With the Annual General Meeting getting closer, we can be safe in the knowledge that once again a lot of countries will not get to cast their vote, because they had nobody who was able to take a holiday to go to the EGC at the right moment. It feels a bit of a shame to me that the updated constitution didn't make any provision for this, I wish it had done so. I think it would be better for the organisation if a country could email votes, to the EGF secretary from a known email address. After all, the agenda is available in advance. What do you think?

_________________
North Lecale

I'm not a member of any EGF organization so my opinion carries little weight. But in these days of electronic communication I cannot believe that everything is not done this way. I receive several notices each year to vote electronically at the AGM of the various companies I invest in. It is not generally in the interest of these companies to let small investors have a say, yet they still do it. So surely a hobbyist group should be doing it.

BTW, does the AGA allow it?

_________________
Still officially AGA 5d but I play so irregularly these days that I am probably only 3d or 4d over the board (but hopefully still 5d in terms of knowledge, theory and the ability to contribute).

If(!) such should ever be allowed, there must be a strict guarantee that the integrity is given, i.e., that exactly the correct representative of a body is the one making a particular vote. In pure e-voting, it is a pretty demanding task requiring proper end-to-end encryption and mechanisms to ensure that only particular persons can be the senders and recipients of votes, and that hackers do not fake them. Voting by phone with two witnesses per voting person is much easier WRT ensuring integrity.

That's what public key cryptography is for, signing emails and similar pieces to guarantee the source. I'd be more worried about someone stealing the sender computer. Of course, if someone is so interested in being in control of the EGF, he/she could just bribe people voting for much less hassle.

_________________
Geek of all trades, master of none: the motto for my blog mostlymaths.net

It is fairly important that the votes should be authentic, but I think that the likelihood of abuse is quite low. For one thing, it is just a few minutes work to publish online the e-voting record after an AGM. This would allow countries to quickly check afterwards that somebody hasn't stolen and abused their votes.

_________________
North Lecale

Not to say anything against e-voting in general and it can be made secure I'm sure.

However, it isn't possible for the e-voters to hear any of the discussion is it?

Even if a video conference facility were available experience has shown that it's no substitute for a face to face meeting.

I have been the EGF secretary, when the Italian situation was a hot topic. There was cases when represetatives validity was questioned. There was also many close votes. The system should work not only when things are going nicely, but also during controversies.

So you are saying that the ID is checked for every voter before accepting their vote in person? How does the EGF check the validity of IDs from all the different countries? Are they aware of all the variations of forgeries for all the countries?

_________________
Still officially AGA 5d but I play so irregularly these days that I am probably only 3d or 4d over the board (but hopefully still 5d in terms of knowledge, theory and the ability to contribute).

If voting by email is not viable, perhaps voting by paper mail with a signature would be possible.

If memory serves, the AGA elects its board members by mail (now electronic I think). The actual AGM is done in person, but proxies are permitted.

DrStraw, ID is insufficient. One needs encyption combined with certification and keys for that independent of particular PCs. I am no expert for that, but such would be a basic approach.

(And of course, live disucussion must be followed.)

What! All attendees must bring their PCs with them? What if they don't have one? I would have thought a government-issued ID would have been much more reliable: say, a passport of driver's license.

_________________
Still officially AGA 5d but I play so irregularly these days that I am probably only 3d or 4d over the board (but hopefully still 5d in terms of knowledge, theory and the ability to contribute).

The EGF does not do astrong identity and credentials check for the real-life delegates attending. So I think that talk of encryption and security for an e-vote is a bit over the top.

I don't imagine that the AGM would turn into a videoconference event, merely that federations be allowed to vote for motions which are presented in advance of the meeting. I think this is in line with current practice anyway, as delegates are often given voting instructions beforehand from their federations.

_________________
North Lecale

Email signing is easy and relatively painless, it's not an specially hard thing to do (actually quite a lot of email clients allow you to do it "directly".) Since it's a relatively low barrier to entry, it's always better to err in the secure side. Just in case, better not end like the FIDE.

_________________
Geek of all trades, master of none: the motto for my blog mostlymaths.net

So, are you basically saying that the meeting itself, and discussions during the meeting are non-essential?
Do you attend AGM usually (I don't)? Doesn't it often take quite long time, with a lot of discussions?

I am saying that it is nice to have discussions, and it is also nice to vote. Take the European Union elections, we all people vote without listening to all the debate, or understanding all the information. You should not take away a vote because a country cannot afford to pay for a plane ticket and a day off work.

There are a lot of speeches which are not related to the voting part of the AGM. Reports, finance, etc
There is the Any Other Business - of course this could not be voted upon with postal or e-voting
Many of the votes are already decided upon for the delegates, by their federation chiefs, leaving the delegates to merely sit there listening to the arguments being made, and perhaps read out a prepared statement.
For other delegates, they have no idea about the reality of the EGF, and are just there because they have been told to go by their federation. They have about 8 hours of pain to live through.
I would also say that discussions can, and should, take place before the AGM takes place.

_________________
North Lecale

You are really paranoid. Is the Go scene in Europe really that crooked?

PS>
As for following live discussion, it cannot be followed anyways if the representative is not sent, is it? In any case - I think it would be great Idea for the EGF (or any ?GF) to videotape the proceeding and then publish them somewhere where people have access to. It should not be that hard to accomplish, a Video Camera and a Hosting Site is all that is needed. Great transparency, great idear, no?

_________________
- Bantari
______________________________________________
WARNING: This post might contain Opinions!!

Just have EuroGoTV cover the sessions.

_________________
Dave Sigaty
"Short-lived are both the praiser and the praised, and rememberer and the remembered..."
- Marcus Aurelius; Meditations, VIII 21

RJ would probably want verification that the video had not been tampered with.

_________________
Still officially AGA 5d but I play so irregularly these days that I am probably only 3d or 4d over the board (but hopefully still 5d in terms of knowledge, theory and the ability to contribute).

Voters in EGF context are national federations not individuals. If you get the actual votes by member federations this may be preferable / more representative than delegates representing by proxy half a dozen countries. Still checks required (second independent channel, no ambiguity), special occasion, keeping a place for AGM, bad weather proof?

Careful verification of voting integrity is not "paranoia" but is a basic, essential aspect of democracy (here: that of the EGF)! Compare a judgement by the German Federal Constitutional Court about rejecting voting machines.