[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

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

Patrick Greenwell wrote:

>How was it decided who was eligible to participate in the "opinion 
>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 
>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 
>a course of action based on  "consensus", an "opinion poll", or a 
>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 
>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 
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.