| || || ||Resolution #01-11 Possible UOCAVA Pilot Projects
Look forward to further discussion on these projects.
Resolution #02-11 Demonstration Project Guidelines
The TGDC's direction for UOCAVA to extend the guidelines for a demonstration project beyond the military voters is a significant recommendation. While our military voters provide a better control group for a demonstration project, they are often not the majority of overseas voters applying for absentee ballots in many jurisdictions across the country.
Resolution #03-11 Enjoyed the white paper.
Resolution #05-11 Read the white paper and agree with the response to the Election Commission.
Resolution #07-11 Clarification on the scope of the accessibility mandate is essential, especially for voting systems used outside a polling email@example.com||6/14/2011
| || || ||Resolution #07-11
The EAC should seek input from Election Administrators when providing clarification on the scope of the TGDC technical requirements. ||John.Gale@nebraska.gov ||6/13/2011
| || || ||Resolution #05-11
Any ongoing research and requirement updates to the VVSG 2.0 usability and performance benchmarks must integrate Election Administrator’s performance as part of any legitimate approach to accessibility. ||John.Gale@nebraska.gov ||6/13/2011
| || || ||Resolution #03-11
If a military service member has an injury or illness related to combat services, the service member will be removed from an active duty role, and placed in a hospital or other recovery facility at a variety of possible non combat zone sites. If that injury or illness prevents the service member from voting without assistance, then the voter can rely on current methods of voting in their state; methods that were greatly improved with the passage of the MOVE Act. Accessibility requirements imposed on remote absentee voting terminals for active military and civilian overseas personnel are irrelevant to the intended scope of the pilot projects. ||John.Gale@nebraska.gov ||6/13/2011
| || || ||Resolution #02-11
Any narrative risk assessment by the TGDC should be postponed until after the completion of the 2012 FVAP pilot projects.
Indeed, designing a demonstration system that pre-imposes a strict guideline such as the common access card, is a stumbling block to the goals of a demonstration system, and may limit user accessibility. Further, dictating a common form of security impairs innovation of the demonstration system.
Moreover, creating high level guidelines for the broader segment of the UOCAVA voting population is impractical at this time.
Finally, the FVAP should be the lead agency in the issue of UOCAVA demonstration projects and in the issue of security.
| || || ||Resolution #01-11
The possible UOCAVA pilot projects must be broad and include all necessary partners (State and Local Election Officials, Vendors, the EAC, and the FVAP), and promote flexibility and compatibility. Micromanaging by NIST and TGDC of pilot projects is counterproductive and suffocates innovation.
Furthermore, e-ballot delivery is the only practical system possible considering time and funding constraints. It is also the best pilot project to promote for the 2012 cycle. Other systems will have to be explored but are impractical at this time.
Also, a comparison should not be made between e-commerce technology and voting technology when discussing electronic alternatives. E-commerce technology supports secure transactions, but does not support private transactions. E-commerce technology should not be used as a platform or model for voting technology.
Additionally,EMS integration with a common data format is a positive concept, and worth exploring. However, there is no known source of funding and no known agency creating the software. There isn’t time to accomplish this goal for the pilot project grants.
Finally, a critical issue regarding a common data format is ownership of the data. This issue will require considerable thought if there is to be a universal design format.
|Rows: 1 - 6 of 6|| Page: 1 of 1|