[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [ga] Re: Proposal for list rules/actions - More on poll results...
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
> >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.
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.
Contact Number: 972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208