This document is submitted in confidence and contains some or all of the following types of information: trade secrets, scientific information, financial information, technical information, commercial information, and labour relations information. Disclosure of any of the information contained in any of the documents herein would result in undue loss to Dominion Voting Systems. Voting System Interoperability Edwin B. Smith, III Vice President, Certification and Compliance October 30, 2009

Agenda Opening Thoughts Parallels in the Electronics Manufacturing Industry Is there really market demand for interoperability? Dominion Voting Systems response

Parallels in the Electronics Manufacturing Industry Electronics Manufacturers (aka Contract Manufacturers) Numerous customers, Numerous industries served Numerous CAD/CAM data formats Circuit Boards Sheetmetal Other commodities Industry Standards existed Proliferation of data formats Manufacturer response/Vendor response Manufacturers evolved their internal systems Vendors evolved their products to be “funnels” able to accept any and all data formats in use and under development Expensive, wasteful, unnecessary in hindsight

Is there really market demand for interoperability? Postulated in previous work that there is market demand In some sense and aspects – Yes Post-election audit Data management Will jurisdictions really choose multiple core voting system vendors (election management software and vote capture)? No, because of loss of accountability for rapid change needs and any issues that arise Procurement and management complexity of multiple vendors

Dominion’s Response Modular architecture for ease of changes across the system Funnel philosophy for data import XML export capability Ability to test and add other exporters As this area evolves, nothing in the product impedes adoption and response to consensus formats, new or existing

Dominion’s Response