RE: [council] RE: ICCAN AT-LARGE PROCESS (URGENT RESPONSE REQUESTED)

["Andrew McLaughlin" <mclaughlin@pobox.com>]

Patricio:

Please don't take my comments as a negative reflection on Sr. Villaseca, or
his colleagues.  I have no doubt as to their integrity as individuals.  My
point is to explain why the verification process is quite difficult, and can
result in people not getting PIN numbers.

Our rules required each individual to sign up individually, with an
individual email address.  Sr. Villaseca and his colleagues (or perhaps an
assistant, with the best of intentions) all applied at the same time, from
the same machine, with the same email address and physical address.  In that
situation, our procedures flagged them as apparent duplicates, as indicated
by the posted rules.

Best regards,

--Andrew




[ -----Original Message-----
[ From: owner-council@dnso.org [mailto:owner-council@dnso.org]On Behalf Of
[ Patricio Poblete
[ Sent: Saturday, September 09, 2000 2:30 PM
[ To: mclaughlin@pobox.com
[ Cc: cchicoine@dkwlaw.com; council@dnso.org
[ Subject: Re: [council] RE: ICCAN AT-LARGE PROCESS (URGENT RESPONSE
[ REQUESTED)
[ 
[ 
[ Dear Andrew and Caroline,
[ 
[ I happen to know Max Villaseca and some of the lawyers that work
[ at Estudio Federico Villaseca, and I can attest that most of the
[ people in the list, and very likely all of them, are real and
[ distinct individuals. In particular, Sergio Amenabar was chair of
[ ACHIPI (Chilean Association for Industrial Property) at the time NIC
[ Chile started using an arbitration-based dispute resolution system, and
[ we worked in close collaboration with him.
[ 
[ Patricio Poblete
[ 
[ [">" = Andrew McLaughlin]
[ > 
[ > Caroline:
[ > 
[ > It's certainly true that not everyone received a PIN letter.  
[ Figuring out
[ > how common this was, and for what reason (bad address 
[ originally entered;
[ > postal system errors or slowness;  etc.), will be a central part of the
[ > post-election study.
[ > 
[ > Your email gives me a good opportunity to remind everyone that 
[ the reason
[ > for the PIN letter was to detect efforts at fraud.  All of the 
[ applications
[ > on Mr. Villaseca's list were flagged as duplicates, because:
[ > 
[ > -- all had the same email address
[ > -- all had the same postal address
[ > -- all were entered via the same IP address, within a 15 minute period
[ > 
[ > Thus, these applications appeared to violate several of the At Large
[ > membership rules:
[ > 
[ > "To be an At Large member, the applicant may not at any time use a
[ > fictitious or anonymous name or address in connection with 
[ ICANN At Large
[ > membership. Violation of this rule will result in permanent 
[ cancellation of
[ > your membership."
[ > 
[ > and
[ > 
[ > "ICANN will use generally accepted techniques to detect multiple and
[ > fraudulent membership registrations, and will invalidate any 
[ application or
[ > membership that appears to include an invalid identity, invalid email
[ > address, or invalid physical address."
[ > 
[ > If our judgment was wrong, those applicants can explain it via email to
[ > <atlarge@icann.org>.
[ > 
[ > --Andrew
[ > 
[ > 
[ > [ -----Original Message-----
[ > [ From: cchicoine@dkwlaw.com [mailto:cchicoine@dkwlaw.com]
[ > [ Sent: Friday, September 08, 2000 9:27 PM
[ > [ To: ajm@icann.org
[ > [ Cc: council@dnso.org
[ > [ Subject: RV: ICCAN AT-LARGE PROCESS (URGENT RESPONSE REQUESTED)
[ > [ 
[ > [ 
[ > [ Dear Andrew,
[ > [ 
[ > [ I am sorry to bother you, but like others, I have received 
[ concerns from
[ > [ certain individuals in my Constituency that despite timely 
[ applying for At
[ > [ Large membership, they have yet to receive a PIN.  They wrote 
[ to me and
[ > [ asked whether there was anything I could do as his NC representative.
[ > [ 
[ > [ In particular,  Mr. Villaseca has yet to receive a reply to 
[ the email he
[ > [ sent to ICANN and reprinted below.
[ > [ 
[ > [ Staci Barsness also wrote to Jody Baram of the At Large 
[ > [ Membership advising
[ > [ that she had not received her pin number.  Ms Baram 
[ apparently advised her
[ > [ that her
 pin letter was mailed in May (although it was never
[ received by
[ > [ Staci) and it is too late to do anything about it now.  She
[ was told to
[ > [ look forward to voting in future elections.
[ > [ Please advise whether there is anything I can do to further
[ assist these
[ > [ individuals.  Thank you for your time and consideration.
[ >

[ > [ Caroline G. Chicoine
[ > [ Doepken Keevican & Weiss
[ > [ 211 N. Broadway, Ste 1500
[ > [ St. Louis, MO 63102
[ > [ 314-588-2013
[ > [ 314-588-2009 (fax)
[ > [ 314-378-3269 (cell)
[ > [ cchicoine@dkwlaw.com
[ >

[ >

[ > [ -----Mensaje original-----
[ > [ De: Max Villaseca <max@villaseca.cl>
[ > [ Para: atlarge@icann.org <atlarge@icann.org>
[ > [ Fecha: Martes, 29 de Agosto de 2000 06:17 p.m.
[ > [ Asunto: ICCAN AT-LARGE PROCESS (URGENT RESPONSE REQUESTED)
[ >

[ > [ Att.:  Jody Baram
[ > [         At - Large Administrator
[ >

[ >

[ > [ Dear Mrs. Baram:
[ >

[ > [ On July 7, 2000, we completed Icann's membership application
[ and received
[ > [ by return e-mail confirmation page together with our tracking/member
[ > [ number.  However, up to date no pin has been received by
[ postal mail so we
[ > [ are unable to activate our memberships.  Our names and member
[ numbers are
[ > [ as follows:
[ >

[ > [ VALENTINA GUTIERREZ         301683
[ > [ BLAS BELLOLIO                     301633
[ > [ LORETO VERA                       301650
[ > [ ENRIQUE TAVERNE               301616
[ > [ JUAN CRISTOBAL GUZMAN    301588
[ > [ SERGIO AMENABAR              301551
[ > [ BERNARDO SERRANO           301541
[ > [ EDUARDO MOLINA                 301512
[ > [ MAX F. VILLASECA                 301465
[ > [ EDUARDO LUCHSINGER         301487
[ >

[ > [ Your advice will be greatly appreciated.
[ >

[ > [ ESTUDIO FEDERICO VILLASECA
[ >

[ >

[ > [ Max F. Villaseca M.
[ >

[ >

[ >

[ >

[ >

[ >

[ >
[ >
[ >
[ 
[ 
[