Re: RE: [ga] Re: Proposal for list rules/actions

["!Dr. Joe Baptista" <baptista@pccf.net>]

On Wed, 26 Jan 2000, Roberto Gaetano wrote:

> You are absolutely right.
> The "opinion poll" was nothing more than an exercise in checking the 
> response of the list.

Exactly - who cares what we think.  Nothing here is ever official.  This
is wonderland and all were missing is alice.

> 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.

It does matter.  The poor result defines interest.  Voter apathy is in
itself an excellent index of the confidence said voters have in the
process and the people in charge of the process, in this case someone like
yourself.  Voter apathy defines failure - not on the part of the voters -
but in people like you.  I'm sure you get my point here.

As for ballots.  Any attempts to obtain a proper vote must be by default
honest, fair and immune from electoral fraud - i.e. ballot stuffing.  If
you want to find fault here you can look in the mirror - Harald can do the
same for he is equally to blame.

As Joop said he already advised you that the polling proceedure was
subject to fraud.  This you both knew before the process was
initiated.  Your failure to install a fraud free process is at best an act 
pure stupidity on both your parts.

And imposing rules without our consent by yourself an act of
desparation.  Remember - no one here wanted you.  Your are not the
representative of the GA.  You are an appointed servant of ICANN and the
DOC.   As I've said before and i'll say it again - the liability for this
farce and sham is on thier heads and not yours.  I'm sure your releiaved
to know that.

> In other words, if the sample is not representative of the population, 
> the results are not meaningful.

Another excellent example of a stupid remark - please see above.

> >"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.

No - you are irrelevant here.  Don't blame us the voters, were being
subjected to fraud here.  And we can't blame you, your irrelevant
here.  As I've said before and I'll repeat once again, we did'nt want
anything to do with you.  You are not our chair - no one wanted
you.  Therefore the liability and blame rests squarely on ICANN and the
DOC.  Your liability here is irrellevant - your just a servant.  If we
refuse to pretend to go through with this fraud - it's not your head -
it's theirs.

I'm sure your happy to hear that.

> 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?

Once again - a reflection of voter apathy is a reflection on you.  And if
you people would of not been stupid and put together a comprehensive and
fraud free voting process - then 10% of the general membership would of
been acceptable in any democracy as representative.  So your out to lunch
there.

But what really makes me laught is that you ran a fraudulent vote, knowing
full well the ballot process could be subjected to electoral fraud, and
then you turn around and say - hey folks - that's OK - I Roberto Gato,
have decided these rules go.  And how many votes are you - Roberto? If 40
people voted and that's 10% of the members then your single decision
represents 0.25%.  Not very impressive Roberto.  But even your stats are
bull and as Jeff Williams says - fud.  In my books we call it fudged or
just plain lying.  This place does not have 400 members on the list - nor
does it have 200.  List numbers are way down, that's one of the NC
concerns.  You people are losing all your seals.

Resign Mr. Chair or your going to prematurely lose more hair.

> 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.

"real vote" - I have'nt seen a real vote here since I arrived.  This is
theatre and not much more.


Shame my dear gato - shame.

Regards
Joe Baptista