
> important area where the current electoral systems need to be enhanced, if
> we can demonstrate verifiable audit records using electronic signatures, in
> my view that will help improve the verifiability of the whole process.  So I
> think peter's proposal is more about improving verifiability and having
> trust is the auditing capability of the systems. 
> 
> JR
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David RR Webber (XML) [mailto:david@drrw.info] 
> Sent: 04 November 2007 18:18
> To: Zelechoski,Peter
> Cc: John Borras; eml; Lori Steele; Craig Burton
> Subject: RE: [election-services] OASIS Demo for NASS / NASED
> 
> Peter,
> 
> Agreed - we need both.  I just would not lead with the DSig stuff - as
> that's very "tech' head" stuff.  I think the average voter cares more about
> being able to trust the software behind the voting systems - and that it can
> be independently checked...
> Also dsig is better positioned as authentication of the voting source -
> where the particular ballot originated from.
> 
> Time of course will tell on all this - I'm seeing we need to tell the
> complete story - open standards with vote authentication together.
> 
> DW
> 
> "The way to be is to do" - Confucius (551-472 B.C.)
> 
> 
> > -------- Original Message --------
> > Subject: RE: [election-services] OASIS Demo for NASS / NASED
> > From: "Zelechoski, Peter" <pzelechoski@essvote.com>
> > Date: Sun, November 04, 2007 12:51 pm
> > To: "David RR Webber (XML)" <david@drrw.info>
> > Cc: "John Borras" <johnaborras@yahoo.co.uk>,  "eml"
> > <election-services@lists.oasis-open.org>,  "Lori Steele"
> > <lori@everyonecounts.com>,  "Craig Burton" <craig@everyonecounts.com>
> > 
> > David -
> > 
> > I think you missed the point.  Interoperability is one key item we must
> > demonstrate.  HOWEVER, in the US (and elsewhere I would argue) the
> > validation of the authenticity of a message is a major factor that we
> > must also demonstrate.  Definitely, for the VVSG, the security aspects
> > demand that we demonstrate this.
> > 
> > - Peter 
> > 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: David RR Webber (XML) [mailto:david@drrw.info] 
> > Sent: Saturday, November 03, 2007 10:26 AM
> > To: Zelechoski, Peter
> > Cc: John Borras; eml; Lori Steele; Craig Burton
> > Subject: RE: [election-services] OASIS Demo for NASS / NASED
> > 
> > Peter,
> > 
> > I would not bet the farm on DSig for VVSG verification - by far the best
> > factor IMHO is that the specifications are open public and therefore
> > independently verifiable with conformance suites that can valid the
> > ballots and records and counts.
> > 
> > Having multiple vendors show interoperability makes that point most
> > eloquently of course.
> > 
> > ; -)
> > 
> > DW
> > 
> > "The way to be is to do" - Confucius (551-472 B.C.)
> > 
> > 
> > > -------- Original Message --------
> > > Subject: RE: [election-services] OASIS Demo for NASS / NASED
> > > From: "Zelechoski, Peter" <pzelechoski@essvote.com>
> > > Date: Fri, November 02, 2007 4:32 pm
> > > To: "John Borras" <johnaborras@yahoo.co.uk>,  "eml"
> > > <election-services@lists.oasis-open.org>,  "Lori Steele"
> > > <lori@everyonecounts.com>,  "Craig Burton" <craig@everyonecounts.com>
> > > 
> > > John, et al. -
> > >  
> > > This looks fine.  I think it is worth singling out the use of digital
> > > signatures as a high level demonstration of EML's ability to fulfill
> > the
> > > requirement for VVSG to verify all messages.
> > >  
> > > - Peter
> > > 
> > > ________________________________
> > > 
> > > From: John Borras [mailto:johnaborras@yahoo.co.uk] 
> > > Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2007 9:59 AM
> > > To: eml; Lori Steele; Craig Burton
> > > Subject: Re: [election-services] OASIS Demo for NASS / NASED
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Peter
> > >  
> > > Thanks for these thoughts, a very good starter for our discussions.
> > > However before we get to this level of detail I think it would be very
> > > useful to agree the objectives of the proposed Demo to focus our minds
> > > on what we are trying to achieve before we descend into the weeds.
> > > Below are my thoughts, not in any particular order of importance, and
> > > I'd welcome agreement or otherwise on these please.
> > >  
> > > - to show how EML can be used in a multi-channel e-voting ballot
> > > involving several suppliers
> > > - to localise the Demo in such a way as to ensure the ballots are
> > > understandable to the American participants and conform to their usual
> > > voting practices
> > > - to show how EML can meet the requirements of the draft EAC Voluntary
> > > Voting System Guidelines 
> > > - to show how the EML TC and the IEEE 1622 committee are collaborating
> > > to deliver consistent outputs and interoperable solutions
> > > - to demonstrate how EML can support multi-lingualism eg English,
> > > Spanish, (others?)
> > > - to help the audience better understand the scope, breadth,
> > flexibility
> > > and advantages of using EML
> > > - to identify any weaknesses in v5 that need to be addressed in future
> > > releases.
> > >  
> > >  
> > > John
> > > 
> > > 
> > > "Zelechoski, Peter" <pzelechoski@essvote.com> wrote:
> > > 
> > > 	At the OASIS Demo this week, John asked us to think about doing
> > > a demo in the US -- most likely at the NASS / NASED Conference that is
> > > scheduled to take place in Washington DC this coming February.
> > > 	I am attaching a draft outline for discussion amongst our TC. 
> > > 	- Peter 
> > > 	<<NassNasedKeyDemoPoints.ppt>> 
> > > 	
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > 	To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC
> > > that
> > > 	generates this mail. You may a link to this group and all your
> > > TCs in OASIS
> > > 	at:
> > > 	
> > > https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php
> > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > ________________________________
> > > 
> > > Yahoo! Answers - Get better answers from someone who knows. Try it now
> > >
> > <http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/;_ylc=X3oDMTEydmViNG02BF9TAzIxMTQ3MTcxOTAEc
> > > 2VjA21haWwEc2xrA3RhZ2xpbmU> .
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
> generates this mail.  You may a link to this group and all your TCs in OASIS
> at:
> https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php