more on Academy of P.C. Sciences - New York Times

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

Begin forwarded message:

From: Ed Gerck <egerck () nma com>
Date: September 27, 2006 6:19:33 PM EDT
To: dave () farber net
Cc: ip () v2 listbox com
Subject: Re: [IP] more on Academy of P.C. Sciences - New York Times

> From: "David P. Reed" <dpreed () reed com>
> Date: September 27, 2006 9:58:27 PM GMT+02:00
> To: dave () farber net
> Subject: Re: [IP] more on Academy of P.C. Sciences - New York Times
> I'm interested after googling: where is the evidence that "barring"  
> occurred in letting this contract?  Citations would help the  
> skeptics among us.

Googling may be hard. The Internet Policy Institute (IPI) ceased to
exist after the NSF study was done (I believe it was their first and
only contract).  But the evidence exists as, for example, in 1 and 2
below.

1. ===============================
From: Richard M. Schum
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000

Thank you for your interest in the Internet Policy Institute's e-Voting
Workshop scheduled for October 11 & 12, 2000.  Initiated by the White  
House
and supported by a grant from the National Science Foundation, this  
event
will bring together some of the nation's preeminent computer and social
scientists to discuss the technical and social issues that relate to the
subject, and to craft a research agenda for further study.   
Representatives
from the states and the online voting industry will also be invited to
provide their perspective on these matters.  For more information,  
please
visit our Website at www.netvoting.org.  Seating is limited, so please
register as soon as possible to reserve a space.

Richard M. Schum
Internet Policy Institute
601 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Suite 250
Washington, DC 20004
202-628-3900
202-662-2551 (direct dial)
rschum () internetpolicy org
===============================

2. ===============================
From: Richard M. Schum
Regarding the issue of vendor and
advocacy group participation as panelists, the organizing committee  
decided
to limit the panels to those who did not have a vested interest in the
debate.  As such, no representatives from the above referenced groups  
were
selected as panelists.
===============================

> In particular, did Congress request NSF to let a contract to parties
> with builtin conflicts of interest resulting from their employment?
>

The request was from the White House.

The conflict of interest was actually created by the IPI when only those
organizations that usually request NSF grants were allowed full  
participation.
In short, the policymakers were those that usually are recipients of  
NSF grants
and benefit by its policies. The full participants had a direct,  
vested interest
in the NSF policies resulting from such studies, including areas of  
research.

Here is my reply to this, on 9/27/00:

2. ===============================
From: Richard M. Schum

> > Ed,
> >
> > I understand the point you're making, and I don't disagree up to  
a point.
> > However, you have to admit that your company and others are  
selling a
> > product.  Thus, your role, by its very nature, is to promote  
your product
> > over other alternatives.

You are lumping me as a "vendor" and prejudging all my arguments.  
This is
very close to an "ad hominen" attack, a flaw studied in logic.   
Arguments
should be discussed based on their own value, not dismissed based on  
perceived
faults (real or imaginary) of their authors.

In technical discussions, I speak as a person and not as a  
representative of
any organization -- I cannot physically split my brain but I can  
surely split
my thoughts!

> > Since the point of this conference is to adopt a research agenda  
for NSF,
> > I believe that the way we are approaching this responsibility is  
sound.

It is not my intention to question your choices, in any way.  As you  
point
out, the point of this conference organized by your Institute on  
behalf of the
NSF is very much internal to the NSF and its constituency. We (both  
myself and
Safevote) are, however, perhaps much more neutral than those actually  
participating
because we do not stand to profit from the results in any way -- we  
are not and
will not be a recipient of any NSF grant, nor benefit by its policies.
====================================

> Or is the "barring" just slang for ensuring that science is not
> perverted by special interests?

The NSF grant paid for a result that did not benefit from a "developer"
approach, but was from the start locked into a "suspicious vendor"  
attitude
with a built-in conflict of interest (see above).

The Internet Policy Institute, under a NSF contract, quite arbitrarily
lumped SOME participants as "vendors" and then denied their full
participation. This forgets that the companies pioneering a market are
not just vendors but developers -- technology and system developers, in
addition to market developers.

Thus, the technological, political, social and market answers we all  
could
seek for Internet  voting in its various applications were not even  
discussed.

In short, and this is the connection with the NYT article, opinions  
should
stand on their own in such discussions, which need to be based on logic
not position, gender or political affiliation of any sort.

Special interests may always creep in, but keeping the process in  
isolation
from any group (e.g., based on gender, position or affiliation) is by  
itself
evidence that it already has.

Regards,
Ed Gerck


-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as lists-ip () insecure org
To manage your subscription, go to
 http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/