Identity
Filter
Visitors
(0) (0) (0) (0) (1) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (61) (0) (0) (0)Subscribers
(0) (0)
Highest posts
- 24/10 10:44 +2 Re: Software initiatives
- 23/10 17:05 +2 Re: Software initiatives
- 23/10 15:17 +2 Re: Software initiatives
- 23/10 14:59 +2 Re: Software initiatives
- 23/10 13:03 +2 Re: Software initiatives
- 23/10 02:48 +2 Re: Software initiatives
- 20/10 17:27 +2 Re: Software initiatives
- 15/10 17:39 +2 Re: Software initiatives
- 24/10 12:18 +1 Re: Software initiatives
- 24/10 10:29 +1 Re: Software initiatives
Latest posts
- 24/10 12:18 +1 Re: Software initiatives
- 24/10 10:44 +2 Re: Software initiatives
- 24/10 10:29 +1 Re: Software initiatives
- 24/10 10:24 +1 Re: Software initiatives
- 24/10 10:15 +1 Re: Software initiatives
- 24/10 01:07 +1 Re: Software initiatives
- 24/10 00:58 +1 Re: Software initiatives
- 24/10 00:57 +1 Re: Software initiatives
- 23/10 23:27 +1 Re: Software initiatives
- 23/10 17:40 +1 Re: Software initiatives
Links
Blogs
Democracy
Search
[top-politics] Re: Software initiatives
-
Identification is, always has, probably always will be, a big pile of troubles!
How do you recognize one individual from the next?
- fingerprint
- adn
- appearance
- passport
- id card
- witnesses
- electoral registration
- …
There is already no simple solution in the physical world. There is next to zero chance we could ever find something better in the virtual world.
Thus, let’s each group define its legitimate participants according to the procedure it desires.
A small city could enlist each individual citizen on an electoral list, using physical recognition and any kind of ID card and proof of residence.
Or it could require the physical presence of someone already on the list. To obtain a chain of trust.
An association could also require a PGP chain of trust and a cotisation.
Me I’d rather not pick side, but open the choice. Basically anybody should be able to set up any number of electoral list according to any procedure of their choice. Then an organisation will choose or not to use one electoral list to legitimize votes and calculate results.
In a democracy, control of that electoral list is an important power, it must be constantly scrutinized.
In france one of the most regular fraud is one involving dead people! Ain’t that some participation?! :)
echarp – http://leparlement.org
+2
-
+1
+ one little notice. In politics, I am actually not interested into anonymous decision making due to reason I already mentioned. Decision making is allways based on power relations (it can be delebirated process, but it is allways about power), so if one person is even affraid to state publicly his own opinion, that what is the true power such person has? I believe, TOP principle will actually build up completely TOP power structure that will profilate and proliferate on the prinicples of knoweldge sharing and responsibility towards common good.
ATB,
Gale
+1
-
Sure, but you have to differ between individual votes in an particular issue and representative voting in an particular issue. On the individual level there can be threats stopping you from voting at all, or on what you want.
This is seen all over the world in traditional elections so it’s a sad fact.
+1
-
On 10/15/06, MG <magnusgus@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Sure, but you have to differ between individual votes in an particular > issue and representative voting in an particular issue. > On the individual level there can be threats stopping you from voting > at all, or on what you want. > This is seen all over the world in traditional elections so it’s a sad > fact.
And threats would be no issue for representatives? Since representatives can have so many more votes than a mere individual and there votes are not anonymous, it seems to me that it would be very effective to threat and otherwise trying to influence the votes of representatives. The only way i see around it is to have the identity of representatives anonymous, to refer to a recent discussion in the swedish forum =)
+2
-
ketty . wrote:
> On 10/15/06, MG <magnusgus@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > Sure, but you have to differ between individual votes in an particular > > issue and representative voting in an particular issue. > > On the individual level there can be threats stopping you from voting > > at all, or on what you want. > > This is seen all over the world in traditional elections so it’s a sad > > fact. > > > And threats would be no issue for representatives?
Indeed. In this way we might legitimate secret ballots of our reprensetatives. To keep them safe from bad people. Yet, no demonstration, no power.
> Since representatives can > have so many more votes than a mere individual and there votes are not > anonymous, it seems to me that it would be very effective to threat and > otherwise trying to influence the votes of representatives.
:-)
> The only way i > see around it is to have the identity of representatives anonymous, to > refer to a recent discussion in the swedish forum =)
And here comes up the problem. No transparency, place for discrepancy among actions and declarations. Less trust in such structure. Place for questioning of not popular decisions and system as whole.
If you have transparent system, than all of this becomes too obvious to try to deny it.
Though, at internet organisations Ive monitored, people would just realise there is no point to hide their opinion. After all, what is the power I have if there is 10 people, 7 are claiming for one thing and 2 are not interested, if I gain 5 votes and other member who was widely publicly supported gets 3 votes? So, what is the point than? Me personaly would not trust such people to much. If there was transparent process, it all obvious, no place for undmining hypocricy. OK. Not all people are willing to go public. But what is the point about them?
Do you want to undrmine legitmation process beacuse of they are affraid? I believe that is the part they have to deal with. One more thing that I have noticed- when people go anonym, they bitch much more regularly then when thay go with ID. I believe it is up to psychological (everybody is wathcing) effect where they can only turn to what they find is really fair, loosing process of calculations that might go against them sooner or later. So, why risk it?
In this very moment, I can hardly imagine such TOP organisation has need to go secret voting. I even find it be contradiction that would deny essence of TOP. Can anyone imagine some real picture that might go in front of us, that would excuse such move?
> Sure, but you have to differ between individual votes in an particular issue and representative voting in an particular issue.
Two classes of people. Do they have same rights, or what? Or should we let them be secret and enable them be not attacked by their political enemies? Why not?
>On the individual level there can be threats stopping you from voting >at all, or on what you want. >This is seen all over the world in traditional elections so it’s a sad >fact.
We can not compare to traditional systems. This what we are building is new paradigm of politics.
ATB,
Gale
+1
-
On 10/16/06, Gordan Ponjavic <gponjavic@gmail.com> wrote:
> And here comes up the problem. No transparency, place for discrepancy > among actions and declarations. Less trust in such structure. Place for > questioning of not popular decisions and system as whole. > > If you have transparent system, than all of this becomes too obvious to > try to deny it.
[…]
What you are advocating is transparency of individual votes, right?
I understand it can sound a bit weird, but i see that as completely different from representaive votes.
Representatives is just individuals who other individuals puts trust in, right? Why should they have differnt rights from other individuals?
Wrong :)
As i see it “representative” should not be equated with “individual”. An individual have vote power, an representative should have no vote power not orginating from individuals.Assume the identity of a representative can not be tracked to a real life individual. (Maybe you can only track it to a public gpg key.) Assume the representative, having his/her real life identity hidden, casts some really extreme votes.
So what? Being merly a representative (and not a real individual) the votes has no power. The only way for those votes to have power would be if real life individuals delegated their votes to the representative.So, where is the transparency lost?
+1
-
ketty wrote:
> On 10/16/06, Gordan Ponjavic <gponjavic@gmail.com> wrote: > > > And here comes up the problem. No transparency, place for discrepancy > > among actions and declarations. Less trust in such structure. Place for > > questioning of not popular decisions and system as whole. > > > > If you have transparent system, than all of this becomes too obvious to > > try to deny it. > > > […] > > What you are advocating is transparency of individual votes, right?
Yes.
> I understand it can sound a bit weird, but i see that as completely > different from representaive votes. > > Representatives is just individuals who other individuals puts trust in, > right? Why should they have differnt rights from other individuals?
They have to vote publicly, right?
> Wrong :) > As i see it “representative” should not be equated with “individual”. An > individual have vote power, an representative should have no vote power not > orginating from individuals. > > Assume the identity of a representative can not be tracked to a real life > individual. (Maybe you can only track it to a public gpg key.)
Why? Though, I have to notice one more thing up there. The same question as one for Serge actually. How do you imagine this whole process goes and what is the moment we will say, OK, now, lets not be that transparent any more. Lets hide some things in order of safety because that is common good. What is the moment you are talking about? Maybe it is too far from me, that it does not worry me too much, nor makes me interested in going against principle of transparency out of mere specualations based on current, instead of TOP system.
> Assume the representative, having his/her real life identity hidden, casts > some really extreme votes. > So what? Being merly a representative (and not a real individual) the votes > has no power. The only way for those votes to have power would be if real > life individuals delegated their votes to the representative. > > So, where is the transparency lost?
Its lost in not seeing his origin of power. An his origins of power are Mirko, Marko, Pejo, Sanja, Branka, Mark and Emanuel. They are his true origins. Not number 7.
ATB,
Gale
+1
-
On 10/16/06, Gordan Ponjavic <gponjavic@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Representatives is just individuals who other individuals puts trust in, > > right? Why should they have differnt rights from other individuals? > > They have to vote publicly, right?
I am a bit confused, do you want:
A. individuals’ votes are public, representatives’ votes are public? or B. individuals’ votes are hidden, representatives’ votes are public?Either way we probably all agree that representatives’ votes should be public. :)
Why? Though, I have to notice one more thing up there. The same > question as one for Serge actually. How do you imagine this whole > process goes and what is the moment we will say, OK, now, lets not be > that transparent any more. Lets hide some things in order of safety > because that is common good. What is the moment you are talking about? > Maybe it is too far from me, that it does not worry me too much, nor > makes me interested in going against principle of transparency out of > mere specualations based on current, instead of TOP system.
I don’t visualize anything going in the direction of less trasparency. Just because a representative does not need to identify itself using dna and phone number does not mean it can’t. It’s all in the powers of voters. If they want to put their trust in some totaly mysterious person then that’s up to them.
Please note that i am being a bit sarcastic. I don’t think a gpg identified person is any more mysterious than a dna identified one. Both identifications are totaly meaningless if you have no past knowlege of the person. What i am advocating is leaving up to the representatives how to identificate, and leaving up to the voters to chose what identification to trust.
> Assume the representative, having his/her real life identity hidden, casts > > some really extreme votes. > > So what? Being merly a representative (and not a real individual) the > votes > > has no power. The only way for those votes to have power would be if > real > > life individuals delegated their votes to the representative. > > > > So, where is the transparency lost? > > Its lost in not seeing his origin of power. An his origins of power are > Mirko, Marko, Pejo, Sanja, Branka, Mark and Emanuel. They are his true > origins. Not number 7.
Yes i agree, they are the orgin of power. They are also individual voters and not representatives(gatherering of votes). You are still advocating for the publicity of individual votes are you? When i said “where is the transparency lost” i was talking about identification of representatives. Assuming no special requirements on how and if representatives should identify themself are made, we have two scenarious:
- Personal votes are publicly visible. Since also representatives’ votes are visible you can trace the power from it’s origin (the individuals) to the final position. No transparecy is lost.
- Personal votes are not publicy visible. Since the origin of power is hidden to start with, there is no transparency to lose. So neither in this case is any transparency lost.
So in my opinion specifying how/if representatives should identify themselfs, or not specify, does not change the transparency in any way.
+1
-
ketty wrote:
> On 10/16/06, Gordan Ponjavic <gponjavic@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Representatives is just individuals who other individuals puts trust in, > > > right? Why should they have differnt rights from other individuals? > > > > They have to vote publicly, right? > > > I am a bit confused, do you want: > A. individuals’ votes are public, representatives’ votes are public? > or B. individuals’ votes are hidden, representatives’ votes are public?
If its TOP than it is TOP. Transparent, open, public. You can not take this in parts you like and in parts you do not like, do not take it. Actually, this oportunistic mode of TOP is the mode that functions today. So, yes. I am for everything to be public.
> Either way we probably all agree that representatives’ votes should be > public. :)
Of course :)
> I don’t visualize anything going in the direction of less trasparency. Just > because a representative does not need to identify itself using dna and > phone number does not mean it can’t. It’s all in the powers of voters. If > they want to put their trust in some totaly mysterious person then that’s up > to them.
Maybe I misunderstood you. You want to say that proxies might be virtual identites? That is interesting thought. So, if ones choose to trust virtual identity, that is his right? OK. Fine with me. Though, as long as responsibility is big, big part of efficient political system, in that moment we can state that DPs do not care no responsiblity but virtual one. Can we do that? If we can, everything it is all right.
> Please note that i am being a bit sarcastic. I don’t think a gpg identified > person is any more mysterious than a dna identified one. Both > identifications are totaly meaningless if you have no past knowlege of the > person. What i am advocating is leaving up to the representatives how to > identificate, and leaving up to the voters to chose what identification to > trust.
I agree. Yet. Real identity means real attachment. In real identity before you, you can be carmic whore only once, with virtual identity you can be carma whore every day. So, if someones wants to trust virtual identity, I asume it is his right and his responsibility.
> > Its lost in not seeing his origin of power. An his origins of power are > > Mirko, Marko, Pejo, Sanja, Branka, Mark and Emanuel. They are his true > > origins. Not number 7. > > Yes i agree, they are the orgin of power. They are also individual voters > and not representatives(gatherering of votes). You are still advocating for > the publicity of individual votes are you? When i said “where is the > transparency lost” i was talking about identification of representatives.
OK. I understand now.
> Assuming no special requirements on how and if representatives should > identify themself are made, we have two scenarious: > 1. Personal votes are publicly visible. Since also representatives’ votes > are visible you can trace the power from it’s origin (the individuals) to > the final position. No transparecy is lost. > 2. Personal votes are not publicy visible. Since the origin of power is > hidden to start with, there is no transparency to lose. So neither in this > case is any transparency lost.
Yet. In the same manner we can notice todays political party and aplause it as long as there is no transparency lost. The merit is TOP system, not current sitation. And in TOP system stuff go from transparent, open and public political decision.
> So in my opinion specifying how/if representatives should identify > themselfs, or not specify, does not change the transparency in any way.
So, the question is can virtual identity be part of TOP organisation? OK. I agree that it can. Though, if that part is not problem to its power base, than it is not problem to me neither.
ATB,
Gale
+1
-
On 10/16/06, Gordan Ponjavic <gponjavic@gmail.com> wrote:
> So, the question is can virtual identity be part of TOP organisation? > OK. I agree that it can. Though, if that part is not problem to its > power base, than it is not problem to me neither.
Took some time for us to understand eachother, but it looks like we are agreeing. Yay! :)
+1
-
ketty wrote:
> On 10/16/06, Gordan Ponjavic <gponjavic@gmail.com> wrote: > > > So, the question is can virtual identity be part of TOP organisation? > > OK. I agree that it can. Though, if that part is not problem to its > > power base, than it is not problem to me neither. > > > Took some time for us to understand eachother, but it looks like we are > agreeing. Yay! :) > >
-—-=_Part_42673_25465795.1161030524383 > Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 > X-Google-AttachSize: 639 > >On 10/16/06, Gordan Ponjavic <gponjavic@gmail.com> wrote:> >> So, the question is can virtual identity be part of TOP organisation?
OK. I agree that it can. Though, if that part is not problem to its
power base, than it is not problem to me neither.
Took some time for us to understand eachother, but it looks like we are agreeing. Yay! :) >-—-=_Part_42673_25465795.1161030524383—Welcome, Ketty! :)
I’m still confused upon what you are agreeing on?:Orginal question from
Ketty: “A. individuals’ votes are public, representatives’ votes are public? or B. individuals’ votes are hidden, representatives’ votes are public? "What are you choice here?
+1
-
On 10/19/06, MG <magnusgus@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > ketty wrote: > > On 10/16/06, Gordan Ponjavic <gponjavic@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > So, the question is can virtual identity be part of TOP organisation? > > > OK. I agree that it can. Though, if that part is not problem to its > > > power base, than it is not problem to me neither. > > > > > > Took some time for us to understand eachother, but it looks like we are > > agreeing. Yay! :) > > Welcome, Ketty! :) > I’m still confused upon what you are agreeing on?: > > Orginal question from > Ketty: > "A. individuals’ votes are public, representatives’ votes are public? > or B. individuals’ votes are hidden, representatives’ votes are public? > " > > What are you choice here?
Actually, i don’t have a strong position on this yet. I think i need to think a lot about it first.. What are your choice? Is it B (as that seems to be the position of AD) ?
What me and Gordan where agreeing on was that representatives could be virtual identities. There is no need for them to be tied to a birth certificate – they could just as well be tied to a public gpg-key or similar. It is up to the potential people delegating their votes to decide what identification to trust.
+1
-
>> Orginal question from > Ketty: > "A. individuals’ votes are public, representatives’ votes are public? > or B. individuals’ votes are hidden, representatives’ votes are public? > "
> What are you choice here?
>Actually, i don’t have a strong position on this yet. I think i need to think a lot about it first.. What are your choice? Is it B (as that seems to
be the position of AD) ?What me and Gordan where agreeing on was that representatives could be virtual identities. There is no need for them to be tied to a birth certificate – they could just as well be tied to a public gpg-key or similar. It is up to the potential people delegating their votes to decide
what identification to trust.-OK, but indentification is one thing, the principle of publicity of the votes something else.
I would consider B, with the addition that a representative (AD delegate) can be a person or an organization.
In any case, all delegates have to be clearly identified as well as all direct voters by the system in order to have a clear electors list (who have the rigth to cast a vote).
But as discussed above, there is no need to have a direct voters votes or delegations public, in contrast to delegates whos votes are really a result of 1. how many delegated votes they have, 2. an intellectual work by analyzing facts and coming to a conclusion.So what’s needed is that every direct-voter has an crypted account, only accessible by himself, (not even an admin) where he can see all votes and delegations he made and can make.
Only the anonymous account will then be part of the electors list. For control reasons, the voter shall be able to see if his/her vote really is part of the vote counting and shall have the possibility to complain if this would not be the case.
Votecounting shall take place conquently on an unlimited number of independent servers, all running the same certified software. If any server reports different results in a vote it is easy to identify the reason.
And a delegate will only see how many delegated votes he have, not whos.
I personally think that a personal vote from a delegate should be secret, just as it is today for traditional reps in the elections for parliaments.
In the case of an organization working as a delegate, there is ofcourse no personal vote..
+1
-
> So what’s needed is that every direct-voter has an crypted account, > only accessible by himself, (not even an admin) where he can see all > votes and delegations he made and can make.
Wouldn’t it be easier to have all votes and delegations public, but the relationship between a pseudo and the real life person private?
No need anymore to have an encrypted account.
> Only the anonymous account will then be part of the electors list. > For control reasons, the voter shall be able to see if his/her vote > really is part of the vote counting and shall have the possibility to > complain if this would not be the case.
This trail is important for all actions.
> Votecounting shall take place conquently on an unlimited number of > independent servers, all running the same certified software. > If any server reports different results in a vote it is easy to > identify the reason.
It might be interesting to have independent servers with different software. Alike planes or rockets which are controlled by different computers, to get some independence from bugs and other weaknesses.
echarp – http://leparlement.org
+1
-
>> So what’s needed is that every direct-voter has an crypted account, > only accessible by himself, (not even an admin) where he can see all > votes and delegations he made and can make.
>Wouldn’t it be easier to have all votes and delegations public, but the relationship between a pseudo and the real life person private? No need anymore to have an encrypted account.
-No, because then mapping of individuals might occur, in order to figure out who’s behind an encrypted account.
And I don’t se why it would be easier.
In fact also each different vote from one account should also be crypted with a second key only known by the voter himself. These functions are easy to fix nowadays.>> Votecounting shall take place conquently on an unlimited number of > independent servers, all running the same certified software. > If any server reports different results in a vote it is easy to > identify the reason.
>It might be interesting to have independent servers with different software. Alike planes or rockets which are controlled by different computers, to get some independence from bugs and other weaknesses.
-Well, AD envison very strict rules for upgrading and testing the software to be used.
This software should be downloadable for any interested in running his own vote counting server in order to check and/or find flaws in it. For instance could a newspaper or sceptic of any kind run his own server in order to find any errors in the soft and report it. In order to maintain high credability for the system it is important to also allways have full control in what soft is used and it should not be frequent upgrades once a stable version is found. But for development use, ofcourse, some servers could be running an upgrade for sake of bug finding (beta-testing) before it is considered safe and working.
+1
-
On Fri, Oct 20, 2006 at 04:07:15AM -0700, MG wrote:
> > > So what’s needed is that every direct-voter has an crypted > > > account, only accessible by himself, (not even an admin) where he > > > can see all votes and delegations he made and can make. > > > Wouldn’t it be easier to have all votes and delegations public, but the > > relationship between a pseudo and the real life person private? > > No need anymore to have an encrypted account. > > -No, because then mapping of individuals might occur, in order to > figure out who’s behind an encrypted account.
What mapping do you have in mind?
How would that be different to my proposition.
Let me try to summarize:
- real life person is public, many secret actions
- real life person is secret, many public actions
> And I don’t se why it would be easier.
In the first case, there are many secrets for one person. In the second there is only one secret per person. This is why I consider it simpler.
Plus it allows to develop an online persona with a history and a reputation.
> > > Votecounting shall take place conquently on an unlimited number of > > > independent servers, all running the same certified software. > > > If any server reports different results in a vote it is easy to > > > identify the reason. > > > > It might be interesting to have independent servers with different > > software. Alike planes or rockets which are controlled by different > > computers, to get some independence from bugs and other weaknesses. > > -Well, AD envison very strict rules for upgrading and testing the > software to be used.
Strict rules will make the whole system brittle.
What is important is not that everything works along the same tune, but that results are verifiable. It’s a much lower target isn’t it? And it should be obtainable through different technologies.
> This software should be downloadable for any interested in running his > own vote counting server in order to check and/or find flaws in it. > For instance could a newspaper or sceptic of any kind run his own > server in order to find any errors in the soft and report it. > In order to maintain high credability for the system it is important to > also allways have full control in what soft is used and it should not > be frequent upgrades once a stable version is found. > But for development use, ofcourse, some servers could be running an > upgrade for sake of bug finding (beta-testing) before it is considered > safe and working.
I’m using mails as my transmission protocol. I’m very low tech that way :)
With mails, anybody could verify the votes using a pen and paper (of course, it might get tedious).
echarp – http://leparlement.org/fr
+1
-
On 10/20/06, echarp <emmanuel.charpentier@free.fr> wrote:
> Let me try to summarize: > * real life person is public, many secret actions > * real life person is secret, many public actions > > > And I don’t se why it would be easier. > > In the first case, there are many secrets for one person. In the second > there is only one secret per person. This is why I consider it simpler. > > Plus it allows to develop an online persona with a history and a > reputation.
I agree with this.
And i also agree that using only one software, even if the source of the software is public and tested by many, is a bad idea. Some bugs will not be found untill the have made their share of harm. The best way to protect against bugs is to simultanly use independent software.
+2
-
Unfortunately the simples programming isn’t good enough if secret votes shall be an option for individual voters.
I’ll start a new thread about that.Regarding different soft, sure, nothing stops the paralell use of different versions in order to find bugs and security issues. But one and only one will have to be the official when this system is in production.
There should be a very trusted board, with immediate recall, responsible as admins for this system.
+1
-
> Regarding different soft, sure, nothing stops the paralell use of > different versions in order to find bugs and security issues. > But one and only one will have to be the official when this system is > in production.
Planes and rockets use different softwares and technologies.
Why not also do the same with voting systems? Is that such a weird idea?
> There should be a very trusted board, with immediate recall, > responsible as admins for this system.
That board is a single point of failure. Brittle.
Better to let all interested parties in the system, like it’s already the case in most elections where you have many boards with many participants.
echarp – http://leparlement.org/security
+1
-
At 11:39 AM 10/21/2006, echarp wrote:
> > There should be a very trusted board, with immediate recall, > > responsible as admins for this system. > >That board is a single point of failure. Brittle.
If what you are building is a power structure, as distinct from a corruption-immune system like FA/DP — which maintains its relative immunity by leaving nearly all power at the member level — then you will almost certainly need a board, and officers. Yes, this is a possible failure point, no doubt about that, but the problems with boards happen when the members are not actively involved and there is no means for a member recognizing the problem to effectively and efficiently communicate with the rest of the members, the board can block it.
This is why I propose FA/DP as a communications structure, and non-FAs, perhaps with DP structure, in power structures. And that “power structure” might quite well elect and have the power of recall over a board. Which then hires and has the power of firing employees. Officers are employees.
It’s the corporate model, folks, been going for hundreds of years. Where it goes astray is where there are large numbers of uninvolved and uninformed shareholders, because the structure was designed for relatively small numbers of investors. And, you will note, it incorporates proxy voting. Because those investors would not have accepted less!
Delegable proxy is just an extension and not even a totally necessary one, as far as the actual power structure is concerned. If you have an FA/DP superstructure, the FA/DP proxy can recommend an appropriate legal proxy to the member. And that can be a standing appointment, revocable at any time. This is what a proxy is!
So it could be pretty safe, even with a board holding the immediate reins of power. As long as they cannot control communication and analysis among the members!
+1
-
> If what you ar
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-