Re: [atlarge-discuss] ELECTION REPORT

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Richard and all fellow members,

  Suck a poll was done in part already.  It was largely ignored as
Joop rightly has expressed.  Any poll after this election is too late
to save the reputation of this organization as we have now had two
well documented poor to fraudulent elections and a Panel that was
ineffective, hamstrung a degree, and unwilling to stick to the mandate
that they were elected to work upon and complete.

  Secondly, we do need a excepted polling system that is free from
members direct influence or management of operation in order to
ensure integrity.  This costs MONEY, which as I have harped on
time and time again, do not yet have.  But said funding can be
obtained even still.

Richard Henderson wrote:

> I think the concerns you have been expressing, Sotiris, reflect Joop's call
> for an electoral commission to oversee further elections. I request that the
> whole membership is polled shortly after these election results, to verify,
> endorse, or re-define the outcomes of this election.
>
> More importantly, I think this whole election should be analysed as a
> "proof-of-concept" (!) to see where lessons need to be learned. What would
> be unacceptable would be to repeat the mistakes we made, and fail to learn
> from this process. Joop's call for an Electoral Commission now seems such
> transparent good sense that it should be acted on immediately.
>
> As I have said in a separate post, it is imperative that we establish a
> process (by polling I believe) to place decision making and policy
> determination in the hands of the membership. We saw last year how panel
> members pursued their own agendas, regardless of the views expressed by
> members in polls.
>
> >From the very outset we need to establish the constitutional primacy and
> superiority of the membership - to define mandates, mission, objectives -
> and to insist that the panel carries them out. The membership should have
> the power of veto, and the membership should have the power to call for new
> elections.
>
> We need to establish a process which authorises and empowers the membership.
>
> We need to face up to "bottom up" democracy and what it really means.
>
> We are not ICANN.
>
> We are trying to develop a democratic model for the net governance of the
> future.
>
> So we need an immediate membership review of this election; an electoral
> commission to safeguard and develop processes for future elections; and a
> constitution which implements processes that will firmly place authority for
> decision-making in the hands of the membership, not the panel.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Richard H
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Sotiris Sotiropoulos <sotiris@hermesnetwork.com>
> To: J-F C. (Jefsey) Morfin <jefsey@club-internet.fr>
> Cc: Atlarge Discuss List <atlarge-discuss@lists.fitug.de>;
> <bruce@barelyadequate.info>; Eric Dierker <eric@hi-tek.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, May 28, 2003 5:25 PM
> Subject: Re: [atlarge-discuss] ELECTION REPORT
>
> >
> >
> > J-F C. (Jefsey) Morfin wrote:
> >
> > > To address some concerns of Sotiris Sotiropoulos who did not
> > > understand what I explained several times (but that Mauro understood),
> > > I will do it again. Maybe someone of High Level English Dialect will
> > > be so kind as to translate my Frenglish to him? Thank you.
> > >
> > > The votes are received on the atlarge@execlub.org mailing list.
> > > There is an auto responder.
> > >
> > > This is a Mailman mailing list turned to remove mailnames.
> >
> >
> > Good, so it's open source... I'd like to inspect the code.  Please be so
> > kind as to send the code for your "program" to the list for all of us to
> > inspect.
> >
> > > This list includes Eric and Bruce. We initially included the
> > > watchdogs, but we discovered - and they protested - that the
> > > anonymisation did not protected them against several practices of the
> > > Members which disclosed their identity:
> >
> >
> > Do you mean to say that the watchdogs are NOT included?  If the
> > watchdogs are not included, who is auditing the votes to ensure
> > validity?  Who are the watchdogs, exactly?
> >
> >
> > >
> > > 1. leaving the anti-spam mention of their name
> >
> >
> > What does this mean?  I have not understood what you mean by this
> > "anti-spam mention of their name".
> >
> > >
> > > 2. copying the ballot to another of their mailbox before voting: the
> > > header of the transfer or their name being then plain in the text
> >
> >
> > This too is obscure... I still do not understand what you mean...
> > copying the ballot to another mailbox?  Isn't that an indication of fraud?
> >
> > >
> > > 3. the Message-Id contains very often the name of the host
> >
> >
> > Why is this a problem?  Does it not help to guard against fraud?
> >
> > >
> > > 4. many responses came in HTML and were unreadable in ASCII...
> > >
> > > So I developed a program I only intended to develop on Sunday next. It
> > > strips from the text every information except the message-id until the
> > > @, and keeps the ballot lines in the same proper format. Each ballot
> > > is numbered.
> >
> >
> >
> > I want to see the code for this program  ASAP!  I'm sure there are
> > others who wish to see it as well.  Otherwise, I cannot accept your
> > "program" as being 1) workable 2) fair.  Furthermore, if nobody else has
> > a problem with your mysterious software, then I am SURE nobody will have
> > problem when Joop runs the election again, this time using his Polling
> > Booth.
> >
> > > The resulting file is sent to the Watchdogs on a daily basis.
> >
> >
> > For the tenth time, WHO are the watchdogs?
> >
> > > This file starts with the initial position of the main Eudora file and
> > > ends with the main Eudora file current position. This should permit
> > > (if needed) to only send a file to the watchdogs with the data of the
> > > day, while permitting them to check the continuity of the data.
> >
> >
> > Who are the watchdogs?!  And your explanation of some Eudora file with
> > an initial and a current position is totally unclear, I do not
> > understand.  Please send the code to the list so we can all inspect it.
> >
> > > Again Eric and Bruce have all the data by their own and no relation
> > > with me. They can easily check the file they receive against the data
> > > they receive.
> >
> >
> > I want to know who the watchdogs are, never mind what Bruce and Eric are
> > receiveing.  I also want to see the code for the program you say you've
> > created, for all we know Bruce and Eric are receiving whatever you want
> > them to receive.
> >
> > > Each Polling Officer receives one copy, I receive 2 because I have a
> > > second name for backup where I receive the ballot on a daily basis.
> > > There is also a third source of ballots: the return for a changed
> > > e-mail or from an anti-spam system.
> >
> >
> > Produce the code for all of us to see.
> >
> > > Each received ballot is numbered. So any attempt to add/remove a
> > > ballot would result in the change of the numbering. Watchdogs would be
> > > able to see that inconsistency immediately in comparing the number of
> > > the last message in the previous day file and in the current day file.
> >
> >
> > What file is that?  The Eudora file?  But, from what you state above
> > it's only you, Bruce and Eric who are receiving that file?  And, who are
> > the watchdogs?!
> >
> > > I will not detail all the ways to go through the file and detect a
> > > possible tampering: anyone can think of many of them.
> >
> >
> > I cannot think of them, please do provide details.  In fact, it would be
> > easier if you just produced the code for us to inspect.
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > This file is accompanied with a file giving how many copies were
> > > received per VID and if the vote occurred (non voted ballot are
> > > obviusly retained but not considered). Only the first voted ballot
> > > counts.
> > >
> > > At the end of the vote, the whole watchodg file will be put at the
> > > disposal of the Members. It could be copied to them right now, but
> > > this would permit them to know the current status of the vote, what
> > > was not voted by the committee.
> >
> >
> > Not 6 sentences ago you said the watchdogs "would be able to see that
> > inconsistency immediately in comparing the number of the last message in
> > the previous day file and in the current day file", but now you say that
> > the watchdogs are NOT receiving somes-called "watchdog file"...  This
> > makes no sense!  1) who are the watchdogs?  2) how are they doing their
> job?
> >
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > Problems we met:
> > > 1. the report of a few non-responses by the auto-responder. I received
> > > a response when I tested after Sotiris reported the problem. But I did
> > > not received one when I voted. I prefer not to investigate and not to
> > > interfere in something which works to the risk of blocking the list or
> > > losing the archives.
> >
> >
> > HOW CAN YOU SAY  IT WORKS PROPERLY IF IT'S NOT WORKING AS PLANNED!?!?
> >  THIS IS TOTALLY LUDICROUS!!!
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > 2.the reported problem I reported above: that voters tend to disclose
> > > their identity. In a DNSO vote this is not a  problem as the watchdogs
> > > have been elected. In this vote where watchdogs are self nominated the
> > > answer had to respect the rules and procedures we had set and
> > > announced. I note that I prefer myself self-nominated watchdogs and
> > > strong rules: minorities can then be represented. Sotiris could have
> > > decided to be a watchdog and would have been one.
> >
> >
> > Who are the watchdogs and by what procedure are they doing their job?
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > I will try to add an automated report today to inform the Membership
> > > on the situation of the vote.
> >
> >
> > Enough of your doubletalk, produce the code so we can all verify the
> > integrity of your "program".  I, for one, do not trust you, and I
> > believe your "program" is non-existent!  Prove that we ought to trust
> > you by producing the code for all of us to inspect BEFORE any results
> > are announced!
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > Currently:
> > >
> > > 116 Members have voted.
> > > The candidate with the largest number of votes has 53 votes.
> > > The 11th candidate has 33 votes
> > > The 27th candidate has 4 votes.
> > > Up to now Members have voted in average for 7 candidates and answered
> > > 52 questions per ballot.
> >
> >
> > 52 questions per ballot?!  That's very interesting!!  Especially since
> > there were only 17 questions on the ballot!!!!
> >
> > Until you produce the code for your "program" and detail who the
> > watchdogs are and how they are doing their job, I consider this election
> > dead in the water, and I will most likely withdraw my candidacy.
> >
> > --Sotiris Sotiropoulos
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
> > For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de
> >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
> For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 131k members/stakeholders strong!)
"Be precise in the use of words and expect precision from others" -
    Pierre Abelard
================================================================
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number: 214-244-4827 or 214-244-3801



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de