Re: [ga] Re: electoral fraud by the ga chair

[Bob Davis <bob.davis@netzero.net>]

Joop and all DNSO'ers,

  I apologize for chiming in on the rather late.  I have been at a conference
in Switzerland by request.

  I have some comments and observations on Joops thoughtful remarks
to Roberto.  (*More Detail below Joops comments*)

Joop Teernstra wrote:

> At 03:28 31/01/00 +0100, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
> >Joop,
> >
> >You wrote:
> >>
> >>Just tell the list how many FOR and AGAINST votes you made anonymously
> >and
> >>Roberto can rewrite the informal poll result.
> >
> >
> >Why?
> >As I said, the most evident result of the poll was the lack of
> >participation.
> >
> Roberto,
>
> The most evident result of *any* poll on DNS matters is the lack of
> participation.
> ICANN itself is characterized by lack of participation.

  This is very good observation and one that I share.  ICANN has deliberately
on many occasions denied or actively stated it did not want broad
participation.
Our spokesman has pointed this out on several occasions as have other
active participants.  Why does ICANN not want broad participation?  Why
doesn't ICANn SEEK to get others involved in this process?  What should
ICANN and this DNSO list do to attract more participation?  These are
relevant questions we believe.

>
> The people who bother to vote are a subgroup of a subgroup of a very small
> group that has an active interest in Domain issues--  This in spite of the
> fact that hundreds of thousands are affected by DNS policies.

  Very true.  Yet we see and concerted effort being attempted by Harald and
Roberto to limit participation.  Why?

>
>
> Even outside the DNS, in the Alaska internet voting experiment, the
> participation was low. See
> http://www.nytimes.com/library/review/013000internet-voting-review.html
>
> The lack of participation of the majority does not nullify the rights of
> those who bother to participate, unless that majority is not informed about
> their right to participate.

  Lack of promoting the desire for others to participate seems to be what
some within ICANN and now this Supporting Organization such as Roberto
and Harald are wanting.  This seems very strange and unusual to me.  I
wonder if others have not thought the same thing?

>
> When travel around the world limits participation, it's a different story.
> But in Cyberspace there is no excuse.

  Very true.  There is also not excuse for wanting to limit participation
actively
either.  This seems to be of particular interest of Roberto and Harald on this
list, amongst a few others.  Why hasn't the DNSO and the NC actively sought
our more parties to participate actively?

>
>
> The non-participants are voluntarily leaving the matter in the hands of
> the participants, as always happens with voluntary voting.

  Yes, and this is a shame.  But it can be overcome.  First, though it must
be clearly understood that anyone's participation is both wanted and needed.
This has not been done in a any way that I have seen thus far.  In fact, as I
have already stated above and do so again here, participation is being
actively discouraged.  Why is that occurring?

>
>
> The pattern of voting clearly indicated that those who did participate felt
> strongly about it. (those who had had the guts full of the rubbish quickly
> voted FOR)  The AGAINST votes came later, either because people thought
> about the principle involved, or because they could not support all the
> rules in detail.
> A lot of the non-voters were probably genuinely in two minds about the
> effectiveness of (temporary) bannings through SaA's.

  I am in agreement with all you have said her Joop.  Also I would add that
no alternatives were allowed to be considered even when they were offered.
Why?

>
>
> >Only an insignificant minority cared to express their opinion, and the
> >figures would not have been much different with a secure voting:
> >probably with a complex procedure the figures would have been even much
> >lower.
>
> No , I don't think so. Probably the same or better. People feel addressed,
> when they get an individual email with their own password.  Especially when
> people are already leaving list stuff unread in a special filter because of
> the noise.
> With all due respect, I also think that the vote was insufficiently
> announced. Hiding the URL for the polling place in an attachment didn't
> make it more visible either.

  Of course the VOTE was insufficiently announced.  I and others ask
several times "Where do we vote"?  To my knowledge no one answered
those queries.  One would think that the list admin would have taken
the lead on those queries and provided the information and/or provided
a link from the DNSO web site.   That never occurred.  Why?

>
>
> >The elimination from the count of irregular expressions of opinion, even
> > supposing there were any, would only have had the effect of indicating
> >an even lower participation.
> >
> By a few votes, yes.
>
> >Therefore, no need to do anything. If people intended to show their will
> >, they would have done so.
> >
> >>
> >>Better still: The list can have another poll, this time with a proper
> >>voters' roll and voter passwords, on improved rules that incorporate
> >>apologies.
> >
> >
> >After the three months of experimentation with the new rules, we will
> >have a vote (secure, this time) and we will see what people think.
> >If they prefere the "old" regime, fine, the rules will be eliminated and
> > I will consider myself free to go back to other occupations. If they
> >prefere the "new" regime, it will be clear that all this discussion is
> >in reality much ado for nothing.
> >
> >Fair enough?
> >
> It would be better to give the GA members a bit more choice than that. A
> WG , such as WG-D could try to come up with better tuned list rules that
> would find wider approval than indicated by the last poll.

  Agreed entirely here Joop.

>
>
> In the IDNO we are currently voting on 2 different options of list-rule
> enforcement. Nothing prevents the GA from giving its members more options.
>
>
> --Joop Teernstra LL.M.--  , founder  of
> the Cyberspace Association,
> the constituency for Individual Domain Name Owners
> http://www.idno.org  (or direct:)
> http://www.democracy.org.nz/idno/

Bob Davis...

__________________________________________
NetZero - Defenders of the Free World
Get your FREE Internet Access and Email at
http://www.netzero.net/download/index.html