Re: [ga] Re: Proposal for list rules/actions - More on poll results...

[James Touton <jim.touton@netzero.net>]

Jeff and all Assembly members,

  Jeff, I also agree with you evaluation.  I fail to see a reasonable argument

to support any improper and misused poll such as the one the DNSO
illegitimate Chair tried to conduct.  I also believe that this shows in a very

glaring way, how incompetent that person is.

Jeff Williams wrote:

> Roberto and all,
>
>   Agreed.  The poll was a good idea but not managed properly as
> a result the outcome or results were moot at best and no mandate
> can be determined from it.
>
> Roberto Gaetano wrote:
>
> > Patrick Greenwell wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >How was it decided who was eligible to participate in the "opinion
> > poll"
> > >which the Chair is using as the basis for the wholesale adoption of
> > >Harald's proposal? With the bragging of at least one individual that
> > they
> > >voted multiple times, why was this "opinion poll" used in an attempt to
> >
> > >validate anything other than the fact that the poll happened?
> >
> > You are absolutely right.
> > The "opinion poll" was nothing more than an exercise in checking the
> > response of the list.
> > The response was poor, this is the result. With poor response, it does
> > not matter whether you get one or two ballots more on one side or
> > another, you just consider the outcome not statistically relevant.
> >
> > In other words, if the sample is not representative of the population,
> > the results are not meaningful.
> >
> > >
> > >The question of who is eligible to vote should have been the *first*
> > >question throughout the ICANN process rather than an afterthought or a
> > >question oft avoided, and this list is no exception. How can ANYONE
> > claim
> > >a course of action based on  "consensus", an "opinion poll", or a
> > "vote"
> > >to be valid without some objective, fraud-resistant framework for
> > >conducting and gauging the results of any such mechanism? It would have
> >
> > >been far preferrable, and a great deal more honest in my mind for
> > Roberto
> > >to simply have said:
> > >"lacking a framework for objective, fraud-resistant voting, I'm putting
> >
> > >Harald's proposal in place because we simply can't get anything done
> > >without it." Instead, there is pointing to the unquestionably fradulent
> >
> > >results of an "opinion poll" as supporting evidence for the action.
> > >
> >
> > To be clear, I don't think I am hiding behind a couple of votes.
> > When I said that I tak "responsibility" for the action of enforcing the
> > rules, I meant exactly this: blame me, not the few voters, for the
> > decision.
> > But the point is not fraud-resistent vote or not, the point is
> > participation. I was not eager to set formal voting procedures because I
> >  just don't think that it does matter when the participants are such a
> > small minority. This list has only few hundred subscribers, which is
> > already an infime minority of the users of the Internet, how can a vote,
> >  even correctly performed, be significant when not even 10% of this
> > already infime minority participates?
> >
> > I do not reply to the rest of your message (techniques to ensure better
> > reliability of the vote), because I do not think that this is the most
> > urgent item to address, but your remarks are noted for the time in which
> >  a "real" vote will be held.
> >
> > Regards
> > Roberto
>
> Regards,
>
> --
> Jeffrey A. Williams
> Spokesman INEGroup (Over 95k members strong!)
> CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
> Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
> E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
> Contact Number:  972-447-1894
> Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

James Touton
Legal and Policy Advisory Council,
INEGRoup (Stakeholder)



__________________________________________
NetZero - Defenders of the Free World
Get your FREE Internet Access and Email at
http://www.netzero.net/download/index.html