Recommendations to OSCE/ODIHR (on how to give better recommendations for Internet voting)
Jan Willemson

TL;DR
This paper critically evaluates OSCE/ODIHR's recommendations for Internet voting, highlighting issues with feasibility, trade-offs, and the need for clearer definitions and criteria for properties like end-to-end verifiability.
Contribution
It provides a detailed critique of existing recommendations and suggests improvements such as explicit trade-off positions and precise definitions for security properties.
Findings
Some recommendations are impossible to fulfill.
Fulfilling certain recommendations involves complex trade-offs.
Clearer criteria are needed for properties like end-to-end verifiability.
Abstract
This paper takes a critical look at the recommendations OSCE/ODIHR has given for the Estonian Internet voting over the 20 years it has been running. We present examples of recommendations that can not be fulfilled at all, but also examples where fulfilling a recommendation requires a non-trivial trade-off, potentially weakening the system in some other respect. In such cases OSCE/ODIHR should take an explicit position which trade-off it recommends. We also look at the development of the recommendation to introduce end-to-end verifiability. In this case we expect OSCE/ODIHR to define what it exactly means by this property, as well as to give explicit criteria to determine whether and to which extent end-to-end verifiability has been achieved.
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsEuropean and International Law Studies · IPv6, Mobility, Handover, Networks, Security · Cybersecurity and Cyber Warfare Studies
