RE: [atlarge-discuss] Ballot questions

[<bruce@barelyadequate.info>]

Joanna Lane wrote:

| In other words, you dropped the ball again. Well thank you
| for admitting it.

I announced over a month prior what my schedule was.  If we had stuck to the
original voting schedule, we would have been conducting the election while I
was away.  I didn't ask for the delay, the candidates did.

Besides which, I will not appologize for going where my employer sends me.
I'm not independantly wealthy and work full-time for a living.  In the
current economic times particularly (we have almost 9% unemloyment in Oregon
right now!), one goes where they are asked to keep their job.  I won't
appologize or accept criticism for that!

| What I question is your judgment. You handed over your proxy
| vote to Jefsey without informing the membership

No I didn't!  Jefsey and Eric had my work e-mail address and contacted me as
necessary. I stayed in the loop with the election progress.  I just had no
way to read and respond on this forum.  And given that I was there to
*work,* I had no free hours to edit question lists -- we had after-dinner
meetings all but the last night to strategize for the next day!

| As it happened, Jefsey has been making decisions unilaterally,
| attaching your proxy vote to them, then
| calling them a majority decision of the Polling Committee.

Incorrect.  Any questions he had of me were asked and answered via my work
address.

| And what is really objectionable is that you seem to be
| perfectly OK with
| playing around with the institutional memory of the At large
| Movement

Really?  In what way am I "playing around with the institutional memory."
Specifics, please!

| So the question now is what time have you set aside in your
| busy schedule
| for sorting out this mess, if any?

What mess?  I've been monitoring the message traffic.  It's going in and out
just fine, and the Watchdogs have not reported any issues to date.  If they
do, we'll deal with them.

| For a start, the membership list needs to be verified against
| a copy of the
| raw data to confirm that non-members did not get to vote, and
| that each
| ballot arrived from the registered email address.

The Membership list was vetted by myself against the list of Voter IDs
*prior* to the ballots going out.  One ballot message was sent out to each
number.  Before I consider a vote valid, I check it against the list.  I
haven't seen any bogus numbers come up yet.  If I do I'll get with Jefsey
and the Watchdogs, and if we agree the ballot is suspect we'll deal with it
accordingly.

You have invented a non-issue, Joanna.  This election is more secure and has
had fewer technical problems than the last one we conducted.  The only
"issues" have been ones contrived by members reading things into the
inocuous comments of others and jumping to wrong conclusions.  I would have
expected better treatment from you, at least, Joanna.  Regretable.


Bruce Young
Portland, Oregon
bruce@barelyadequate.info
http://www.barelyadequate.info
--------------------------------------------
Support democratic control of the Internet!
Go to http://www.icannatlarge.org and Join ICANN At Large!



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