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

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

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> .