Re: [ALSC-Forum] Draft report - statistics and "fraud"

[Adam PEAKE]

Mike Roberts wrote:
> 
> At 0:16 +0900 8/29/01, Adam PEAKE wrote:
 
 snip 

> >
> >As your draft explains, "9,721 pin letters were returned (as of August
> >19, 2001), 92.2% of which had been sent to countries in the Asia region
> >... raises questions about the efficacy of postal mail" These 9,721 are
> >included in the 33,043 registrations you suggest may be fraudulent.
> >Since when was "return to sender" and indication of fraud?
> 
> Adam - this part of your note is incorrect.  No one had a pin letter
> mailed to them if they were in a suspected fraud status.  Those 9,721
> individuals, and others who didn't get their letters but ICANN did
> not get them returned, are part of the "registered but did not
> activate" group, which totaled
> 67,230 persons.  (143,806 - 76,183).
> 

Mike, 

The 33,043 registrations removed from the database included 10,334
letter bounces, <http://www.atlargestudy.org/stats/summary1.shtml>. What
does "letter bounces" mean, and why were they placed in the suspected
fraud status?

I was guessing that the returned "9,721 pin letters" the ALSC report
referred to were among of the 10,334 "letter bounces." Incorrect guess?

Other records were removed from the database (for suspected or real
fraud) for reasons described as email bounces, duplicates entries,
administrative holds, and bad format. For the community and study
committee to be able to consider future election mechanisms we really
must be able to understand if fraud, reasonably suspected or proven,
occurred, and occurred in what circumstances. To simply brand these
33,043 registrations as fraudulent is just plain wrong. 

Thanks,

Adam

Adam Peake
GLOCOM Tokyo


> - Mike
> --