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

[Jeff Williams]

Make and all stakeholders or interested parties,

Mike Roberts wrote:

> At 23:19 -0700 8/28/01, Karl Auerbach wrote:
> >On Wed, 29 Aug 2001, Adam PEAKE wrote:
> >
> >>  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?
> >
> >One of the very sad things about the last election was that these kinds of
> >irregularities were never brought to the attention of the candidates or
> >electors in a timely manner.
> >
> >Instead they were handled in the ICANN way - in secret and using ad hoc
> >criteria - and there was no public notice that such irregularities had
> >even occurred until several months later.
> >
> >In any reasonable election situation, such irregularities would have been
> >raised in a timely manner - not six months after the fact - so that the
> >candidates and electors could send observers to ascertain that reasonable
> >criteria had been created and applied fairly.
> >
> >       --karl--
>
> Karl - there is plenty of room for criticism of the 2000 At Large
> election cycle, but it should not be directed at Jody Baram, the
> project director, who worked incredibly long hours to assist
> thousands of people with registration and activation.  Rather it
> should be directed to the Board members, including myself, who made
> the assumption in Cairo that a well sorted out plan for an indirect
> election could be junked and an entirely new direct election plan
> adopted and implemented and executed prior to the annual meeting in
> November 2000, all without any increase in the exceedingly modest
> budget of $200,000 provided by the Markle grant.  In retrospect, it
> is surprising that a reputable third party observer, Chuck Costello
> of the Carter Center, was able to state afterwards that he thought
> the election had been conducted fairly.

  Given that there was not budget allocated for the next At-Large
Election and the tone of the final At-Large study report is very anti
stakeholder or interested party, as well as not meeting the MoU and
White paper bottoms-up requirement of a At-Large membership,
I have serious doubts about the fairness of the last At-Large election.

>
>
> I'm sure that my successor, Stuart Lynn, and the rest of the Board
> will use the evidence from last year's election, including the many
> unanswered questions about how to detect fraud in a worldwide  online
> election, in reviewing any plans for the future of At Large.

  Given Stuarts Lynn's past outlandish and politically motivated statements,
I am very unsure that any answers for Stuart would be viewed as
either helpful or even legitimate.

>
>
> - Mike
>
> --

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 118k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208