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

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Joe and all,

  Here Here!  Well said Joe.  I am in strong agreement with everything
you said here as I am sure our members are as well.

!Dr. Joe Baptista wrote:

> 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

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