Re: [wg-b] Voting Results and What We Do Next

["Martin B. Schwimmer" <martys@interport.net>]

OK, I read it again.  Not being privy to the votebot, in my personal view,
the voting wasn't manipulated.  What is your factual basis for believing
that it was?


At 10:43 AM 10/26/99 -0700, you wrote:
>None of your comments respond to my question.
>
>Go back and read it again.
>
>>Dennis
>
>----------
>> 1.  Dr. Victoria Carrington is an attorney.
>>
>> 2.  Jon's vote wasn't counted anyway so her station in life is moot.
>>
>> 3.  Mueller still hasn't substantiated his allegation that secretaries
>> voted (nor his long division).
>>
>> 4.  If you were criticizing a vote that obtained a majority by one vote as
>> not being a consensus, you would have a point.  In an environment where two
>> thirds has become the definition of consensus, you have criticized a
>> consensus as not being consensus.
>>
>> 5.  What if a person on this list participated in the WIPO process, read
>> every posting here, and didn't feel the need to re-hash the same debates we
>> have had since 1996, and merely voted.  Is such a person a sleeper?  If you
>> want to add a "must post twice a week" rule (call it the inverse-Rutkowski
>> rule (an inside wg-c joke)) - fine - only it can't be retroactive in
>> effect.
>>
>> 6.  You want to question the way this working group was formed, fine, I
>> agree it was screwy.  But July would have been a better time to raise the
>> point, not four hours after a vote.  But it should be working Group D that
>> makes recommendations - it should not become the subject of this list.
>> Otherwise we will just have the same factions arguing about something other
>> than the protection of famous marks on the Internet.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >Martin Schwimmer says that Victoria Carrington's association with
>> >Jon Cohen cannot be characterized as "secretaries and staff members."
>> >
>> >This is not what I have observed.  Jon has identified Victoria as a
>> >staff member, and I have consistently used her email address to reach him.
>> >
>> >The gist of this question is: is the voting being manipulated?
>> >
>> >We have a loud and clear suspicion raised by this vote.  The fact that
>> >consensus was achieved by 1 vote, following heavy voting by persons who
have
>> >not participated in the dialogue -- and in cases where voters are
>> >professionally
>> >associated --  raises reasonable doubts.
>> >
>> >Have the rolls been stacked with people who sit back and do not
participate,
>> >and only vote when requested to do so?
>> >
>> >Using 'sleeper voters' in this manner would be highly unethical in my
>> >opinion.  And
>> >the question deserves an answer.
>> >
>> >Milton Mueller is absolutely correct that before proceeding on any
issues, we
>> >need to pay attention to this one.
>> >
>> >The credibility and future functioning of WG-B is at stake.
>> >
>> >
>> >Dennis Schaefer
>> >
>> >----------
>> >> Edited Results (co-chairs not included)
>> >> Eligible voters: 51
>> >> Votes cast: 38 (75%)
>> >> Option A: 27
>> >> Option B: 4
>> >> Option C: 0
>> >> Option D: 7
>> >> Option E: 0
>> >> Number needed for consensus: 26
>> >> RESULTS: Consensus for Option A
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> This is the edited results, not counting the disputed votes.
Incidentally,
>> >> Jon's vote wasn't counted because he is co-chair.  How is this not two
>> >>thirds?
>> >>
>> >> By the way, do you have reason to believe that these people are
>> >> "secretaries and staff members"?  I know that neither Marilyn Cade nor
>> >> Michelle Farber can be charaterized as such, nor can Jon Cohen and
Victoria
>> >> Carrington.
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >I'm afraid that we cannot move forward on this because of the
concerns you
>> >> >enumerate above. Stacking the WG with secretaries and staff members
from
>> the
>> >> >same organization, particularly when these people have not
participated in
>> >> any
>> >> >of the discussions, seems to be prima facie evidence of a manipulation
>> >>of the
>> >> >process.
>> >> >
>> >> >The  key fact here is that if those illegitimate votes are not
>> >>recognized the
>> >> >2/3 bar is not passed. I do not accept the results as indicating a 2/3
>> >> level of
>> >> >support in the WG.
>> >> >
>> >> >> Now we must decide as a working group where we choose to go.
>> >> >
>> >> >I think we need to recognize the fact that there is not 2/3 support for
>> any
>> >> >famous mark protection via DNS administration (there is plenty of
>> >> protection in
>> >> >other ways). therefore, I find the questions below inappropriate.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @
>> >>
>> >>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>

@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @