AW: [icann-eu] 10.000 PIN codes found....

[SchultzKom@t-online.de (Christian Schultz Kommunalberatung)]

Dear Harald,

thanks for your looking into ICANN´s office. It has confirmed my thought
that there must be a great disorder in this office.  Meanwhile I´m not more
surprised about this because I have some months experience with the ICANN
staff. With 60.000 not activated memberships there rests no doubts who could
solve this problem for these members.
I hope that ICANN after solving the great problem with the new TLD´s can
solve also the no less important problem of many thousands members who
like(d) to become real members.
If furtherone no one will care about this much members will leave. Is this
an aim of ICANN? Is the frequent mentioning of a democratic foundation of
ICANN enough?
I make an appeal to our members who are at the same time members at the
board of ICANN to see that will be repaired.

Best regards

Christian


-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: owner-icann-europe@fitug.de [mailto:owner-icann-europe@fitug.de]Im
Auftrag von Harald Alvestrand
Gesendet: Montag, 20. November 2000 14:52
An: Marc Schneiders
Cc: icann-europe@fitug.de
Betreff: Re: [icann-eu] 10.000 PIN codes found....


At 06:58 19/11/2000 +0100, Marc Schneiders wrote:
>On Sat, 18 Nov 2000, at 11:53 [=GMT+0100], Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
>
> > some might like to know...
>
>I do very much. I have still not lost my surprise that people have let
>this go so easily. Thanks for telling!
>
> > I stuck my head into ICANN's offices while I was in LA.
> > In the At Large Membership office, she (it's one person!) has stacked up
> > approximately 10.000 PIN code envelopes, all returned from the post
office
> > and stamped with some variant of "unknown address".
>
>The next question would be: from which countries? What exactly do
>these stamps say?

no stats - the 2 or 3 I looked at were typical post office stamps with 4-5
boxes, and tickmarks in the "no such addressee".

> > I suggested she should take a picture of them and put it on the Web, so
> > that we can see what happens if we don't fill out Web forms properly.
>
>This is a bit jumping to conclusions. Other explanations include: the
>webform was not suitable for certain countries, where addresses work
>differently; a bug in the software that produced the envelopes or
>labels; the webform was not userfriendly.

the addresses I looked at looked ordinary to me, but failed to arrive. But
it was a very small sample (2).
I got my PID, so for my address it worked fine, but I don't remember the
webform.
OTOH, 7% error rate may not be too bad - don't know if we have anything to
compare it to; people who accept requests for holiday catalogs over the Web
can probably tell you the hit/miss rate they experience.

> > Only 60.000 non-activated memberships left to understand..... >
>
>What a relief! Though I would like to understand more of these 10,000
>as well. Why not have a volunteer classify and count them? Might give
>us a real clue.

If you know a volunteer in the Bay Area, send his/her name to the ICANN
staff and offer help. I may be able to supply introductions.
But quick - the likely destination for these envelopes is landfill.

>Thanks again for giving us this information. It suggests that the
>practical parts of the At Large elections merits a study as well.

Yes.



--
Harald Tveit Alvestrand, alvestrand@cisco.com
+47 41 44 29 94
Personal email: Harald@Alvestrand.no