Re: [election-services] GAO VVSG response item #1

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

Bernard,

I believe the wording we have is exactly
and precisely what is needed to ensure
that as a specification OASIS EML offers
what governments and implementers are
looking for and need.

It's a long established priniciple that internationally
adopted specifications that have global reach and
legislative ramifications simply cannot be
encumbered by licensing or property rights
because that means immediate conflict of interest
and contracting and fair practice issues for
governments seeking to utilize those specifications.

Put simply - we cannot have a single company
"owning" some facet of a required voting process
component that is part of the government due
process.  By its very nature the voting process
belongs to all citizens as a fundamental right.

One of the problems with today's solutions is that
they are being single sourced, and thus we see
costs much higher than for typical equivalent
business applications (see note at bottom).

Second the objective here is to foster a community
developed open specification and again patented
and exclusive proprietary technology is the
opposite of that which is needed to support the
mission of creating interoperable and consistent
technology that is understood and not closed and
opaque.  Trust here is a vital aspect.  Trust can
only occur when every aspect of the voting process
is transparent and openly accessible.

Now in the past IBM has donated encumbered work
to international specifications with mixed results.
Clearly the preference is to have unencumbered
open specifications and especially as creating
foundation certification tools that are openly
available without encumberances,  that would
otherwise preclude broad adoption and use.

Since you mention it - to me this is the very
essence of standardization, as opposed to closed
proprietary systems based on exclusive IPR.

I would also mention that software itself has
changed fundamentally - in that with so much
being based on objects and components noone
is ever creating software entirely from ground
zero.  Everywhere they are including pieces and
solutions that someone else has already created.
Given that reality the ability for someone to
truely and honestly claim that they have invented
something new that is not self-evident and already
part of the public knowledge base is becoming
increasingly hard to envision.

Add to that that for our particular implementation
domain, so much of the behaviour and process
and methods are being laid out by legislation
and guidelines developed by governments and/or
technical groups setup and reporting to government
that this again mitigates against inclusion of
anything that someone may claim to have exclusive
right to.

Thanks, DW

Note on costs:  example Diebold DRE systems sold
to State of Maryland - unit cost $5,000 per device,
excluding maintenance and support services. Basic
parts that go into that device are $500 at retail.
Total cost to Maryland to date has been $80M,
and in 2004 elections those $80M of devices
handled 1.6M votes.  Thus cost of handling each
vote is around $50.  Essentially voting is filling
in a government form and turning it in.  Compared
to something like drivers license renewal,
birth registration, etc, $50 per form would be
greeted as a major scandal.  Therefore I would
conclude that today proprietary single source
solutions are grossly over priced; not cheaper!

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Bernard Van Acker" <bernard_vanacker@be.ibm.com>
To: "Borras, John" <John.Borras@legsb.gov.uk>
Cc: "David Webber (XML)" <david@drrw.info>;
<election-services@lists.oasis-open.org>
Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2005 8:52 AM
Subject: RE: [election-services] GAO VVSG response item #1


> David,
>
> A remark concerning the text below, and in particular the words "which are
> royalty free and provide open public license terms".
> - are you sure this requirement should be made in the context of a
> standards body?
> - can we exclude with 100% certainty that in a particular situation a
> privately licensed code or a good patented concept provides more value for
> money, for example by being cheaper?
>
> If there are some doubts, I would rather suggest deleting these words, and
> focus on our main area, i.e. standardisation.
>
> Any objections?
>
> Regards,
>
> Bernard
>
> Bernard Van Acker
> IT Architect
> IBM Global Services
> tel ++32 2 225 2939 mobile ++32 496 84 62 60
> e-mail: Bernard_Vanacker@be.ibm.com
>
>
>
>
>              "Borras, John"
>              <John.Borras@legs
>              b.gov.uk>                                                  To
>                                        "David Webber \(XML\)"
>              12/07/2005 10:34          <david@drrw.info>
>                                                                         cc
>                                        <election-services@lists.oasis-open
>                                        .org>
>                                                                    Subject
>                                        RE: [election-services] GAO VVSG
>                                        response item #1
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Happy with the tweaks.  The ball is back with you, let me know when you
> want further input.
> John
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Webber (XML) [mailto:david@drrw.info]
> Sent: 11 July 2005 21:11
> To: Borras, John; Paul Spencer
> Cc: election-services@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: Re: [election-services] GAO VVSG response item #1
>
>
> John,
>
> Still needs few more tweaks here - to make sure associated parts remain
> together - little disjointed as it was - amended copy below.
>
> Also - I'm intending that we can send this to GAO as part of their request
> for comment on their VVSG1 - but there is more to be done on that front,
so
> this piece should become part of that overall submission.  I'll work up
> some
> thoughts on a possible outline structure for a response that introduces
EML
> to the GAO, and then suggests where their VVSG1 has opportunities to
> leverage EML.  We can then see who would like to spend their summer
> holidays
> typing some of that for us!
>
> DW
>
> <vote_process_terms>
>  Digital vote records, audit trail control and vote process configuration
>  and control scripts should be implemented, stored and prepared using
>  open public specifications which are royalty free and provide open
>  public license terms.  The configuration, rendering and transfer of
>  such records and voting content should use formats that utilize
>  content mark-up language techniques such as the widely adopted
>  Extensible Mark-up Language (XML) syntax along with content
>  formats such as those specified by the OASIS Election
>  Mark-up Language (EML) standard.  The process definitions
>  and implementations can then be independently verified and
>  compatibility certified.
> </vote_process_terms>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Borras, John" <John.Borras@legsb.gov.uk>
> To: "David Webber (XML)" <david@drrw.info>; "Paul Spencer"
> <paul.spencer@boynings.co.uk>
> Cc: <election-services@lists.oasis-open.org>
> Sent: Monday, July 11, 2005 10:13 AM
> Subject: RE: [election-services] GAO VVSG response item #1
>
>
> I'm not an English major but.....
>
> Here's my take which avoids repetition about open public specs and brings
> the royalty free but up front - v important.  Any final comments?
>
> <vote_process_terms>
>  Digital vote records, audit trail control and vote process configuration
> and control scripts should be implemented, stored and prepared using open
> public specifications, which are royalty free and provide open public
>  license terms, and process definitions that can be independently verified
>  and with which compatibility can be certified. The configuration,
> rendering
>  and transfer of such records and voting content should use formats that
> utilize content
>  mark-up language techniques such as the widely adopted Extensible Mark-up
>  Language (XML) syntax along with formats specified by the OASIS Election
>  Mark-up Language (EML) standard.
> </vote_process_terms>
>
> David - who do I send this to as TC Chair?
>
> John
>
>
>
>
>
> "The information in this email is confidential and may be legally
> privileged.  It is intended solely for the addressee. If you receive this
> email by mistake please notify the sender and delete it immediately.
> Opinions expressed are those of the individual and do not necessarily
> represent the opinion of the Local e-Government Standards Body. All sent
> and received email from the Local e-Government Standards Body is
> automatically scanned for the presence of computer viruses and security
> issues."
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
>
>